One thing I suspect is that the history of, and continued role of, medicalized discourse, alongside an implicitly essentialist metaphysics of gender, has encouraged people to think in questions like “what The_Cause of people identifying as trans?”
Whereas if gender is metaphysically accidental, we would expect there to be many reasons why someone might want to change it, same as most other things. We accept that reasons you’d move from San Francisco to Nebraska or visa-versa are basically psychosocial but do not regard them as thereby illegitimate. (I’m sure you could do a polygenic study and find genetic correlates of either decision, but no one would demand you do so before moving.)
It also seems to me less than obvious that biology serves as a standard of legitimacy more broadly, even within medicalized discourse. Schizophrenia and bipolar are generally seen as mostly biological in etiology but “illegitimate,” for instance. Here I suspect the political history of sexual minorities—that they were under accusation of “recruiting” and/or undermining mass participation in heterosexual family formation—led to a biological account being less threatening.
As someone who isn’t super plugged into this kind of discourse, I’ll note it’s interesting that I come into contact by osmosis with all sorts of discussions of what causes people to be trans, while “what’s the basis of sexual orientation?” seems to have been rounded off to “idk i guess something biological whatever.” I remember coming into contact by osmosis with the latter kind of discourse until it just sort of faded out. Likely the same happens once the eye of Sauron moves onto something else.
Schizophrenia and bipolar are generally seen as mostly biological in etiology
What’s the evidence for them being biological? Just that they’re heritable? (Even though non-biological etiologies like type 2 diabetes can totally be heritable too...)
One of my friends who gave feedback on my draft is a gay cis man who very helpfully pointed out that there was a similar Double Bind dynamic in the gay community, complete with the medicalization piece (AIDS, PrEP), and worries about finding a “gay gene” leading to eradication. I overlooked this because of the Eye of Sauron effect you mentioned. It’s certainly not limited to the trans issue.
It also seems to me less than obvious that biology serves as a standard of legitimacy more broadly, even within medicalized discourse. Schizophrenia and bipolar are generally seen as mostly biological in etiology but “illegitimate,” for instance.
I think the key distinction is social legitimacy versus ‘the medical community believes insurance should cover this’. The second isn’t apolitical but I do think it’s mostly downstream of biological reality.
One thing I suspect is that the history of, and continued role of, medicalized discourse, alongside an implicitly essentialist metaphysics of gender, has encouraged people to think in questions like “what The_Cause of people identifying as trans?”
Whereas if gender is metaphysically accidental, we would expect there to be many reasons why someone might want to change it, same as most other things. We accept that reasons you’d move from San Francisco to Nebraska or visa-versa are basically psychosocial but do not regard them as thereby illegitimate. (I’m sure you could do a polygenic study and find genetic correlates of either decision, but no one would demand you do so before moving.)
It also seems to me less than obvious that biology serves as a standard of legitimacy more broadly, even within medicalized discourse. Schizophrenia and bipolar are generally seen as mostly biological in etiology but “illegitimate,” for instance. Here I suspect the political history of sexual minorities—that they were under accusation of “recruiting” and/or undermining mass participation in heterosexual family formation—led to a biological account being less threatening.
As someone who isn’t super plugged into this kind of discourse, I’ll note it’s interesting that I come into contact by osmosis with all sorts of discussions of what causes people to be trans, while “what’s the basis of sexual orientation?” seems to have been rounded off to “idk i guess something biological whatever.” I remember coming into contact by osmosis with the latter kind of discourse until it just sort of faded out. Likely the same happens once the eye of Sauron moves onto something else.
What’s the evidence for them being biological? Just that they’re heritable? (Even though non-biological etiologies like type 2 diabetes can totally be heritable too...)
One of my friends who gave feedback on my draft is a gay cis man who very helpfully pointed out that there was a similar Double Bind dynamic in the gay community, complete with the medicalization piece (AIDS, PrEP), and worries about finding a “gay gene” leading to eradication. I overlooked this because of the Eye of Sauron effect you mentioned. It’s certainly not limited to the trans issue.
I think the key distinction is social legitimacy versus ‘the medical community believes insurance should cover this’. The second isn’t apolitical but I do think it’s mostly downstream of biological reality.
Scott’s post on this You Don’t Want A Purely Biological, Apolitical Taxonomy Of Mental Disorders is great.