I'm sorry for all our sisters and brothers (in this order, despite linguistic rules!) all over the world who are marginalised, threatened, bullied and coerced into confessing their sexuality as sinful or, worse, who have come to consider suicide as their only escape from family and societal pressure into heteronormativity.

What if the root of the problem of gender variation and sexuality is society rather than some neuronal-chromosomal-hormone 'hard-wiring' (or perhaps interactions between the two where however society has the upper hand)? It's so easy to hierarchise behaviours and impose the socially most convenient one as normal and hence the norm (whether referred to as God-given or as scientifically validated). Technically, this is called naturalisation and has been deployed successfully for millennia. (Which, I'm afraid, explains in part why we are such a quarrelsome species, to say the least.)

I fully agree with you and I salute your belief that 'We need to be informed of the latest research into the area mentioned so that we can make honest and just conclusions, not based in ideologies or antique models of reality.' However, let's remember that science isn't a neutral/objective interlocutor in the ontological dialogue, but is itself a discourse / an ideology with an agenda which cannot be politically neutral despite protests to the contrary. (And so are any forms of God-talk.) We are all caught up willy-nilly in a network of discourses/ideologies, which teach us what is 'right' or 'wrong' at any particular moment in a particular society. (So our very dialogue here and now is tainted ideologically.)

No offence intended, but some of your comments, Lazar, seem to strike the familiar chord that homosexuality is so damn wrong -- yes, of course, Sodom and Gomorrah and some such biblically inflected moral stories -- that it should be opted out of or perhaps treated either neurosurgically or by hormone therapy and the like. Please don't take it personally: I believe this kind of approach is unfortunately the legacy of millennia of intolerance ingrained in our brains through socialisation. Why are we so homophobic as a race -- perhaps because homosexuality is aimed exclusively at pleasure, which seemingly jeopardises the future of the species? Well, various natural calamities and countless forms of genocide throughout recorded history haven't killed humankind (nor have they bettered it) ... Should we then fear that assumed sexual behaviours other than heterosexual will indeed endanger our species as wars and famine haven't??? I very much doubt this is possible. So what's the true reason of homophobia? I wish there were an an answer to this.

What do you mean by 'masculinised' in your second post, where you write 'the process in the foetus that require so many steps for the foetus to become definised [sic] and masculinised'? Are you interested solely in would-be male-looking individuals? Are young males the only ones who reportedly attempt suicide because of their sexuality or who come to you to confess their anguish because of a harsh response at home [actually from patriarchal fathers!] once they've come out? Are women only 'just like' men in this respect, as we've been taught to believe again for millennia? Do women shy away from you or don't they attempt suicide?

Your topic is very interesting for me, as i am interested in research as well, but i have never thought the way u did

It seems to me that, with Klinefelter's and Turner's Syndrom, Kallmann's syndrome and trisomy 21, among many other things, such as the process in the foetus that require so many steps for the foetus to become definised and masculinised, there is every possibility that homosexuality, like Intersed and Transgender (considered valid clinical conditions in Canada) is something that a person can be born with. It seems illogical to think that anyone would choose it. It has become clear to me, having heard confessions and councelled for over 40 years, that each of the conditions (the first three being trisomies, as is trisomy 21) are not definitions of sexual activity, but reather aspects of personhood. With a large number of teenagers committing suicide because they have be bullied or dehumanised for being "Gay," it is impossible to accept that they would rather die than change, that they would choose for themselves a condition in which they will beaten, persecuted, dehumanised and bullied, thrown out on the street at the age of 12 or 13 by their fathers, to have no place to life, starve, be raped and exploited on the street. There has to be some pre-birth dynamic going on in all this. I hope to find to some more research on this. Some has been done, more needs to be done.

"Brain storm" by Rebecca Jordan-young is a great reference with regard to the debate about the effects of sex hormones to sexuality. Read also "Sex and the Brain" by Einstein for a historical locating of classical research with regard to sex diff in intellectual capacity n the brain. A book put together by the National Rsearch Council titled " Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health" edited by Theresa Wizemann and Mary-low Pardue goes down to the chromosomal- biological level.

Best.

Thank you, Emily. I appreciate your taking the time to give me these "leads." I have discussed this matter to some degree in my book On The Neurobiology of "Sin", but the subject needs to be explored more. This past years there were more than a dozen Gay teenagers who were bullied into suidice. It just seems illogical that they would choose death over "choosing" to be heterosexual instead of Gay.

I'm sorry for all our sisters and brothers (in this order, despite linguistic rules!) all over the world who are marginalised, threatened, bullied and coerced into confessing their sexuality as sinful or, worse, who have come to consider suicide as their only escape from family and societal pressure into heteronormativity.

What if the root of the problem of gender variation and sexuality is society rather than some neuronal-chromosomal-hormone 'hard-wiring' (or perhaps interactions between the two where however society has the upper hand)? It's so easy to hierarchise behaviours and impose the socially most convenient one as normal and hence the norm (whether referred to as God-given or as scientifically validated). Technically, this is called naturalisation and has been deployed successfully for millennia. (Which, I'm afraid, explains in part why we are such a quarrelsome species, to say the least.)

I fully agree with you and I salute your belief that 'We need to be informed of the latest research into the area mentioned so that we can make honest and just conclusions, not based in ideologies or antique models of reality.' However, let's remember that science isn't a neutral/objective interlocutor in the ontological dialogue, but is itself a discourse / an ideology with an agenda which cannot be politically neutral despite protests to the contrary. (And so are any forms of God-talk.) We are all caught up willy-nilly in a network of discourses/ideologies, which teach us what is 'right' or 'wrong' at any particular moment in a particular society. (So our very dialogue here and now is tainted ideologically.)

No offence intended, but some of your comments, Lazar, seem to strike the familiar chord that homosexuality is so damn wrong -- yes, of course, Sodom and Gomorrah and some such biblically inflected moral stories -- that it should be opted out of or perhaps treated either neurosurgically or by hormone therapy and the like. Please don't take it personally: I believe this kind of approach is unfortunately the legacy of millennia of intolerance ingrained in our brains through socialisation. Why are we so homophobic as a race -- perhaps because homosexuality is aimed exclusively at pleasure, which seemingly jeopardises the future of the species? Well, various natural calamities and countless forms of genocide throughout recorded history haven't killed humankind (nor have they bettered it) ... Should we then fear that assumed sexual behaviours other than heterosexual will indeed endanger our species as wars and famine haven't??? I very much doubt this is possible. So what's the true reason of homophobia? I wish there were an an answer to this.

What do you mean by 'masculinised' in your second post, where you write 'the process in the foetus that require so many steps for the foetus to become definised [sic] and masculinised'? Are you interested solely in would-be male-looking individuals? Are young males the only ones who reportedly attempt suicide because of their sexuality or who come to you to confess their anguish because of a harsh response at home [actually from patriarchal fathers!] once they've come out? Are women only 'just like' men in this respect, as we've been taught to believe again for millennia? Do women shy away from you or don't they attempt suicide?

Estella, the point is that I am trying to find out what is true. I simply cannot accept that people should be bullied or disenfranchised, condemned of dehumanised because of the way they are born. Down's Syndrome children were once killed (often exposed to the elements) because they were considered to be "demonic replacements." Of course, I live in a country in which same-sex marriages are legal, and general well accepted. That is not enough. I want to see social justice fully realised, tolerance replaced by indifference (yes, tolerance replaced by indifference. Tolerance can be condescending, indifference does not take note of any difference). I do not accept deffinitions of "right/wrong" easily. Often what our religious ideologies tell us is right is simply not right, and what we hold to be wrong is not necessarily wrong. Science, with its own sometimes lack of neutrality is, nevertheless, one of the few ways we have for sorting through maze in these issues. We have already proved that same-sex marriages can be solid and enduring, that they had absolutely no negative effects in society, and that Gay parents are good parents and raise sound, normal children. One could simply say, ones sexuality or gender orientation is no-one else's business,but that does not resolve the issues in very religious or highly traditional societies, and it is there that most of the suffering goes on. I am seeking answers because I have a love for social justice and real human justice. The horrors that women in so much of the world must endure is just as troubling to me.

Please note that Lazar question is tricky, it is about gender not sex --two different things: From the medical literature:

Sex:The totality of characteristics of reproductive structure, functions, PHENOTYPE, and GENOTYPE, differentiating the MALE from the FEMALE organism.

Gender Identity: A person's concept of self as being male and masculine or female and feminine, or ambivalent, based in part on physical characteristics, parental responses, and psychological and social pressures. It is the internal experience of gender role. Year introduced: 1991(1975)

Considering this, I do not think that a book about sexuality answers his question. I tend to incline more towards Estella's position.

Estrella: Female is the default gender. If a foetus is xx, the mularian really just blossoms; if the foetus is xy, the wolfian first generates an exzyme that "shuts down" the mularian, and another that induces androgens. Not only does the body need to be masculinised, but the brain also becomes masculinised. You might desire a different set of terminology, but this one is what we commonly use. There are differences that cannot be wished away. From some quite solid studies using fMRI and other scanning techniques, we can see that, for example, the brains of homosexual men have the same brain wiring as heterosexual women. Cobversly, the brains of true lesbian women more closely resemble the brain wiring of heterosexual men. This refers to the sexual brain, the areas of the brain that are activated in sexual arousal. Also, in several experiements, we see that homosexual men do not respond to female pheromones, but that their sexual brain is activated by male phromones. There is something going on here that has nothing whatsoever to do with post-birth environment and nurture. Of course, one can argue convincingly that, in a democratic society, a person would have the right to choose to become homosexual, but I do not believe that this is even possible. Heterosexuals (especially men) may sometimes have same-sex intercourse (take the Pashtun in Afghanistan, for example) but men would have sex with a light socket if nothing else was available. I will be stronger in saying that to believe that the Gay teenagers who commit suicide would rather die than choose to be heterosexual is literally insane. It seems that in order for us, as clergy, to deal in a fair and just manner with the issue, we need to have more research in this area,but also for society in general to stop persecuting and degrading other human beings, we need to know more about these issues. We also urgently need more reform and educaton in many societies to stop the horrendious mal-treatment of women.

I certainly agree with you, Lazar, that we can't and shouldn't accept the reality of disenfranchising those of us who look different or act differently (as far as the latter doesn't grossly impinge on everyone else's right to live peacefully -- but our talk was about homosexuality, so there's no need for much qualification), that is, different from the hegemonic norm. Are you sure, however, that indifference means in fact (or for everyone) 'not taking note of any difference', as you say, so not signalling something as worth stigmatising, as it were? What if its thrust (for some) is not 'there is no difference' but rather 'I don't care', which can easily mean turning a blind eye to condescending tolerance, as you so aptly diagnose it, or, worse, to active intolerance? Perhaps legislation in certain countries has paved the way for societal changes in attitude towards homosexual couples, perhaps some religious communities have embraced the idea of not judging what is right or wrong in choosing one's sexual orientation -- I remember a synagogue welcoming of a newly wed lesbian couple three years ago in California -- but how can we tell that it's only in traditional or religiously conservative communities that bullying and disenfranchising occur? Mentalities don't change overnight, and overall societal changes in the sense of serene acceptance of what has traditionally been branded 'not normal' may lag behind some positive legislative steps.

Rolando is right in drawing our attention to the sex/gender dichotomy (introduced by radical feminist Gayle Rubin in the 1970s). While admittedly this dichotomy is a helpful heuristic tool in distinguishing between the biological and the social in shaping identity, theorists have debated it of late as rather strained in so far as 'sex' too is to a certain extent socially determined. Do you remember the very first response to any new born once it's been safely delivered? To determine its sex -- a biological given, we are told -- by genital observation, so as to classify the baby for socialisation practices which are markedly different for girls and boys, hence for different gender identities and roles naturalised as biologically grounded. What about hermaphrodites, then, whose existence has been known for millennia? (Indeed, not so classifiable at birth but later.) When the child's sex is uncertain at birth -- and here genetics illuminatingly steps in with concepts like xxy -- the medical establishment pressurises the parents into choosing one or the other for their baby so that hormone treatment to 'enforce' that sex can start immediately. I don't think society shows here (condescending) tolerance or (neutral) indifference towards heterogeneity (if this term isn't too dangerous itself), but active hostility which works on the either/or template.

What I'm driving at is still my early point: that how we view sex/sexuality/biology is not entirely free from ideological constraints (nor is science!), no matter how well meaning we are (and I DO NOT suspect Lazar's best intentions of counselling the troubled young people he meets), and that in this connection the reproductive imperative has been perhaps the most important factor advocated by societies (under one guise or another: it's healthy, moral, unselfish, etc).

Dear Lazar,

if we are going to discuss this problem within the limits of science, you should accept the concepts and terminology used by science. You are talking about sex, not about gender identity, when referring to chromosomes, and phenotypical characteristics. As I see it, since it is a matter of personal decision, it would be the same as to try to find the neurological basis of different ideologies or religions.

Actually, some studies have found neurological bases for ultra-conservatism. The one at University of Nebraska is quite solid. I have seen the results of the two at UCLA, but have not read the details of the study, but they do agree. I have said, in some older papers from some 20 years ago, that I suspect that ultra-conservatism is a birth d efect -- I cannot imagine anyone choosing such and angry and fear-ridden life-style for themselves. I do belong to the school of thought that homosexuality is not a matter of choice,but has clear distingishing elements. I will see if the comments section here allows me to download the chapter from my own book that deals with this. By the way, there is some reason to believe that at least hyper-religiousity and hyper-moralism are connected to disfunctions of the temporal lobe.

7

GENDER ISSUES

This chapter is intended to be controversial. The subject is one that needs to be discussed thoroughly and in depth. Hopefully, it will be discussed sincerely and honestly and in a scholarly fashion, not with the vitriol and malice of ideologies, fear and deformed hypermoralism.

Sexuality and sexual orientations are another set of issues which need to be examined carefully. This is also an area that is heavily clouded by fear, ideology and sometimes real anger. These emotions often prevent sincere, scientific and productive discussions about the matter, and often result in pushing a young person into suicide. A psychologist who would still apply the now discredited theory of Behaviourism is not qualified to discuss these matters. The recent incident with Olympic athlete Caster Semenya brings this to the forefront in a dramatic way. The arguments about whether sexual orientation is genetic or chosen can hardly be tenable in such a case; Ms Semenya is quite simply both male and female. She has both ovaries and male testicles, although both are concealed inside her body.

Many people who choose to remain ignorant of the realities of sexual variation will respond with some manner of ideological cruelty to such issues. However, let us touch briefly on the causes of one such variation, and perhaps it will even explain Ms. Semenya’s condition. However, let us touch briefly on the causes of one such variation, and perhaps it will even explain Ms. Semenya’s condition. Ms Semenya was born with both a vagina and undescended male testicles. These produced sufficient testosterone to affect her muscles and body structure, and render her ineligible to compete in women’s events in international sports. However, she was also was not allowed to participate in men’s events. While her doctors did not reveal the source of this condition, those in the field have suggested that the problem was trisomial.

In order to understand this better, lets take the example of both Klinefelter’s Syndrome and Turner Syndrome. Both have similar roots, and are referred to as “trisomy.” In the case of a male, an extra X chromosome is added, so that there is an xxy rather than xy combination. What on the surface appears to be the same, a Y chromosome is added to the xx in a female, so that there is an xxy trisome, rather than the normal xx combination. Such conditions result from a nondisjunction during gamete formation. This is a failure of a paired chromosome to disjoin or separate during cell division. In Turner Syndrome, for example, the child will have 80% female and 20% male DNA. If this had been the case with Ms. Semenya, it might explain why she would have a vagina, but internal or undescended male testicles, though Turner’s Syndrome would have to be ruled out because it its other symptoms, and the fact that Turner’s sufferers always identify as female. While not many Turner Syndrome foetuses survive (most are spontaneously aborted) there have been cases in which doctors, uncertain of the actual gender of the infant, have gendered them as males, when in fact, they are always female. But in truth, they are both male and female.

In the United States, one in every 2000 babies are born with indefinite genitals. We will discuss this a bit later.

A Turner Syndrome child will be short in stature, and a Klinefelter’s child will be taller than normal. Klinefelter’s children may be asymptomatic, but in general, they will produce less testosterone and more female hormones. There are other symptoms, or the child may be asymptomatic. What is important to keep in mind is that such a child may be persecuted, even beaten up on the perception that they are “Gay.” In fact both trisomies mean that the person has both male and female chromosomal structures at the same time. Not all trisomes directly affect gender. Trisome 21 is the cause of Down’s Syndrome, for example.

As we can see, the notion that there are only two distinct sexes, that there are “absolutes” or “black and white” in the matter of gender is simply not true, and destructive, even fatal, ideologies to the contrary need to be overturned.

We must also come to grips with the reality of transgendered people because this situation is a valid clinical condition. The questions and answers cannot be dealt with on the basis of erroneous “Behaviourism” or knowledge that we did not have when opinions were formed about it. Such matters should most especially not be subjected to primitive fears and superstitions. In addition to the internal neurobiological aspects of gender variations, we are now aware that phtalates and other pseudo-oestrogens such as bisphenol-A (BPA) feminise male foetuses while still in the womb. Bisphenol A, a highly controversial chemical, has created a major pollution of the oceans. It is now found in large quantities and in high concentrations in sea water and beach sand. The pollution of the oceans with this chemical is the result of the breakdown of plastics that have been discarded both directly into the oceans and in landfills where runoff water enters the ocean. Even people utilising the beaches and swimming in these waters are affected. Males in species of birds and fish have been feminised by these chemicals, and no longer breed.

It is generally forgotten, when speaking of environmental effects, that the womb is an environment. We must take the womb into account when we are speaking about environmental effects and stimuli. It also appears that the mother's immune system is responsible for feminising male foetuses following the second or third XY chromosome foetus. In week number six of a pregnancy the testosterone begins to be active in the de-feminizing the brain. By the eighth week, the effect is clear and the masculinizing of the brain is evident.

Testosterone affects the hypothalamus. In some cases, testosterone might not be absorbed and the body will become masculinized but not the hypothalamus in the brain. Even in genetically identical twins one may be Gay the other not. This tells us that environment and parental interaction is not involved, but that something within the sphere of genetics is. Even in genetically identical children the mis-firing of epigenetic switches may make the difference. Research in this area continues, but it is clear that epigenetics can have the decisive action in making the difference. The epigenetic suppression or activation of a gene can make an enormous difference, and we are not at all certain about the role methylation plays in the matter of brain gender. It certainly impacts the X chromosome, and it can cause either hypo or hyper expression, which makes it a target in cancer diagnoses and treatment.

Since we know that about 30,000 babies are born each year with an indefinite gender (one in 2000 births in the U.S.), and since, at least in Canada, transgender is understood as a true clinical condition (gender harmonisation surgery is covered by the Health Care system in Canada), we need to take these matters seriously rather than risking driving someone to suicide in a tragically unjust manner because of some primitive fears. This reality is exacerbated by various pollutants such as pseudo-oestrogens. I have seen this suicide outcome a few times. Theologically, there are two clear-cut and definite genders. In reality this is simply not the case. While many religious people are deeply disturbed by the fact that female is the default gender and the default brain wiring, it is nonetheless the case. Foetuses have both male and female precursor genitalia. The female organs are housed in a structure called the Mullerian Duct or tubule, while the male version is contained in the Wolffian Duct. In an XX chromosome foetus, the female tubule simply blossoms forth the female genitalia. There can sometimes be complications, but this is more likely to occur in an XY chromosome foetus as the male form begins to become manifest. Things can go quite amiss in an XY chromosome foetus as the Wolffian Duct begins to express itself as this requires a complex series of events. The duct must produce an enzyme that shuts down the Mullerian Duct, and then another which will initiate the production of androgens. Severe androgen insensitivity syndrome (SAIS) and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) are among the problems than can arise. In such cases, a male foetus can be born with a totally female body, and no signs whatsoever of "maleness." We do not even know all the consequences of simple and moderate AIS. There are simply too many unanswered questions about such things as premature stop codons and frameshift mutations relating the Wolffian Duct to allow us to fall into ideological or dogmatic pronouncements about gender variations, and there is also the question of the chemical actions and reactions and hormonal variations that enter into the wiring of the sexual brain. It may be that looking for same-sex orientations in brain structures should begin with the Wolffian Duct rather than in the brain. The very possibility that there is a neurobiological factor in sexual orientation should alert us that we need to be extremely careful in how we approach the subject, and that ideologies simply will not do. Careful scientific and scholarly research has repeatedly suggested that the “wiring” in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men differ in significant ways. These differences could not have been generated after birth or by nurture, but would necessarily have been accomplished in the foetal stage. S. Hu, N. Wei and colleagues (Hu, et al, 2008) demonstrated that sexual arousal in homosexual men activates the left angular gyrus, left caudate nucleus and right pallidum, while in heterosexual men these areas show no activation. By contrast, sexual arousal in heterosexual men activates the bilateral lingual gyrus, right hippocampus and right hippocampal gyrus. These are areas that are not activated in homosexual men. Different neural circuits are active during sexual arousal in heterosexual men and homosexual women compared with homosexual men and heterosexual women. These studies, conducted with fMRI, CAT and PET scans were verified by another similar study done at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. (Savic, 2008) While research in these areas continues, it is worth noting that in written tests, homosexual men have generally scored well in those areas in which women tend to score well, and score poorly in those areas in which women generally score poorly. The results of batteries of tests for homosexual men frequently produce the opposite of what they produce in heterosexual men. This should alert us to the reality that it is a great error to equate "homosexual" only with a sex act, because it actually refers to the personhood of the individual, something that is innate in his or her very being. Heterosexual men are capable of having a same-sex sexual act (this takes place on a large scale in Afghanistan today, as it did in Sodom and the rest of the Semitic world in ancient times) and also of having sexual relations with cattle, goats or sheep. This does not make them homosexual. It is also quite evident that certain kinds of sexual abuse of children or young people can cause them to erroneously believe that they are gay, but that in these cases, this impressed false identity can be corrected through proper therapy. In all cases, whether actual homosexuality or falsely impressed identity, bullying, harassing, guilt-tripping, threats and condemnations are more likely to lead to the young person committing suicide than to any change in behaviour.

These and several other series of careful scientific studies indicate that homosexuality is neither a matter of choice nor of nurture but that there is hard wiring in the brain before birth, and that it is not changeable. Further scientific and scholarly studies will almost certainly confirm this, and so it is more discreet not to expound hard and fast ideological pronouncements about it. If there are solutions to homosexuality they will certainly be medical solutions and not ideological ones.

While it is natural that all whose religious doctrines incline them to condemn homosexual people "out of hand" will do so, moral outrage is not natural, and is almost always a form of confession. It is worth noting that hyper-homophobia, the habit of regularly accusing others of homosexuality and moral outrage about the subject of homosexuality are almost certainly signs that the person expressing these is a deeply repressed homosexual person in a state of neurosis about it. This, too, needs psychotherapeutic attention. Such therapy is necessary because deeply repressed homosexual men are capable of murder often because they are overcome by fear when their repression is challenged. This turned out to be the essential motive in the famous murder of Matthew Shepard a few years ago, and several other homicides and violent actions.

There are many debates about what kind of human conditions and behaviour are genetic. This debate includes various forms of mental illness and physical disabilities. At one time, almost any mental illness would have been thought of as a demonic possession and Down's syndrome children were often killed because they were considered to be either a bad omen or a demonic replacement. In ancient Rome, a child born with either indefinite gender or dual gender was considered to be a bad omen and was drowned. Many of the debates about what is and is not genetic display an ignorance about the way genes work. Let us take the case of cystic fibrosis, for example. This is clearly a genetic condition, and yet there is no gene that exists for the purpose of producing cystic fibrosis. We need not go into great detail, but this does not even mean that one of the parents had this illness dormant within them. In fact there is a gene which is supposed to produce a protein specific for an intercellular pump, regulating the salinity within cells. If that gene is either malfunctioning or has not been activated by an epigenetic switch then the body will begin to produce and build up mucus deposits which will eventually suffocate the victim. The gene does not create cystic fibrosis, it simply does not produce a protein which it is supposed to produce. The absence of that protein creates a situation in which cystic fibrosis develops. Consequently, arguments about what is and is not genetic, unless they are carried out among highly qualified professionals are useless and often shaped by ideologies, ignorance and fear. If one wishes to class some behaviour or state of being as immoral, at the very least they should do so honestly, and knowing full well what it is they are talking about, rather than using lies, disinformation and ideologies.

First thing you need to do is to determine if you are interested in sex or gender. They are two different things. Sex is categorized as male and female and involves plumbing. Gender is categorized as masculine and feminine and involves behavior. Sex is usually assigned at birth, so called natal sex but can change during life. You can have a very feminine male and a very masculine female depending on their behavior on gender tasks. Gender tasks are determined somewhat arbitrarily by culture and vary from culture to culture. i should also tell you that sexual orientation is different from either sex or gender, just to confuse you more.

Yes, you are correct. I fear that, in dialogues we do often mix the two. Really, what my subject is here is gender and gender identity. The problem is that in common dialogue, "sex" and "sexuality" are used in place of gender identity almost exclusively. The general public seems not to be able to separate the two, or to equate gender identity with "how one feels" or with "an emotional state." The fact that there can be a conflict between the genetalia and the gender of a person is both frightening and incomprehensible to most people. However, after hearing confessions for some 40 years, it had become clear to me long ago, there there is a clear possibility of brain and genetals not matching each other. Too many clergy do not pay enough attention to people, but have "rubber stamp" responses to what are very real and complex problems in individuals. Of course, I am speaking of gender and gender identity, not "sex" in the genetalia sense. Thanks for the comment; it reminds to me to be more careful, and more precise when discussing these things.

Should justice and fairness be subjuristic to gender? Understanding the mechanisms of how gender differences are brought about is good but will that lead to equality? Equality, fairness, justice are concepts which are based on human power to empathise and the acceptance that every living being is equal and has some basic rights. I am aware that in different cultures equality is determined differently! And may be many problems arise because of that. But , then the way out is not just scientific understanding but spiritual tempering of the mind so that the rights of every living being are accepted. Right of living can only be revoked when harm is being committed by the individual (or any living being for that matter). By Living, I mean, a happy satisfactory life ( according to the liver). Society can only interfere in personal life and choices (biological or otherwise) if survival of its members (looked at with objectivity) is at stake.

History has ample evidences where scientific understanding of how things worked ( breeding for instance) have lead to gross misuse. Science will help solve technical matters, will cure illnesses. Matters of emotion, perception of good and bad and so forth are matters to be sorted out by mind (unless a drug is discovered which modulates what is accepted and what is not by the brain). One should allow the beautiful mind to work out the solution.......should coax it to think and see how boundaries melt away- To understand that every living being has the same emotional and physical needs, contexts change needs do not!

If anything at all, its a problem of acceptance which only sound spiritual thinking will solve......

In Canada, there is not question about the equality issue. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is much larger than, for example, the American Bill of Rights (except that ours does not guarantee a gun in every hand). We have same-sex marriages among Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, in the military and among some members of Parliament. It is only Fundamentalist Christians who oppose the Canadian Charter (and they actually do). Equality under the law can only come about under the law. Some of you might be aware that the hate rhetoric of Republican Candiate Michelle Bachman spurred so much persecution of Gay teen-agers in her congressional district that a sizeable number of teenageres committed suicide. Such hate propaganda is illegal in Canada, but in order to bring about attitudinal changes in societies in general, the question of choice or birth really is significant. And it is not just about homosexuality. There have been bully related suicided of Klienfelter's and Kallmanns's syndrome teens also. This is ot an insignificant problem. Klienfelter's and Kallmann's teens are ignorantly associated with "Gay" by some clergymen and by much of society, and are also subject to persecution and even suicide. Gender issues are quite important in the drive for true social justice. I am the father of 3 sons, and grandfather of 9 grandchildren, all raised with a love of social justice, but not all practising it. I simply cannot endure the suffering and torment of people who are born with gender variations; it is so senseless and unproductive. We are often cursed with a "us" and "them" mentality; there is no "the other," there are only variations on a theme in the great symphony of humanity. Science can help.

We often forget that "choice" is often the expression of a biological substratum called the brain. The brain is wired differently in different individuals depending on the nature and nurture paradigm. Punishing somebody's choices just because they do not fit the generally accepted format is as bad as punishing them for the "way they were born". Judgement on "Choices" of the brain should also be scrutinised against the same criteria used to scrutinize the other behaviours. (objected to only if it harms others). Mostly all our actions are choices made by the brain. In the case of the homosexuals it becomes a huge issue because it does not fall in the accepted format. Therefore it is the problem of acceptance and nothing else.

The question is why is this particular choice so vehementally opposed? I fail to see any valid reason for this.......other than the one that we fail to see that they are as differeent or as same as us. This happens most of the times because when we see such people we do not know where to classify them........as ladies or as men . This I feel, is a simple failing of the human mind which classifies so that it functions efficiently. This failing of the mind can be overcome (its our duty to overcome it because, its our behaviuor that is causing pain) in few simple steps......first accept that there are differences , second annote the differences a seperate class. Third ask the question wether the differences are really huge....jot them down. It will turn out that other than in appearances (sometimes) and "choice" differences just do not exist. The needs of every living being is the same and every individual is unique

(This method can be applied to bring down clashes in any other acceptance issues (gender inequaity, class, race, culture, religion and so on) other than the ones ignited by resource scarcity).

Most of the times its seen that in such discussions (regrading gender inequalities for instance ) existence of differences is denied and that leads to the brain going in loops----appearances suggest differences while its constatntly being told there exist none. I feel by accepting that differences exist a major leap in the direction of a concrete solution will be made......The brain will go into the next step automatically

I agree that science helps-----understanding how the mnid works and leading it in the right direction invloves methodical and logical study (sound spiritual thinking is nothing but that). We must use this other facet of science in solving this issue.

I am agree with some of the participants, although i am not experienced and gender studies is just a start of my career, but here gender is a little denied, the discussion is going to sex, as sex doesn't represent one,s gender, gender is with man and with women interchangeably, it varies from one to another, even from place to place and family to family, we can adopt the gender role of our wives but cant adopt their sex to be pregnant and to posses chromosomes as xx.

We should study gender keeping the roles and duties assigned by the given society, you can say that think locally act globally. Roles are local is in given society but sex remained fix in north america, in south america as well, even in qubec women and men having their own different roles, lets just differentiate both of them.

Ah, the questions are tricky. In parts of the world, Gender is about roles in society, sex is about breeding: who penetrates and who is penetrated. If we would discuss this on a broader scale, we must have a mutually agree "Model" where we define what we mean specifically for the purposes of this discussion. The word "sex" frightens people in many areas. I sue Gender Variations, because that is how people identify themselves. Transgender people (and our Gender Centre at the Vancouver hospital) generally identify their Gender as the gender of their brain, not their genetalia. We do know that these can be the opposite of each other. Gay men identify themselves as men, both in body and brain, but there is still a Gender variation that so many studies have identified with something they are born with: the sexual brain is wired toward the same sex, even to the degree that female pheromons to not affect them, but male phreomones activate their sexual brains. Most of the professionals I have discussed this with in B.C. use gender identity for Intersex and Transgendered people, and sexual attraction for homosexuality. Which ever terms we use, it is the neurobiology fo both that is of interest to me, and to others who are concerned with actual social justice in relation to sexual and gender identities.

we have recently published a study in which female and especially Ovariectomized female rats showed more severe impairements in cognitive performance followed sleep deprivation. Sex difference is a really important and interesting issue in neuroscience and other field. It can be originated from various roots including, functional and structural dimorphism, differences in neurotransmiter systems and also hormonal profils between sexex. For instance, it has been reported that hippocampal volume is deffernt in men and women. it has also shown that femals response to glucocorticoids more predominat than males...

Thanks for this Vahid. I will look for more research papers in these areas that you mention. Far too often religio-political ideologies block out the results of solid research and create great tragedies, as is too often the case down in America. It is wonderful to be able to have these conversations with scholars and scientist who are working in the field and related fields around the world.

You may be interested in two recent books that provide valuable exercises in healthy skepticism about the methodology of some "neuroscience of sex/gender" studies:

Delusions of Gender, by Cordelia Fine

Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, by Rebecca Jordan-Young

I will look for the books. I will accept any input so long as it is not religious. Religious views of most things in our world are mere ideologies. I like my transendentals to stay transendental. I have been a priest and archbishop for 46 years, and long ago learned to trust science on science, and keep religion in its proper place. Out of politics and limited on its understanding of the human person. Thanks for mentioning them. I have also interviewed over a hundred of the "throw away kids," Gay kids who have been thrown out on the street by their parents -- some of them as young as 12 years old. The more reiigious the parents, the more likely the kids are to be "throw aways" and live on the street.

Thank you so much, all of you, for taking the time to comment, and to recommend various sources. Itis wonderful to be able to shake hands around the world like this, and have such discussions.

I am unsure of the level of academic attainment usually required to contribute to these discussions and as I only have a BSc in Biochemistry, I am not seeking to provide a comprehensive answer to the question on neurology, genetics or endocrinology.

I primarily wanted to point out my disagreement with what appears to be a false dilemma in the original question.

Lazar Puhalo referred to:

"the question of choice or birth really is significant."

"roots in chromosome and hormone activity or anomalies, rather tha(n) being pure choice."

Though I am of course not a psychologist, I am reasonably sure that humans possess a subconscious/unconscious mind. Depending upon the stringency with which you use the word "choice", a (hypothetical) subconscious adoption of sexual orientation (or gender) would constitute an involuntary postnatal causal origin of sexual orientation (or gender). An example of this might be regional speaking accents, which are not prenatally determined but are not consciously chosen either.

I have some sources on sexual orientation determination, though it is a little unclear if you are referring primarily to transgender people or those exhibiting atypical gender expression rather than homosexuals.

Kendler et al. 2000, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(11), 1843-1846:

"Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors."

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?volume=157&page=1843

Mustanski et al. 2002, Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 89-140:

"Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12836730

Burri et al. 2011, PLoS One, 6(7), e21982:

"In summary, we found genetic influences on female sexual orientation".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131304

The scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is partially determined by genetic factors. As far as I remember, Burri et al. above discuss gender typicality too. Another area of research is the fraternal birth order effect, which is a statistical correlation whereby the probability of a male being homosexual increases in line with his number of older brothers. The "maternal immune hypothesis" is one possible explanation of this and relates to the environment of the womb during a embryo/foetus's gestation.

A review of the fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502267/

R Blanchard. 2001, Journal of Hormones and Behavior, 40(2), 105-114:

"In men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11534970

Simon LeVay, who has conducted at least one neurology-based study on the causal origin of homosexuality has a webpage on which he describes a large number of studies on the biology of sexual orientation:

http://www.simonlevay.com/the-biology-of-sexual-orientation

Please note that, as indicated as the beginning, I do not specifically research this area myself and so the sources provided may not be entirely representative of the literature on this topic.

Thank you, Jamal, for taking the time to respond. What I am ultimately interested in is justice rather than ideology. I am aware of a number of research studies, some of the ones you mention above are new for me, and I will pursue them. About transgender, I have no doubts that this is a valid clinical circumstance in which the brain and genetalia are of two differing genders. About homosexuality, it appears to me that this is a personhood rather than a sex act, Heterosexual men can, and do, have same-sex intercourse on occasions, but this certainly does not constitute homosexuality. It would appear that by judging the matter of homosexuality wrongly, we can push some young people into suicide, and destroy the lives of others. This is unjust if homosexuals cannot freely choose their sexuality. This is the matter than concerns me in the questions at hand. It is quite possible that such things as the execution of teen-age homosexual boys and men in Iran is radically unjust. Such matters must be given consideration.

You might find the work of Marc Breedlove, my Ph.D. advisor, to be useful in your search for justice. His work has shown that finger length ratios, which are sexually dimorphic at birth in humans, vary by sexual orientation in men and women. He's on ResearchGate, so you can check out his publications. I happen to be an author on two of them, so I'll include them below...

Here're those files

And one in Archives of Sexual Behavior.

cheers,

Bradley Cooke

Bradley: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will read the papers with great interest.

Thank you. It had become evident to me quite a long time ago that one cannot class gender identity and sexual orientation as "learned behaviour." We are aware of "false self-indentification" resulting from abuse. The same must be said of women who have been abused by a father and the marry an abusive husband, divorce and marry another abusive husband.

Me thinks you'd like a scientific answer to tidy up those areas in the brain that are in a moral quandry. Well, sir, when it comes to matters of the heart....sometimes science needs to take a backseat. I was an Internal medicine physician for over 30 years and became a de facto expert in treating transgender patients (95% male to female) and came to realize early on that that Nature scrambled some hormones, some DNA, some hormone receptors and assorted brain areas..in a large part of the population, but especially in transgender folks. They uniformly stated that what they saw in the mirror was not what they KNEW they wwere. If they saw male parts, they felt that they were attached to the wrong person. What they wore in the way of physical appartii or DNA or XY chromosomes really didn't dictate who they realy were. They felt like women, acted like women and KNEW they were women and some tissue or chromosomes couldn't disuade them.....and I agree with them wholeheartedly. It's intellectually dishonest to have an opinion about transgender people until and unless you have significant contact with them....and then, and only then, will you realise, in spite of some flimsy biblical "evidence", that they are truly who they felt they should be.....women. To think otherwise betrays an outrageous bias and is shallow thinking and just plain not right. Tom Del Giorno M.D.

I would like to respond to your question even though I cannot point you toward research or medical experts. I am researching this area for my own personal health related reasons. I will share with you my own experience as testimony that I know something about the role of sex hormones in gender identification and sexual orientation. I am a 65-year-old woman, married with 3 grown sons, and I work in a technical area.

I offer this testimonial because I have first-hand experience that dovetails with your question. Three years ago, after being post-menopausal for over 13 years and not being on any hormone replacement therapy, I had a sudden surge in testosterone. I won’t go into details but my behavior changed so much I thought I was going crazy. My family did also. I became suicidal at times and homicidal at other times. Because of a routine blood test, I found out that my testosterone was, for no apparent reason, almost as high as a man’s. During the last 3 years I often felt that I was turning into a man as I exhibited many, many male behaviors that seemed to come naturally. There were the usual physical manifestations, such as beard growth, male pattern hair-thinning, increased libido, and skin changes but more disturbing for me were the emotional, personality, and mental changes which were severe and frightening. For the entire month of September, 2011, my testosterone level rose to such a dangerously high level, I was diagnosed as having “roid rage” and had experienced a psychotic break.

Although my many, many doctors are still clueless as to what is causing these high testosterone levels, having done every test they know of, I am now waiting for an appointment at Johns Hopkins. My symptoms have been treated with medications reasonably well, although my testosterone level still goes up and down sporadically.

Because of this experience, I believe I am in a rare position of knowing what it's like to be either sex. It did not change my sexual orientation. I still fantasized (a lot) about men rather than women, but I also felt strangely very much like a man in a woman's body. At times, I would look down and see my own breasts and, for an instant, experience the startle reflex because they seemed so foreign to me.

Also because of this experience, I have begun an intense search for answers about the links between sex hormones and behavior. I have come to understand men far better than I ever did before. (For example, I now realize that men, by and large, don't have a "housekeeping" bone in their heads since I lost ALL nesting instinct. The up side of that is that it gave me a new found admiration for all the men who love their wives so much that they pitch in around the house, because I know it does not come naturally.) I believe as humans, often the actions we think are “rational choices”, really aren’t. That’s why I don’t judge people too harshly. I think we are products of our bio-chemicals far more than we realize. We are intelligent but basal creatures who respond to our environment reflexively then categorize and rationalize our actions as after thoughts. I certainly don’t believe anyone actually chooses to become homosexual or transgender.

This viewpoint does not preclude faith in a higher power. I do not think God and science are mutually exclusive as so many Christians and scientists seem to. The more I learn about how things work here on earth, the more I am amazed at the genius of God. I do believe, however, that literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible (or other holy books) causes major conflicts with science and always has. (Maybe you could change that.) I think that homophobia has much more to do with primal instincts than adherence to the word of God. I base this opinion on the fact that 90% of the rules of conduct in the Bible are summarily ignored by virtually everyone including the clergy. Those are the ones that don’t touch any naturally sensitive nerves. Homosexuality seems unnatural to most people and this accounts for such a strong visceral rejection through the millennia. There must be some evolutionary basis for it because it seems to end up as abhorrent in all the ancient holy books that were written by heterosexual men. I think that would be a good topic for research also. Could it be man’s fear of rape?

Anyway, I applaud you for being a “fact checker”. I realize that this is just my opinion based on my experience and my observations.

If you’ve read to this point, thanks, and good luck

Hi Julie----Interesting and distressing disorder. You mentioned that they've done several tests..but just in case...(1) an adrenal overactivity and/or 17-hydroxylase deficiency can stimulate that part of the adrenal responsible for testosterone production; a pituitary overproduction of ACTH could do all this;(3) you might have an aromatase deficiciency. This is the enzyme that helps with the conversion of Testosterone into estrogen. (4) Or someone is slipping you some Aramidex---a drug that interfers with aromatase. In the way of helping you in the meantime prior to an answer...they might want to consider the use of aldactone and/or finasteride. Neither of these are solutions...merely temporary aids to reduce the T level somewhat. Good luck and keep us informed...please. Tom Del Giorno

Hello Rev Lazar: I suspect we all are interested ".....in justice and fairness." It should not matter a bit how many breasts a person has, or how many penises, or testicles, or how many of those they have had removed or share with someone who has the same organs. We need to be just and fair to EVERYONE. It's quite simple and I suspect your God and our God quite agrees!

I am quite convinced, Tom, that God does not have nearly so many fetishes as hyper-religious people think He does, nor does He care about most of the things that preoccupy human neuroses --- especially sexual neuroses. Love is the meaning and purpose of life, and Christ did concern himself with that, in a positive way. The fetishes are ours, as are the neuroses, and they often lead to gross injustices, and even death. This is not acceptable, and in my far from humble opinion, we would be immoral not so seek answers that can help establish social and human justice in our nation, and in the world. By the way, we need to dispossess ourselves of the notion that women were created from a man's rib. Women, at least, contribute Mitochondrial DNA, Adam's rib would have been quite deficient in M.DNA.

Amen! In Puhalo veritas. Bravo

I think the differences are far more ingrained in the culture than nature (I'll find some references, just a bit busy at present), some are due to nature, but the worst thing about this obsession with sex difference is that it leads to discrimination. In other words there is nothing wrong with people being different, it's when the difference is followed by devaluation and limitation of choices that it's wrong, e.g. when jobs dominated by women are badly paid or when people can't do what they enjoy due to social meaning of their gender.

Jadviga: This is really at the root of my original question: the injustice and discrimination that is generated. I was an early participant in the women's movement because the injustices were so clear that no one who paid attention could miss them. It is still heart-breaking to think of the horrible persecution of women in much of the world, and the "femicide" in cultures such as India. I do not believe that actual homosexuality is a matter of choice, but if it was, people would have the right, in a democratic society, to make that choice. Religious bodies should a right ONLY within their own boundaries, to criticise this, but should not be able to interfer with the rights of citizens. One of the greatest of sins, in my view, was to equate roles with value and build walls against human aspirations. Think of all the brilliant woman who had (and are) being prevented from contributing to the advancement of humanity. And think of people like Alan Turing who contributed so much, and was then driven to his death because he was Gay (or Chaikovsky, who attempted suicide more than once in his teenage years because he was Gay).

Thanks for that; I think it is also important to differentiate between the nature, choice and nurture. Gendered socialization has a great impact on gender differences but it is neither due to choice nor neurobiological differences. In my opinion a lot of gender differences are due to cultural socialization. For example:

Psychological Bulletin

Issue: Volume 136(1), January 2010, p 103–127Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

Else-Quest, Nicole M.1; Hyde, Janet Shibley2; Linn, Marcia C.

this paper tackles the stereotypical thinking about gender differences in mathematics, and touches on the effects of steretypes on performance

Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality

Gaucher, Danielle1; Friesen, Justin1; Kay, Aaron C.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Issue: Volume 101(1), July 2011, p 109–128

This one explains how wording in job advertisements contributes to gendered selection of candidates and sustains gender inequality; the authors discuss some models of gender inequality

I hope it's useful.

Best wishes

Of course. It is "common knowledge" that women are "poor in mathmatics and spatial computations" Gay people are "artistic and neurotic," men are "lacking in deeper emotional feelings and poorer at parenting that women."Its all "common knowledge," but simply not true. Cultural stereotyping is so deadly to the human spirit.

Are you talking about the fetal testosterone studies that high androgen levels prenatally (which cause the digit ratio differences) create what Simon Baron-Cohen has dubbed the extreme male brain and that transgender masculine spectrum folks in particular score higher on tests related to autism (an extreme male brain in his view) ?  If so then look at http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2011_Jones_transsexualautism_JADD.pdf or most recently http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2014_DiCeglie_Adolescents_with_Gender_Dysphoria.pdf  

Thsnks. I will look at it. I am aware of studies that have suggested that imprinted male and female genes designed to moderate each other can be awry. If the female IGs are diminished or silent, the child will tend toward autism; if the male IGs are diminished, there may be a tendency toward schizophrenia (provided the foetus survives).

Nancy Segal did significant research in the separation of twins at birth.  Part of her research showed that the incidence of homosexuality in males in the general population is about 10% (+/- % depending on country honesty) but that the incidence is ~50% in identical twins separated at birth....thus validating the genetic component and minimizing the effect of environment upon gender identity.

Thanks Tom. I was aware of the study, though had not actually read the documentation. To me, this is an urgent question because there have been a significant number of young people bullied into suicide by religious bodies (including my own), because they were born Gay, trans/inter. The dogmatic premise is that this is a free choice, though we know with sufficient certainty that it is neither a choice nor changeable.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304462331_Topical_Issues_on_Equality_before_the_Law_for_Intersex_and_Transgender_Persons

Article Topical Issues on Equality before the Law for Intersex and T...