[quote]Still asking wrote:
I'll continue to ask this..
What % of the genes that define "gender" are telling Bruce, or anyone, that they are the opposite of their physical gender? 0.1%? 1%?
Can't be higher than that, he is clearly a male.
_______________
Genes don't define "gender." Gender refers to the social expectations layered upon sex differences. Some people refer to gender as a "role" to differentiate it from these biological differences.
The point of talking about genes, though, is to show that they are less deterministic that many people claim. For example, though many people argue that being XX or XY makes a person a woman or a man, most people actually don't know what genes they have. So genes don't really tell most of us whether we're male or female. We usually base this on bodies. Yet genes and bodies sometimes defy our expectations--for example, XY females.
We make the cultural assumption that, because most people are born with XX or XY and because most people feel like their feminine or masculine gender role is appropriate, that there are only two sexes and genders and that this is a "scientific" fact. Yet, the science does not support this position. The scientific facts of sex can be and are interpreted in many different ways, and these different interpretations usually map onto ideological differences, not more or less accurate understandings of biology.
I guess my overall point is that the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner question is not one of facts or science, it's about ideology and ethics. How should we treat people who feel limited and alienated by society's expectations about gender, even if they are a very small proportion of the population?
Another point has to do with so-called "fake knockers." Women get plastic surgery all the time to exaggerate or even create the physical differences that are supposedly caused by genetics, yet people don't freak out about this they way they do about transgender people, particularly male to female transgender people.