Category Archives: Genetics

Evidently It’s Not Just a Game

A local opinion writer recently had a piece published advocating for a third sports gender category to consist solely of transgender athletes. He offered this suggestion as a way to create ‘fairness’ in sports competition and to ostensibly soothe the angry and indignant arguments that currently dominate the issue. On the surface, it is not an unreasonable suggestion although I’m not sure it is the best idea or even all that good. It is not the first time I have heard this possible solution.

There are things about this suggestion that trouble me. First, there is the implication that all trans athletes are equal. When this topic is discussed it is always mentioned that M to F (Male to Female) trans athletes have a physical advantage over athletes who were female at birth. But not all trans people were male at birth.

Second, many different genetic combinations having to do with sex and gender are present in varying humans. The physical characteristics and abilities of those born male or female are not dualist. Rather, as with most human characteristics, there is a spectrum of traits and abilities spread over a continuum of all people, not necessarily strictly related to the concept of two and only two sexes and genders.

Finally, in this scenario, F to M (female to Male) trans athletes seem to be left out of the discussion entirely. Not all trans people are M to F and those born with female anatomy who identify as men and take action to become men physically need to be recognized as not only real men but real athletes. Where is their category?

To follow the logic behind the concept of three categories these F to M trans athletes should be less capable athletically than those who were male at birth. If this is true, to be truly fair, shouldn’t there be at least 4 categories of athletic competition? Is trans athletic competition only an issue if the transition leads to dominance? 

The exclusion of F to M trans athletes from this conversation is humiliating. Trans people and trans athletes face enough discrimination as it is and certainly do not need any more fear piled on their already hyper-stressed heads.

When a person transitions from their gender at birth to that in their mind, heart, and soul my guess is that they are fully prepared to compete against others of their chosen gender regardless of their birth physicality. This is not a cut and dried, black and white issue. Frankly, there are people born as men who are good athletes and those who are poor athletes. This applies to those born as women as well. I recall something about a tennis player named Billie jean King. 

There is a level of legitimacy to the argument that M to F trans athletes, in general, have better physical abilities than those born female. But the argument that men who choose to transition to female do so only for the opportunity to excel at women’s sports is patently ridiculous. Why would a man who knows he is a man become a woman to win medals and then face years of regret after their sports career is over? It’s absurd.

This is not an easy topic to parse as there are strong opinions held by many. For my money, we should let the athletes decide how to work out this controversy, not parents or politicians. I think we all know this conflict will be difficult to reconcile. But I feel that allowing those who participate to decide will be the closest to fair that we, as a society, can get.

Just the opinion of a cisgender old white man.

Genetic Political Tendencies

I have heard it said that facts and evidence mean nothing to one third of all Americans. I’m not so certain that is true. I think that facts mean something to everyone. It’s just that one third of us accept different facts and evidence than perhaps you or I do. Or our neighbor. They accept the facts and evidence that support their world view. I believe world view has a genetic component but not in the same way the researchers do. I feel the way a brain processes information about how the world works has two variables and three genetic markers. Three markers using two variables give us four separate categories of person rather than a simple, dualist, two or a slightly more blended three.

Using X and Y to indicate the variables, a person spreading those variables over three markers could be XXX, XXY, XYY, or YYY. In this instance the percentages would breakdown to @ 25% per result. The two sets featuring three of the same would be at the opposite ends of the perception continuum and the other two would make up the middle 50%. The middle segment with 2 XXs would be inclined @ 33% to always agree with the triple X side, likewise with the two Y dominant segments. The remaining parts of the two ‘mixed’ segments would both be able to perceive the world in a combination of both X and Y. This gives us 3 segments of the population, one third of whom see the world predominantly one way, one third another, and one third a combination of both.

One might say that to divide the population genetically into three such segments one would only need two variables and two markers. This would play out as XX, XY, and YY. That would not take into consideration that politically there are those who lean left or lean right while in the middle segment. Three markers imply that there are leaners both toward the X and the Y even while considering only two variables. Our two party system is what constantly wants to push the four into two. At best it can only compress the demographics into three significant political teams

This, of course, is a crude approximation of how things really are but it does take into consideration that genetic traits are not distributed in a black/white, 50/50 manner. Certain genes are dominant, certain are recessive. Two parents, both with blue eyes, can have a brown eyed baby or a hazel eyed child. Two genetically conservative parents can have a liberal child or perhaps even an apolitical one.

The two opposing ways the brain perceives the world indicate a genetic predilection to accept informations and stimuli that support one worldview over the other and reject that which does not support it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But not everyone is so black and white in how they interpret stimuli. If we are to accept that the brain has anything to do with how we see the world politically we must accept that none of our brains are exactly alike. We can, however, approximate how the proclivities breakdown. The one third, one third, one third breakdown can clearly be seen in virtually any political poll. Regardless of how radical an idea is there will be somewhere between one quarter and one third of the people who support it. Approximately one third of those polled with be against supporting it and the other one third won’t be sure.

The Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff refers to those people called political centrists or moderates as bi-conceptuals. Two conceptual variables spread over three demographic segments. That middle third of the continuum, the ones who can see the world somewhat from both sides of the spectrum comprise this category of moderates or centrists, Lakoff’s bi-conceptuals. It is here where the almighty swing voter lives and it is there where politicians invest most of their energy. It is this emphasis on courting the swing voter that causes those on the edges of issues and the fringes of demographics to complain that politicians don’t listen to them and only come to see them when they need their vote. 

Scientists are finding that virtually all human activity originates in and is mostly controlled by the brain. Our brains are subject to genetic coding like any other part of our physicality. Genetics shows us that the differentiation between two variables is not split fifty/fifty but is spread over a spectrum of possibilities. The fact their are only two major parties fits cleanly with the two genetic variables in how the brain perceives politics. But the diverse dispersion of political views across the continuum always creates situations where it is difficult for the major parties to present a united front to the voter. In the long term, when push comes to shove in the voting booth the two variable choice lead to a nearly even split of the vote, every time.

I have found it fascinating that genetics appears to best explain the apparent contradiction of a populace with a wide variety of political views, when asked to choose between two choices, will split nearly even over a large sample. It may seem odd to talk about political viewpoints in terms of biology but politics is not the only field of social interaction where the biology of the brain must be considered an integral part of the dynamic. Scientists have now mapped the final parts of the human genome and slowly we will begin to see even more and more definitive connections between our genetics and our day to day lives.

As we slowly unlock God’s secrets we must also hand over our own secrets lest they yet divide us.