On Sex, Gender, and the Origin of Thought
Recently, Kitty Whitemore published an article with a response asking whether her “internal narrator” “change[d] from masculine to feminine” as she transitioned from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman. She has since published a more complete response to this question with her opinion on how her cognition has changed. Because Kitty and I are friends (I hope!) and I published an article about changes in my own cognition as a result of beginning hormone replacement treatment (HRT), she and I had an interesting conversation that I now intend to make more complete.
A quick recap — the word sex defines physical characteristics, including biochemistry, of an organism as specified by the particular genetic makeup of the organism. The word gender defines psychological and social characteristics tied to a human’s identity. These two words are not identical concepts. Because the question asked about thought changing from “masculine” to “feminine,” this implies a question about gender as opposed to sex, but it is interesting to consider how sex plays a part in thought.
Genetics determines the biochemistry of an organism, which contributes to the physical structure of the organism — including the brain, where we believe thought originates. The question, then, is whether there is a causal relationship between your genetics and your thoughts. As has been alluded to in several articles, there have been clear changes in cognition due to HRT: in Kitty, in me, in many other people I know, transgender and cisgender.
An interesting data point comes from Jenny Starr✨, who identifies (at least a little — clarify as necessary, Jenny!) as nonbinary. She has not felt the same changes that Kitty and I have from HRT. She did not experience the euphoria that Kitty and I have (among others). I believe that begins to formulate a hypothesis that biochemistry is not completely responsible for our thoughts, but to make it absolutely clear, let me expand upon it.
If biochemistry is solely responsible for our thought, our thought becomes deterministic, even if wildly complex. That is, everything that we think can be traced back to a gene in some chromosome somewhere. Everything that you think, the activities you enjoy, the people you love — everything that makes you “you” — is simply an interaction of chemicals in a bag. What you call “you” is the result of a semi-random distribution of genetic base pairs caused by your parents sexual reproduction (I know, I don’t like to think about that, either, but bear with me).
I reject this assertion. If thoughts are only chemical reactions, all my love, all my art, all my political beliefs, all my religious experiences — all of me — is the same process as my car rusting from salt put on roads in Upstate New York. I cannot believe that. Who I am is more than chemistry.
Candidly, there is some solace in the idea that my thoughts are generated purely by chemical interaction. All those bad decisions in my life? I didn’t really make them; I only contained the chemistry. Suddenly, my mental health issues feel much less burdensome. Suddenly, we can understand the people who believe stupid things and vote for that one idiot instead of believing my stupid things and voting for my idiot. We can understand the people who have stupid behavior in support of that stupid deity with a stupid doctrine. It is all just chemistry.
The Brain and Thought
One notable exclusion from the discussion above is the brain. If we believe that the brain is the origin of human thought, and the brain is a physical structure, and physical structure is derived from genetics, then by logic, does that not imply that thought is derived from genetics? The answer is more complicated than that.
Brain development in humans is a difficult subject to study. Statistically speaking, there are ethical concerns around how to compose control groups and experimental groups. This is further complicated by the phenomenon known as neuroplasticity. In brief, neuroplasticity is how the brain develops in response to the stimulus of the environment around it. Similar to a muscle growing larger as it is stimulated by weight training, the brain grows in response to the level of stimulus it receives. Current research indicates that development lasts at least until the second or third decade of physical growth[1], and other research indicates that the brain can even be stimulated to grow as late as the seventh or eighth decade of life[2].
Not at all similar to a muscle growing larger in response to weight training, however, is that the brain has also been observed to recreate neural pathways after injury[3]. That is, even though genetics has helped define an initial or default structure for the brain, it is possible for the brain to rebuild itself given sufficient stimulus. Neuroplasticity appears to indicate a feedback loop between stimulus and structure. That is, certain structures appear to house particular types of thought in human brains, but particular types of thought can build structure or reroute neural pathways to other structures.
Regarding gender, one study[4] appears to relate transgender thought patterns to Functional MRI (fMRI) observations. It is tempting to latch on to this study as “scientific proof” of the validity of the transgender experience. That said, given the brain’s ability to change itself, I stand with the authors of the study, who wrote “it would be simplistic to make a direct link with transgender.”
Is All Thought Voluntary?
Victor Frankl expressed an amazing thought about human behavior:
Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom[5].
Is it accurate, then, to assert that all human behavior is voluntary? Is it then accurate to assert that all thought, from which behavior stems, is voluntary? Again, I reject this assertion based on my own transgender experience.
To be blunt, there is nobody who would choose to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. With the social stigma each of us faces on a daily basis, we would be fools to choose this lifestyle and endure what we do. No, our thoughts in this regard are not voluntary. The temptation to relate transgender to brain structure would make my life easier, frankly. I could point to that study and say “See? I am completely normal! It’s just chemistry!”
But to expand on this point, if all thought is voluntary, it implies that everything you believe to the depth of your soul — your politics, your religion, your love, your favorite color — are just choices. You didn’t vote for that party of stupid people led by that idiot? No big deal; you can just choose differently next time. It absolves each of us from the responsibility of our choices by being able to say “Whoopsie Daisies! I just made a mistake. I guess that’s how I was raised; I don’t know any better.” Human cognition is better than that; we are not victims of our own capriciousness.
Somewhere in the Middle
The gender critical argument depends on sex and gender being identical concepts. It depends on being able to point to similar genotypes among human bodies as evidence that the transgender experience is a sham. The gender critical argument demands at least one of the two arguments above to be accurate: either gender is genetic or gender is voluntary. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle.
Identity is a complicated concept. I wrote before that identity is a composite of physical structure, psychology, and sociology, but that there is another, less tangible aspect. In the Western world, we have a very difficult time accepting that there might be something outside the realm of science. Max Weber described the phenomenon as “the disenchantment of the world.” That is, as science continues to make claims that appear to be correct descriptions of Nature, we lose our ability to see Nature as something magical, to see life as a gift and full of wonder and mystery. Instead, Nature becomes cars rusting in New York.
To be clear, I do not have a “scientific” answer to this question. I cannot back up my claim that identity is founded on a soul or spirit that is outside our understanding. I believe it to be true, however, that an eternal divine spark exists that helps build the physical structure of the body as well as provides motive power for our deepest convictions. As a scientist myself, I have seen enough poor research to prove that science does not know it all. Not yet, anyway, and probably not in this lifetime. For now, at least, I stand with Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
