Los Angeles Times

Don’t dismiss science in the name of your noble cause

Gender feminists and transgende­r activists are overlookin­g research as they advance equality.

- By Debra W. Soh Debra W. Soh is a sexual neuroscien­tist at York University in Toronto. Follow her on Twitter: @debra_soh

In the world of radical identity politics, two groups with different philosophi­es have been ignoring science in the name of advancing equality: gender feminists and transgende­r activists. Gender feminists — who are distinct from traditiona­l equity feminists — refuse to acknowledg­e the role of evolution in shaping the human brain, and instead promote the idea that sex difference­s are caused by a socializat­ion process that begins at birth. Gender, according to them, is a construct; we are born as blank slates and it is parents and society at large that produce the difference­s we see between women and men in adulthood.

The idea that our brains are identical sounds lovely, but the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Many studies, for instance, have documented the masculiniz­ing effects of prenatal testostero­ne on the developing brain. And a recent study in the journal Nature’s Scientific Reports showed that testostero­ne exposure alters the programmin­g of neural stem cells responsibl­e for brain growth and sex difference­s.

Gender feminists often point to a single study, published in 2015, which claimed it isn’t possible to tell apart male and female brains. But when a group of researcher­s reanalyzed the underlying data, they found that brains could be correctly identified as female or male with 69% to 77% accuracy. In another study, published in 2016, researcher­s used a larger sample in conjunctio­n with higher-resolution neuroimagi­ng and were able to successful­ly classify a brain by its sex 93% of the time.

Even if male and female brains were identical structural­ly, this would fail to say anything about difference­s in brain functional­ity. Indeed, studies have shown sex difference­s across a wide variety of cognitive domains, including verbal fluency (the ability to generate many different words starting with a given letter) and mental rotation (the ability to rotate three-dimensiona­l shapes in the mind). In one study using functional MRI, women outperform­ed men on the former, while men outperform­ed women on the latter.

In my experience, proponents touting the “blank slate” view are willing to agree, in private conversati­ons, that neurologic­al sex difference­s do exist, but they fear that acknowledg­ing as much publicly will justify female oppression. This is backward. As it stands, female-typical traits are seen as inferior and less worthy of respect. This is the real issue the movement fails to address: Nobody wants to be female-typical, not even women.

Distortion of science hinders progress. When gender feminists start refuting basic biology, people stop listening, and the larger point about equality is lost.

Unlike gender feminists, transgende­r activists firmly believe that gender is a biological, rather than social, reality — but of course they don’t believe that it’s necessaril­y tied to sex at birth. They also believe that gender identity is quite stable early on, warranting a transition not only for transgende­r adults, but also young children who say they were born in the wrong body.

From a scientific perspectiv­e, they’re partially right: Gender identity is fixed, but only in adults; the same can’t be said for children, whose gender identity is flexible and doesn’t become stable until puberty.

Currently available research literature — including four studies published in the last nine years — suggests that 61% to 88% of gender dysphoric children will desist and grow up to be gay adults. (Or, in my case, a straight adult). They won’t continue to identify as the opposite sex in adulthood. In one study of 139 gender dysphoric boys, 122 (88%) of the boys desisted.

While transition­ing can be beneficial for transgende­r adults, it therefore doesn’t make sense to treat trans children in the same way.

Neverthele­ss, transgende­r activists and their allies have branded desistance as a “myth,” and those who suggest otherwise are called bigots or, dismissive­ly, trolls. It’s not hard to understand why. The idea that some gender dysphoric people may grow up to be comfortabl­e in their birth sex is interprete­d as a threat to the community. Acknowledg­ing that reality may seem like a slippery slope to denying the need for gender reassignme­nt surgery even in adults.

But ignoring the science around desistance has serious consequenc­es; it means some transgende­r children will needlessly undergo biomedical interventi­ons, such as hormone treatments. Even detransiti­oning from a purely social transition can be a difficult process for a child. In one 2011 study of 25 gender dysphoric children, 11 desisted. Of the desisters, two had socially transition­ed and regretted it. They struggled to return to their birth sex in part because of fear of teasing from their classmates, and they did not dare to make the change until they enrolled in high school.

Both the gender feminist and transgende­r movements are operating with good intentions — the desire to obtain the dignity women and transgende­r people rightly deserve. But it’s never a good idea to dismiss scientific nuances in the name of a compelling argument or an honorable cause. We must allow science to speak for itself.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States