Last month, I wrote a rough assessment of the kinds of medical studies developing since the mid 1990s that are increasingly showing a probable biological origin or at least a biological connection to transsexuality (unfortunately, other trans identities such as crossdressers or genderqueer people haven’t been included in these studies, yet). This may sound great, but we have to keep it all in perspective.

Now, I have to admit, I’ve been as interested as anyone in the ongoing studies in brain sex, genetics, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and other biological factors that have been increasingly linked to transsexualism. I’ve pointed to them to demonstrate publicly that our identities are not just “all in our heads,” although I also have to admit I’m a bit more of a barstool scientist (which is to say, not a scientist at all), and don’t always grok the nuances of the research myself. I’ve followed them with some fascination at the intricacies of how 3-variable combinations of biology + socialization + choice produce seemingly infinite numbers of perspectives, and ridiculed the far right for asserting that we “choose our lifestyles.”

Yet something that bothers me (and isn’t mentioned much in the quest for biological legitimacy) is that clear proof of a biological origin would not only fail to convince our detractors, it is also not the Holy Grail it’s sometimes made out to be.

Legal Outcome of Great Taste vs. Less Filling

I’ve alluded to a balance between biology, socialization and choice. Ultimately, this is what the point of contention becomes regarding the validity of identity. As humans, our right to exist boils down to a narrative that our behaviour must derive from an accepted form of any of the three, and to fall afoul of any one would sabotage the respect we have as a community in the eyes of various ideologies.

The far right Christianist (a term meant to distinguish from progressive and affirming forms of Christianity, although there are more complexities to that designation) version of this narrative claims that we are trans (and gay / lesbian / bisexual if applicable) purely by choice – although sometimes with a limited acknowledgement and understanding of socialization as helping to shape identity, when formulating “curative” solutions like ex-gay aversion therapies. Underscoring this is the implication that said choice falls (in their perspective) on the bad side of a good / evil binary and therefore undeserving of respect. We know that we didn’t choose to be trans, but then, it shouldn’t matter if we did.

Societal traditions (largely unspoken, but reinforced throughout childhood) surrounding masculinity reject socialization altogether, and see any kind of femininity, whether considered to be biological or chosen in nature, to be weakness. While this has improved in some areas—and at the same time still has a long way to go—regarding cisgender (non-transgender) women, it can still mean a negative disposition by default toward men who were born female (FTM transsexuals), male-bodied people who transitioned away from masculinity (MTF transsexuals), crossdressers, genderqueer people and just about any other gender-transgressive identity. Our existence as trans people questions the greater or lesser value ascribed to any particular gender and muddies that by daring to blur those borders.

Feminist narratives vary along with some core modes of feminist thought, but there tends to be stronger credence given socialization. In some second wave feminist thought, in fact, the idea that biology has a hand in identity is almost counter to the very foundations, where gender is seen as almost completely socially constructed, and where some writers like Julie Bindel contend that if we simply blur and erase the characteristics that we associate with “male” and “female,” then transsexuality – like gender disparity in society – would cease to exist. Again, our experiences show us that while socialization does unmistakably design some of our lives, it is not the whole picture.

The question of accepting trans identities is really about where a person accepts that balance to exist between biology, social conditioning and choice. Merely by existing, we undermine the very foundations of many belief systems, which could explain why many groups in society react so negatively toward us.

The flip side of that is that if we stake trans existence too heavily on one aspect – in this case biology – we also risk limiting the scope of what we acknowledge in our own community and beyond.

We’ve been learning that socialization only accounts for a part of peoples’ essence (a crucial part, but a part nonetheless), so the power of biology should not be underestimated. But biological causation only proves that we exist — it does not impart anything positive or negative on us, certainly not beyond the stigmas or empathies that society chooses to surrender to any condition.

The drive to find validity based on biology is most often a result of the conflict with Christianist groups, faiths and far-right conservatism, and contention that trans anything (and GLBT anything) is a choice which can be overcome by changing one’s mind. We know from our own experiences and sometimes lifetimes of trying to change our minds that we haven’t chosen our identities and orientations, and that there is something more intrinsic that we cannot put our fingers on that makes us who we are. Far-right religion in particular has to push this belief, because if a god created homosexuals and trans people, then that completely undermines the ability to create villains of us — and Machiavellian religious leaders (again, from the Christianist side, not the more progressive churches) see an effective way to consolidate people, power and financing by creating villains for them to abhor and oppose.

So we play the opposite response: “it’s genetic.” Well, maybe it is to an extent, but both arguments completely overlook the fact that neither chosen lifestyles nor biologically-driven identities of themselves validate or disqualify value in a human being. Biological “programming” is never a sure thing either, with genetic influences only providing predispositions in the first place – it certainly doesn’t give enough credit to free will or individual experience. (And anyway, isn’t it a bit ironic to be fighting allegations that our existence is a choice, from a group whose existence is a choice of faith?)

Moreover, we might not exactly be comfortable with the implication of imparting legitimacy on all things biologically-connected. Imagine if there were a finding in which pedophilia is shown have some genetic trigger. Certainly many predators of this sort find behavioural change to be difficult or impossible, and describe a compulsion they feel is beyond their control, so it’s not unthinkable that there could be an intrinsic component. But such a discovery should never be used to legitimize the molestation of children.

So biological causation only proves that we exist. We cannot depend on it for rights or to change hearts and minds. We cannot rely on it to find pride in our lives. It’s fascinating, marginally validating, but it does not provide a sole standard against which we measure ourselves as humans. Sometimes, we must choose our pride, in the face of all contrary opinion.

Mercedes Allen is a writer who blogs at http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/, has been featured on bilerico.com, PageOneQ and others, and has also developed the website at AlbertaTrans.org as a resource for transgender information and support.