That’s true, yes. Eradication is probably very hard, if not impossible. But I was more talking about speculative future screenings whereby you’d compute some “risk score” as a function of the full genome, select over that, and thereby merely reduce the number of trans people. Of course, it is very much possible that selecting embryos to minimize one kind of “risk” would just increase the rates of other types of problems and reduce genetic variance well beyond “reducing trans people”, so this kind of complex screening might not be worth it, either way, for any polygenic trait. It might not be possible to accurately predict the phenotypes of out-of-distribution genotypes at all, due to “computational irreducibility”-style dynamics. In the end, I don’t think that’s something that can be figured out on paper.
(Other traits for which stuff like this is being researched is autism and intelligence, and I think they serve as fairly good models. I think it’s fair to say that both are at least similarly complex, and if successes were shown with either, doing the same for gender dysphoria might be possible, too. Both show some highly rudimentary progress. Enough that I personally would assign at least a small probability that this is tractable.)
I don’t know if the point you’re making in your last paragraph is “this is unlikely to happen anyway, so as trans people, let’s not worry about it too much”, or “this is unlikely to happen anyway, so as a society, let’s reallocate efforts to more effective levers to reduce trans-related suffering”. Could you clarify? I think I would tentatively agree on both, but on the second point I do think it is worth asking whether it would be better to have less (or more?) trans people than we have at present, especially as such research is likely to become easier and cheaper as technology progresses in general. You know, just in case it does become possible.
I don’t know if the point you’re making in your last paragraph is...
I don’t speak at all for the trans community, nor do/would they listen to me. But I think the current genetic evidence is actually reassuring for those who worry about “trans genocide”. Because it looks difficult to achieve.
I do think it would be best if trans activism focuses on trying to preserve healthcare access.
I don’t intend to express an opinion on whether there “should be” more or fewer trans people born into this world. I don’t think it’s possible to have a productive conversation about this in public right now. If at all possible, it would be good to lower the political temperature on the issue.
That’s true, yes. Eradication is probably very hard, if not impossible. But I was more talking about speculative future screenings whereby you’d compute some “risk score” as a function of the full genome, select over that, and thereby merely reduce the number of trans people. Of course, it is very much possible that selecting embryos to minimize one kind of “risk” would just increase the rates of other types of problems and reduce genetic variance well beyond “reducing trans people”, so this kind of complex screening might not be worth it, either way, for any polygenic trait. It might not be possible to accurately predict the phenotypes of out-of-distribution genotypes at all, due to “computational irreducibility”-style dynamics. In the end, I don’t think that’s something that can be figured out on paper.
(Other traits for which stuff like this is being researched is autism and intelligence, and I think they serve as fairly good models. I think it’s fair to say that both are at least similarly complex, and if successes were shown with either, doing the same for gender dysphoria might be possible, too. Both show some highly rudimentary progress. Enough that I personally would assign at least a small probability that this is tractable.)
I don’t know if the point you’re making in your last paragraph is “this is unlikely to happen anyway, so as trans people, let’s not worry about it too much”, or “this is unlikely to happen anyway, so as a society, let’s reallocate efforts to more effective levers to reduce trans-related suffering”. Could you clarify? I think I would tentatively agree on both, but on the second point I do think it is worth asking whether it would be better to have less (or more?) trans people than we have at present, especially as such research is likely to become easier and cheaper as technology progresses in general. You know, just in case it does become possible.
I don’t speak at all for the trans community, nor do/would they listen to me. But I think the current genetic evidence is actually reassuring for those who worry about “trans genocide”. Because it looks difficult to achieve.
I do think it would be best if trans activism focuses on trying to preserve healthcare access.
I don’t intend to express an opinion on whether there “should be” more or fewer trans people born into this world. I don’t think it’s possible to have a productive conversation about this in public right now. If at all possible, it would be good to lower the political temperature on the issue.