“Nothing Human Is Alien To Me” – Theses on Gender and Sexuality
“The biological, environmental and social interactions leading to sexual identity. What should be the political stance of Marxist-Leninists on Variant Sexuality and Genders?”
Hari Kumar, February 14, 2024
Introduction
Many current struggles in capitalist societies are waged over the rights of those with variants of sexuality. Such variants depart from the more common bipolar or binary relationships between males and females – or heterosexual relations. Historically Marxist-Leninists have rejected ‘rights’ to homosexuality. Some Marxist-Leninists today still oppose the ‘Gay Rights’ movement – nowadays more often termed the LGBTQ+ movement. Perhaps to their own dismay, this leads such Marxist-Leninists to effectively enter coalitions with extreme right-wingers.
We examine the biology of sexuality, which has to navigate a complex terrain. To achieve some clarity in a short form necessitated some simplification of detail. Where factual gaps in science were encountered, these are openly declared. But one canard can be shot down now. That is a biological reductionism which is adopted by reactionaries, such that any single ‘deviant’ gene ‘causes’ variant sexual behaviour. It is associated with ‘populists’ including Richard Dawkins. [1] That determinist view is rejected.
Nonetheless, there are some important biological effects that impact on gender and sexuality. The difference between our views and that of biological determinists, is that the latter deny any role of biological plasticity, and societal influences. It is not just biology or just society – that determines sexual orientation. It is both.
To deny biological reality is to close our eyes. But to open our eyes is not tantamount to endorsing attempts at what is euphemistically called “conversion therapy”. Simply put – dialectical materialism demands we avoid reductionism and embrace interactions. This is important when dealing with sexuality – where both biology and societal effects – interact. Communists should not resort to narrow-minded idiocy. As Karl Marx put it once:
“Nothing human is alien to me.” [2]
Abstract
1. Variant forms of sexuality exist now and have historically existed in many societies. I will argue that communists today should not tolerate any discriminative behaviours to variants of freely consensual sexual behavior between adults. This position condemns all discriminative behaviours on the grounds of sexual orientation. This includes restricting employment, legal and constitutional rights. It includes any demeaning abuse as ‘deviants’. That position is taken more or less, in a vacuum of any considerations of biological theory. But when the ontogeny (development) of individual sexual variation is examined, the support of rights for sexual variation are actually strengthened.
2. This view is not accepted by some Marxist-Leninists (hereafter MLists) who consider all sexual variants outside of the prevailing heterosexuality, simply as a form of counter-revolutionary ‘identity politics’. [3] Recognition of any rights in these regards are considered by these MLists as a species of ‘liberalism’ at best, and at worst a ‘counter-revolutionary’ position. Some who call themselves MList espouse draconian anti-homosexual views – such as the Indian-based Socialist Unity Centre (Communist) of India:
“Homosexuality is an abnormal, diseased and perverted way of life… SUCI (C) calls for developing powerful socio-cultural movements based on higher ethics and morality to stop proliferation of depraved thoughts like homosexuality… We are of the firm opinion that such unethical living is immensely detrimental to the cause of the society and hence liable for being punished. That does not mean that we are supporting stringent punishment like life term for the wrong doers. But, mere legal route would not abolish the menace. It is only surge of a powerful social and cultural movement based on higher values which can only create necessary public opinion against such decadence and work as deterrent to proliferation of such debased thoughts.” [4]
In contrast, others in the movement argue to extend rights to LGBTQ+ and those of variant sexuality.[5], [6]
3. The origins of diverse sexuality are ultimately only comprehensible from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. That is to say that the neurobehaviour of human sexual development is material. The genesis of any individual’s sexuality is only one specialized form of expression of brain and neural functions in general.To sensibly evaluate sexuality means to ask how does sexuality arise in general – and then how do differing variants arise?
Summarising the biological research to date, there appear to be a minimum of three principle factors forming sexuality which interact in a very complex manner.
4. The first principle component of sexuality arises as early as 6 weeks of age in the developing foetus in the mother’s womb. Over this period and into the first 12 weeks of foetal development, one source of potential variations of sexual behavior may occur. That is variations can arise from a disruption of the chromosomal inheritance of the individual foetus – so an intrinsic effect. In the presence of a Y chromosome testosterone is produced with hormonal effects on the body tissues, but also of the brain.
5. A second source of potential variations arises from the extrinsic environment. That invokes pollutant chemicals which include so-called Environmental Disruptor Chemicals EDCs. But such ‘disruption’ may also involve hormones of the mother crossing the placenta, following a so-called ‘allostatic’ stress response. The word allostatic refers to “the wear and tear on the body” which accumulates as an individual is exposed to repeated or chronic stress.” [7]
These arise from the struggles of life that affect all workers and toilers. She herself is naturally subject to environmental pressures. This then extends the ‘extrinsic’ environment to the mother bearing the child. These life ‘hassles’ – whether arising from work, patriarchal relationships, sexual violence, racial oppression – or simply poverty – can trigger stress reactions in the mother. The mother unwittingly effectively transduces these external environment signals into equally potent biological signals to the foetus. Emerging evidence indicates these may also affect sexual function and orientation.
6. Finally, then a third factor exerts effects, which is the sum of all societal norms. These express the codes of conduct and laws of a society, its forms of education, work expectations and all forums of interactions with others. These all begin when the individual is very young, and extends to play behaviours, and impresses a self-identification of gender on the small child.
All these latter make up the super-structure of society described by Marx and Engels:
“Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces… the social organisation evolving directly out of production and intercourse, which in all ages forms the basis of the state and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure.” [8]
7. These three factors (intrinsic chromosomal influence with its’ resulting hormonal neural imprinting, extrinsic environment, and social norms) together form gender expression. As for all biological processes in general, the effects of environment and heredity are intensely intertwined.[9] In the case of gender identity, this involves three sets of factors, and not merely two, as often conceptualised in dialectics. Hence the inter-penetrations and modulations are extraordinarily more complex than is usually described in explanations of dialectics. One aspect of these complex biological inter-relations is described by the science of epigenetics first put forward by C.H. Waddington. This has been radically revived and placed on a new knowledge based platform in recent times.[10]
8. It should not be a surprise to MLists that the brain and its thoughts, are formed by concrete neurochemical signals which arise from the interaction of the individual with the environment.[11] And yet some MLists find it troublesome when these thoughts include gender preferences.
9. It is well known that historical figures including Marx, Engels[12] and Stalin[13] viewed homosexuality as a “deviant behaviour.” In contrast the Marxist, August Bebel, openly stood against the German laws on sodomy.[14] Should any of their historical stances deter us from re-evaluation of diverse sexuality? Should we somehow decide our own view by doing a majority poll of their views, and perhaps somehow statistically or otherwise, ‘adjusting’ for their importance for the movement? Of course, that would be ridiculous…
We do not believe that any positions of any of the great leaders are automatically valid for all time, and for all societies. All humans are products of their time and history – even the great leaders of the proletarian movement. It is certain that the prevalent societal pressures influenced the thinking of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin – and Bebel for that matter. That includes their thinking upon sexuality – to at least an extent.
10. Finally, it is obvious that the knowledge base of the biology of sexuality was far from fully formed when the great figures of MLism were working. In particular very early influences on the developing brain were not clarified.
An inevitable charge will arise from some Marxist-Leninists that to attempt any new formulation is all revisionism. We reject this. Instead, we view re-evaluation as a critical process that accounts for new knowledge, and for societal changes. Societal changes must be mirrored by MList analyses.
Part 1. Definitions of gender relations and prevalence (how common) of sexual variants
11. Human sexuality has taken several forms throughout recorded human society. We use the term ‘variant sexuality’ for departures of sexuality from the most common practice of female and male relations – heterosexuality. In the scientific literature the words sex and gender are increasingly often used together, as denoted by the term “sex/gender”.[15],[16] However it is acknowledged even recently, that “it is customary to refer to “sex” as the inflexible biological component of male-female difference (e.g. chromosomes, reproductive organs, and gonadal hormone titers) and “gender” as the psychosocial manifestation of human male- and femaleness (e.g., identity, behavior, appearance, social role.” [17] Here the words sex and gender will be used as is “customary”. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the terms as follows:
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time…
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.”[18]
If an individual’s gender and sex are mismatched, they are defined as transgender.[19],[20]
Biologists speak of homosexuality “when the sexual orientation of an individual does not correspond to his or her physical sex (the form of his or her genitals), of transsexuality when the sexual identity is at odds with the physical sex, and of transvestism when the gender role played by an individual does not correspond to his or her physical sex.”[21] Another term that is encountered is Gender dysphoria – some sources define this as:
“a mental health diagnosis that describes the discomfort felt by some persons when gender identity and sex recorded at birth do not align. Not all transgender persons have dysphoria.” [22]
The potential pejorative label ‘mental health diagnosis’ – does not require accepting. But the sense of the ‘discomfort’ is important to acknowledge.
Finally Cisgender refers to persons who are not transgender, where sex recorded at birth aligns with their own expressed gender identity.
We explicitly eschew terms such as ‘deviant’ sexual behaviour – as long as only behaviours between consenting adults are considered. Sexual relationships with any elements of coercion are not discussed here. We thus exclude relationships between adults and minors, or forced relationships including rape – or unwanted sexual behaviours by one party. Those are simply to be condemned. For what it is worth, we also agree with Lenin’s view about the problems inherent in promiscuity (see below) or ‘free love’ as it was termed by Alexandra Kollanti and others. But this is not the focus of this article.
12. How common are the differing forms of expression of sexuality? This varies by the society in question (see below) and the era being examined. Some USA data is considered first. While the famous Kinsey Report data received much attention, it reported a huge potential number of the population claiming variant sexual behaviours. However the methodology of Kinsey was biased – as was pointed out by some Marxist-Leninists. That included the “Bolshevik Union” a part of the “Lines of Demarcation” group, in Canada:
“The findings of the Kinsey Report started an entire wave of support for homosexuality.. But (they) are an extremely poor source of information. Alfred Kinsey based the largest part of this study on information gathered form volunteers in specific social situations. At a given public meeting for example, 20% of those present would volunteer to discuss their personal sexual histories. The results indicated a far higher degree of sexual “freedom” than the public had suspected… This indicates that those who would volunteer information… were pre-selected in the direction of “lack of repression.”[23]
There were actually two Kinsey Reports that recruited in total 5,300 men and approximately 6,000 women.[24] The Bolshevik Union correctly identified that this type of study suffers from a large bias – defined by clinical epidemiologists as being a systematic deviation from the ‘truth’. This is now called both selection bias, and volunteer bias. Further criticisms have pointed out that the pool of respondents were further un-representative – for example by including a large portion of college graduates, or many recruits being based in jails or other institutions; and in the statistical methods used. [25]
Standard sources up to 2011 estimate that the most likely occurrence of homosexual behaviour is in the range of 3-10%:
“It is considered that 3 to 10% of men are homosexuals in all cultures irrespective of their culture’s attitude vis-à-vis homosexuality. These numbers vary slightly depending on the study methods…The figures for women are less accurate, but should be of the same order of magnitude with the addition of a significant population of individuals regarding themselves as bisexual (attraction to women as well as men). There thus exists in all human populations a significant proportion of gays and lesbians. Although very significant, this ratio never exceeds 10%, which means that the vast majority of the general population is heterosexual.” [26]
“In regard to within sex variability, Kinsey suggested that about 10% of men and 5% of women are bisexual or homosexual. More recent research suggests that 2-6% of men in the United States, France and Great Britain have had homosexual experience. A 1995 study examined homosexual orientation in terms of attractions as well as behavior, and in men as well as in women, and reported that 16-21% of men and 17-19% of women in the same three countries had experienced sexual attraction to individuals of their own sex [125]. Rates for actual sexual behavior in the past 5 years were also higher than in the other recent studies. They were 6.2% for men and 3.6% for women in the United States, 10.7% for men and 3.3% for women in France, and 4.5% for men and 2.1% for women in the United Kingdom. Regardless of the precise numbers, it is clear that there is a good deal of within sex variability in sexual orientation, and that a substantial minority of both sexes have some erotic interest in individuals of their own sex.“ [27]
13. More recent data that is rather freer of selection bias than Kinsey, was obtained from the USA government mandated National Census.[28] However, because individuals may feel unable to reply freely to this government mandated questionnaire – it may suffer from an opposite bias of under-reporting. Nonetheless, it is a very large population data set and gives us the best available information. It shows two trends in the USA. Firstly they are not common, but secondly that they may have been increasing in recent years.
According to the USA National Census[29] single question on self-identification of gender preference – “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself” – and between July 21-September 13, 2021 – the following results were obtained for adults over 18 years of age:
Bisexual 4.4%
Gay or lesbian 3.3%
Straight 88.3%
Something else 1.9%
I don’t know 2.1%
The same source of data states that “the 2021 American Community Survey estimated there were 1,209,462 same-sex couple households in the U.S., and of them, 59% (711,129) were married couples.” [30] These were out of a total pool of all respondents in the Census of 127,544,730 households.
Hence the proportion of individuals who responded that they shared a variant sexuality is small. Nonetheless, there is no doubt a changing pattern, such that over time this is becoming more frequent (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Change over generations of variant sexuality
“Americans self-identified sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States in 2021, by generation.” [31]
There remains uncertainty on how common these sexual states are. For example:
“Data from 2016 from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that in the United States approximately 0.6% of adults, or 1.4 million persons, identify as transgender.” [32]
14. Over history there have been societal differences. It is noteworthy however that even when there are cultural prompts encouraging early homosexuality, this does not of itself lead to higher rates of adult homosexuality.
“There are many societies where homosexual relations are the rule among adolescent boys [e.g., some cultures in New Guinea, see (Diamond, 1993)]. This social structure favoring homosexuality in adolescents is implemented in a more or less organized way in order to preserve the virginity of girls before marriage. The homosexual relationship of young boys with an adult male would also play an initiatory role. Various anthropological studies have clearly established that in adulthood, the percentage of men in these societies who persist in a homosexual orientation is not above the average found in other societies that forbid juvenile homosexuality.” [33]
15. Precisely what estimate is accepted as the most reliable, for example in the USA currently – there is little doubt of the burden this carries in current society:
“In a Web-based survey of more than 6000 transgender and gender-nonbinary persons, approximately 25% of respondents reported that they had been denied medical services and 30% reported that they had avoided care owing to fear of discrimination.These barriers to care are thought to play a substantial role in the health disparities between transgen- der and cisgender persons, with higher rates of substance abuse, infection, mental health conditions, and cancer in transgender persons.” [34]
16. To summarise this section – people of variant sexuality form only a small minority of the population in most countries. But it is important to unequivocally recognise that this is a very real and definite minority in many (if not necessarily all) recorded societies. Since these records include eras in which declaring oneself a homosexual carried attendant risks, it seems that homosexuality is a real phenomenon. It cannot be dismissed as ‘identity’ fashionableness. Although some data suggests that prevalence – how common it is – is increasing in modern capitalist societies. Why this is unclear. Some may be related to more societal acceptance.
Part 2. Historical views of Marxist-Leninists before modern biological understandings of the material basis of variant sexuality
17. Humans are products of their time and history, and subject to prevailing societal pressures. This naturally applies to Marxists as well. It would be quite surprising if the views of Marxists were somehow insulated from the more general views in society. This – notwithstanding the incredible extent to which the pioneers re-thought the edifice of bourgeois culture.
18. The introduction notes that leading MLists including Marx and Engels[35] and Stalin [36] – viewed homosexuality as a deviant behaviour. In marked contrast August Bebel took an open stance against the German laws on sodomy – arguing in 1898 against the German Paragraph 175 outlawing “unnatural fornication”. He argued that homosexuality was common, and that measures against it were cruel. [37] It is very reasonable to place Bebel in the same rank as other MLists. We should not forget Lenin’s mourning Bebel’s death:
“With the death of Bebel we lost not only the German Social-Democratic leader who had the greatest influence among the working class, and was most popular with the masses… nobody can compare with August Bebel as a brilliant personification of the peculiarities and tasks of that period. Himself a worker, he proved able to break his own road to sound socialist convictions and became a model workers’ leader, a representative and participant in the mass struggle of the wage-slaves of capital for a better social system.” [38]
Lenin’s written views on sexuality are far more focused on the distractions from proletarian communist work, by ‘free love’ and promiscuity. [39] These views were expressed to Alexandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand. [40] It is true that some interpret one passage from Lenin as being anti-homosexuality. This strikes the author as far-fetched, but the given quote runs as follows:
“It seems to me that these flourishing sexual theories, which are mainly hypothetical, and often quite arbitrary hypotheses, arise from the personal need to justify personal abnormality or hypertrophy in sexual life before bourgeois morality, and to entreat its patience. This masked respect for bourgeois morality seems to me just as repulsive as poking about in sexual matters. However wild and revolutionary the behavior may be, it is still really quite bourgeois. It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections nearest to them. There is no place for it in the party, in the class conscious, fighting proletariat.” [41]
19. We noted above current MList sources that support rights for homosexuals. 4,5 However these gloss over attitudes of prior MList leaders. In addition there remain confusions on differing state attitudes, regarding sexuality in the USSR in various eras.
Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, there was an initial relaxation of the prior Tsarist laws against homosexuality. The relevant laws of the USSR “deliberately decriminalized sodomy” – or the act of anal intercourse:
“the deliberate decriminalization of sodomy between consenting adults, first proposed in draft penal law in 1918 and 1920, then enacted in the Russian Republic’s 1922 criminal code. Bolshevik jurists engaged in composing these drafts said nothing specific in their records about this change, but commentaries to the drafts expressed a determination to secularize the law, drawing on the precedent of the French Revolution, when crimes with a religious taint were purged from French penal law. The new terms of sexual crime as enacted in 1922, and as confirmed in a 1926 revision of Soviet Russia’s penal code, broke with the tsarist past in their modernizing medical language and their innovative, largely gender-neutral formulas. The penalties for rape and sexual abuse of minors, for instance, were the same regardless of the sex of perpetrator and victim. Arbitrary distinctions between same-sex and different-sex acts involving force or young people were erased. So, too, was the prohibition against consensual sodomy.” [42]
There were much-needed liberalisations as this, following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in several arenas. But at the same time there were several ultra-left positions staked out. Many of these were led by proponents of the ‘Communist Academy.’ That body served to disseminate revisionism in the fields of history and linguistics, [43] in the arts under Proletkult,[44] and in jurisprudence – as discussed below. [45] The ultra-left tendency taken in regards to sexual relationships promoted the abolition of the family, but this will be dealt with in a separate manuscript. In summary some of the correct positions in all these fields were extended into untenable ultra-leftist positions.
We confine ourselves here, to the sexual liberalisations in regards to homosexuality. These were reversed by the anti-sodomy legislation of all Republics of the USSR (1933-1934). There appear to have been two main driving factors in this reversal.
The first was a growing awareness of pederasty (defined as “Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner”[46]) within the Russian Orthodox Church, and in the “primarily Islamic regions” in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkemenistan. In these latter republics anti-sodomy laws were promulgated between 1923-1927.[47]
20. The second driving force is related to the rise of anti-Marxist-Leninist revisionist forces within the CPSU(B). Without exculpating any of Stalin’s own personal animus against homosexuals, the anti-homosexual push came from hidden revisionists in the USSR. According to Healey, the lead was the revisionist Iagoda[48] (aka Yagoda) who pushed for more general laws on the grounds of preventing espionage:
“In September 1933 Iagoda suggested to Stalin that a law against “pederasty” was needed for all Soviet republics. Iagoda informed Stalin that the secret police had recently conducted raids in Moscow and Leningrad, arresting 130 men said to be linked to “salons, centers, dens, groups, and other organized formations of pederasts.” The purpose of these “formations” was supposedly to become spy rings. Iagoda’s claim that “pederast activists” were bent on spying caught Stalin’s attention. Noting that “these scoundrels must receive exemplary punishment,” Stalin directed Iagoda to draft a new law.” [49]
Another move towards the re-criminalisation of homosexuality came from the involvement of the hidden revisionist – Nikolai Krylenko, People’s Commissar for Justice. As Kon points out:
“In January 1936, Nikolai Krylenko, People’s Commissar for Justice, announced that homosexuality was a product of the decadence of the exploiting classes who knew no better, but that in a democratic society founded on healthy principles there was no place for such people (Kozlovsky, 1986). Homosexuality was thus tied to counterrevolution. Later, Soviet medical authorities and lawyers described homosexuality as a manifestation of “moral decadence of the bourgeoisie,” reiterating verbatim the arguments of German fascists. Typical of this stance was an anonymous article on ‘homoseksualizm’ in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in 1952. References to possible biological causes of homosexuality, which had hitherto been used for humanistic purposes as reasons for decriminalizing homosexuality, were now rejected:
The origin of Homosexualism is linked to everyday social conditions; for the overwhelming majority of people indulging in Homosexualism, these perversions stop as soon as the person finds himself in a favorable social environment…. In Soviet society with its healthy mores, Homosexualism as a sexual perversion is considered shameful and criminal. Soviet criminal legislation regards Homosexualism as punishable with the exception of those instances where Homosexualism is a manifestation of marked psychic disorder. (Gomoseksualizm, 1952, p. 35)”. [50]
However, Kon neglects to discuss that Krylenko was part of the legal anti-Soviet group known as the ‘commodity exchange‘ school of legal philosophy. [51] Indeed Krylenko was also proposing up to 1930, the most extreme measures in order to attack the USSR citizen’s legal security from illegal persecutions:
“in 1927, Krylenko suggested a review of the Criminal Code, proposing
“… detention of the socially dangerous person for a time not determined by law or the sentence, but according to need, as long as the person is considered ‘dangerous’.
(Yuri Starosolsky: ibid.; p. 39).
and, in Article 6 of Krylenko’s draft, even the imprisonment of those
“… who had not committed any crime at all, but because of their connections with criminal surroundings or because of their past activity, they give reason to expect that they could commit some crime”.
(Yuri Starosolsky: ibid.; p. 40).
In their draft of 1930 for a new Criminal Code, Pashukenis and Krylenko revived the earlier tendencies
“… and carried them to an extreme. ‘Bourgeois legality’ ought to be replaced by the application of repressive measures according to considerations of expediency, without any claim that these repressive measures should correspond to individual guilt”. (Rudolf Schlesinger: op. cit.; p. 208).
Article 6 of the draft 1930 Code declared:
“Measures of class oppression, and of enforced educational influences, may be applied to persons who have committed a certain delinquency as well as to persons who, in spite of not having committed a definite crime, justify the serious apprehension that they eventually may commit delinquencies in consequence of their relations to criminal surroundings or of their own criminal past”.
(Rudolf Schlesinger: ibid.; p. 208).” [52]
We will return to the USSR law, and its provisions for the family at a later juncture.
21. Hoxha’s personal views on homosexuality or variants forms of sexuality are not on record. However, just as in the USSR, the PSRA had severe anti-homosexuality laws. The relevant laws of the PSRA were contained in Article 137 of the Penal Code.
Male sodomy was characterised among three ‘crimes’. These were collectively:
“crimes against social morality”, [53]
and homosexuality was described in the leading Albanian textbook on penal law as:
“one of the most repulsive remnants of the morality of feudal-bourgeois society.” [54]
3. Current knowledge of the biological basis of variant sexual behaviours
22. In recent years, scientific developments give some materialist grounds to understand the development of sexuality including variant forms. Materialist philosophy and practice recognises a real world. One where senses and thoughts are formed by a real, existing – material – basis. Lenin approvingly cited the naturalist Haeckel:
“Cognition is a physiological process whose anatomical organ is the brain.” [55]
Nonetheless the human psychology of all emotions is very complex, and unraveling its developmental strands in all dimensions has proven difficult.
Even so, sexuality can be traced to some influential biological rules. Sexuality is one of the behavioral expressions of brain function in all mammals which includes humans. The brain and its neurological functioning is increasingly recognised as having structural components. It follows there are very likely – even if these are subtle and as yet unknown – underlying functional or structural materialist underpinnings of all sexuality.
23. Human sexuality and gender identification, is the final expression of three main potential underlying material phenomena – or factors (Figure 2).
Firstly, an endogenous biological basis arising within the developing foetus, which is the most dominant early mechanism. In Figure 2, this is depicted as ‘The Individual’.
Secondly, an external, environmental basis ultimately is translated into a biological signal. This is labeled below as the Ecological Environment.
A third influence is also external, but can be conceptualised as in two components. One acts via maternal ‘allostatic stress’ arising from social oppression and affects the foetus.The other is later in the post-natal and childhood periods, and is on a learned or interactive basis. These could be termed a sociological basis, or as described in Figure 2 – the superstructural environment – composed of cultural and social factors.
Each of these are discussed in further detail.
Figure 2: Three Interacting factors underlying gender formation
Part 3a. Individual biological factors and the in-utero hormonal milieu of the foetus
24. We consider first the individual factors and chromosomal sex.
The biological basis of gender rests initially on the expression of chromosomal located gene determinants. In the majority of people these are composed of either the female sex chromosomal signature of XX or the male signature of XY. These are derived from the parents – whose gonads undergo a process called meiosis – a reductive division of the full 46 chromosomes. The two sex chromosomes divide into two gametes – eggs in the mother and sperm in the father. If matters proceed normally, the baby ends up with one of each gamete giving one of each parent’s sex chromosomes to the child. The resulting typical configuration with a 50-50 chance of being either a male child or a female child is shown in Figure 3. [56] (The ‘Y’ is depicted with one shortened end). The X chromosome is about 3 times larger in size than the Y chromosome, and contains 900 genes vs 55 genes.
Figure 3. Meiosis and the formation of chromosomal sex in the foetus
25. The Y chromosome confers a male sex determination by carrying the SRY (sex determining region of the Y) gene. This enables the testis to organize, which then releases testicular hormones, in turn leading to the release of sex steroids of androgens – primarily testosterone. These act on the developing sexual organs to confer a male outward expression – or phenotype. In the absence of such androgen hormones, the prevalent hormonal environment of the developing foetus is oestrogen, and this results in a female phenotype. Figure 4 below shows the development of the external organs. The presence of testosterone leads to the inhibition of the developing foetus’s female genital tract. In contrast, the female genitalia and organs develops in the absence of any specific hormones. This process is complete by about the 12th week in-utero.
26. Depending on what the chromosomal sex of the developing foetus is, differing sex steroids are made from lipids by the foetus (later in the child and adult) in the gonad and adrenal gland. There are three classes of these chemicals, androgens, estrogens, and progestagens. In this text we can ignore the progestogens. Androgens are typified by the example of testosterone and its derivatives, produced in the testis. On the other hand the ovary largely produces oestrogen. The chemistry of the body enables the conversion of testosterone into oestrogen, in both the testis but crucially also the brain.
The outward manifestation of these hormones are the body changes. These include in the genitalia but also other markers of gender (voice timbre, body and facial hair, type and amount of musculature, bone development including the pelvis etc).
Figure 4: The development of gonads and genitalia with and without testosterone
27. The effects of the sex hormones are tremendously important in shaping the brain’s maturation and behaviour. In animal models at least, in a critical time-window of the embryo, such shaping occurs. In animal models once this occurred it seemed to be Figure 5 shows animal experiments from 1959 onwards,[57] where very stereotypical male and female responses were assessed in behaviours.
Figure 5: Pivotal experiment to show effects of testosterone in ‘the critical period’
(Figure considerably modified and re-drawn from Balthazart, Jacques “Minireview: Hormones and human sexual orientation”; Endocrinology, 2011 Aug;152(8):2937-47; and Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality”, ibid, figure 3.6; p.41)
In summary, male embryos were ‘chemically’ castrated.
In the absence of testosterone they grew into adult ‘pseudo-females’ – indistinguishable from chromosomal females, in terms of their appearance and sexual behaviour. Even when treated with testosterone after the critical period, they exhibited female behaviours.
If on the other hand, the embryos of chromosomal females were treated with testosterone or oestrogen, they became “pseudo-males” adults including in behaviour. If after adulthood they were treated with oestrogen they did not change their male-type sexual behaviour.
This appears to show that sexual behaviours or gender identity – are locked into place early on. This interpretation has led to a hunt for brain differences between males and females, which were found to be present in animals.
28. This change in the structures of the body is contingent on the ability to respond to testosterone. If for whatever reason – the effects of testosterone are not ‘seen’ by the tissues of the body – a female body structure and functions ensue. In such circumstances, even when there is a chromosomal male signature – if testosterone is not ‘seen’ by the tissues, a female will develop. This explains a small proportion of gender variants, such as the XY ‘Swyer’s Syndrome’ or ‘gonadal dysgenesis’ [58]; or the various the “XY androgen tissue insensitivity” syndromes. [59]
29. However there remain strong objections to this overall paradigm. These focus on whether the hormonal effects induced in the critical period are irreversible – as some argue. This becomes a form of biological determinism.
The alternative is that the hormones have an early predominant effect, but are then modifiable. Proponents of the latter fall within the school of social constructivism – who argue that social structures form the context of gender. They oppose the reductionist animal paradigm (Figure 5). Jordan-Young & Rumiati explain why:
“For example, scientists found that allowing an androgenized female rat to have just 2 hours to adapt to a stud male completely eliminated the behavioral effects of prenatal testosterone injections. Subsequent experiments have shown a great many of the sex-typed behaviors that are supposedly permanently organized by prenatal hormones can be dramatically modified or even reversed by simple and relatively short term behavioral interventions such as neonatal handling, early exposure to pups (in rats), and sexual experience, to cite just a few examples.“ [60]
This is not a solitary view and several animal researchers also oppose such reductionism:
“Experience can influence brain structure, and that these influences can interact with sex. For example, rats reared in complex environments, with cage mates and objects that are changed daily, show different patterns of neural sex differences than those reared in simple environments, with no cage mates and no objects. Female rats reared in complex environments, but not those raised in simple environments, have more myelinated axons in the posterior fifth of the corpus callosum than males (Juraska and Kopcik, 1988). Similar environmental manipulations have been found to influence patterns of sex differences in dendritic growth in hippocampus and visual cortex as well (Juraska, 1991,1998). More recent studies have found that stress can change patterns of sex differences in spine density and density of cannabinoid receptors in the hippocampus of the rodent brain.” [61]
“Brain structure can change later in life to a much greater extent than was thought in 1969. In addition to the changes in myelination, dendritic growth, spine density, and density of cannabinoid receptors, mentioned above, neurogenesis and gliogenesis continue into adulthood in some brain regions and pubertal hormones have been found to cause new cells, including neurons, to be born in the SDN-POA and other brain regions that show sex differences in rats (Ahmed et al., 2008). Puberty seems to be an additional critical period for gonadal steroids to influence sexual behavior in rodents.” [62]
We return to such complexities when we discuss the third major determining factor outlined in Figure 2.
30. On the contrary side, and supporting the notion of irreversible effects on gender identity and behaviour – are human clinical observations. As in the famous (or infamous) “Brenda/Bruce” saga:
“Two Canadian monozygotic twins named Bruce and Brian Reimer, born in the early 1960s, were affected at the age of seven months by phimosis, a benign problem in which the glans penis is stuck in the foreskin. Doctors advised the parents to circumcise the children, but during the operation, the penis of Bruce, one of two boys, was completely destroyed by electrocautery…
Professor John Money at Johns Hopkins University.. advised that Bruce be transformed into a girl and raised as such. .. From that time Bruce was thus called Brenda and was dressed and treated like a girl. At the age of two years, the sex change was completed by a medical intervention. The child was surgically castrated and a rudimentary vagina was constructed from the skin of the scrotum. Brenda/Bruce and her/his brother Brian were raised as a brother … According to Money, Brenda/Bruce was copying her/his activities, including domestic activities, from her/his mother, while her/his brother Brian was imitating his father’s activities. Brenda/Bruce chose dolls as a gift and Brian chose cars (LeVay, 1996). … Several decades later (in the 1990s), biologist and sexologist Milton Diamond (followed).. Brenda/Bruce .. The child was in fact never socialized as a normal girl and he rebelled early. Brenda/Bruce was refusing to wear feminine clothing, urinated standing up, and felt permanently that there was something wrong. A “female puberty” was induced by treatment with estrogen, but Brenda/Bruce hated her/his breasts and refused the hormone. At the age of fourteen, he/she insisted on knowing the truth, which his/her parents reluctantly revealed. He/she was relieved to finally understand the root of the conflicting feelings he/she experienced. At the age of 15 years, Brenda/Bruce asked people to call him/her David and he went through additional surgery to recover a masculine identity. He underwent a double mastectomy (surgical removal of breasts) and a phalloplasty (surgical reconstruction of a penis). He was also treated with testosterone. He had always been exclusively attracted to women (sexual orientation in agreement with genetic and hormonal sex during embryonic development, not with sex of education during childhood) and, in adulthood, he married a woman with whom he had male-typical sex with his prosthesis. He also adopted children and from that time on lived a relatively normal life as husband and father… David wanted to make his life experience public so as to prevent such errors from recurring in the future. His story is told in a book written by John Colapinto, As Nature Made Him: The Boy That Was Raised as a Girl (New York, Harper Collins, 2000).” [63], [64]
Such observations argue against notions of sexual (and presumably) brain “plasticity” – in at least some individuals. Yet some doubts have been voiced on this clinical observation, as described by Breedlove:
“One problem with this case was the fact that the surgical accident did not happen until the baby was seven months old, so up until that time presumably the child was socialized as a male. Also, when you look more carefully into what happened, that decision to socialize the individual as the female did not happen overnight—it was a process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I have to wonder the extent to which the family was able to successfully shift gears and change their attitudes towards this child, to consider their son to now be a daughter. I was skeptical that this case showed any influence of prenatal testosterone on the brain, because there was surely incomplete or imperfect socialization of the child as a girl.” [65]
But as Breedlove goes on to say, citing the clinical syndrome of ‘cloacal exostrophy’ (where the bladder is open as it has not closed, and is usually associated with divided genitalia – where clinicians may have to surgically ‘create’ a female despite chromosomal sex considerations [66]) :
“More convincing research with disorders of sexual development, namely of genetic males born with cloacal extrophy who are raised from birth as females, would eventually come to light. Nearly all of those individuals would report being attracted to females, whether or not they identified as females themselves (Reiner, 2004; Reiner & Gearhart, 2004).” 47
31. The typical process described in Figure 3, can go awry at times, where the child ends up with more than 2 sex chromosomes. Chromosomal atypical variations include chromosomal duplications or deletion with only one chromosome (eg XXX; XO; XYY); or with true hermaphroditism (with both male and female sexual organs in an individual). When the developing foetus has an abnormal hormonal exposure of internal origin, these can result from various diseases that can affect development.
These become a sort of ‘test’ of the hormonal hypothesis outlined above. Known hormonal disorders include entities known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), or Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. These diseases result in an over-production by the developing foetus itself of various steroids – both oestrogen (feminine-inducing steroids) but also testosterone and related androgens (male-inducing steroids). The consequences of CAH include those of an ‘androgenisation’ – or masculinisation of chromosomal females, and favour altered sexual preference:
“At least 10 studies have been published in the English language on sexual orientation in girls and women with CAH in comparison to female controls. The overwhelming conclusion from these studies is that women with CAH are less likely to be exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual than are other women.”[67]
These are examples of internal endogenous – that is to say within the body of the foetus – hormonal fluctuations. If these occur at a particularly critical, or sensitive-time of the development of the human foetus, they may result in variations. Such effects imprints on top of any putative underlying genetic ‘determinants’. [68] Such critical determinant points are likely to be Increasingly found by biologists.
In total such inborn endocrine disorders are fairly rare. Estimates of the combined incidence of these is usually put at <1% [69]–[70] But the importance for this text lies in their ‘proof of concept’.
32. The evident potent sex steroid effects in animal studies on sexuality (Figure 5) led to an intense search for sex variations in brain structure. It is likely that much of that search may have been stimulated by those wanting to find justification for societal patriarchy.
Some sex differences were found in rodent models, which were largely in the dendritic spines in the preoptic area (POA). But more dramatic changes were soon found:
“The Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus (SDN) of the POA (SDN-POA), is several times larger in male than female rats… Testosterone was also found to influence development of the SDN-POA. Treating females with testosterone early in life increased SDN-POA volume, and removing testosterone from males reduced it. .. (and also) in the POA of other species, including gerbils, ferrets, guinea pigs, sheep, and rhesus macaques, as well as in other brain regions, including the encapsulated and medial anterior regions of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST), the posterodorsal region of the medial amygdala, and the anteroventral and parastrial regions of the POA.” [71]
33. However are such brain structural changes found in animal models – present in humans? Since human brains can now be imaged “non-invasively” much work has tried to discern differences between male and female brains. Many of these studies had serious methodological flaws.[72] Moreover in one large study of “more than 1400” MRI scans there was:
“Extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed… most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features.. although there are sex/gender differences.. human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain”. [73]
However – despite this – there is one very small area – that does seem to show differences. But likely current methods are insufficiently sensitive to detect differences non-invasively. However in some studies on dissection of cadavers, in the hypothalamus:
“The search for (the) human homologue (of the rat SDN) took nearly 20 years to reach consensus, but was finally settled upon as the third Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH-3), a tiny (0.1 mm3) subnucleus situated lateral to the much larger medial preoptic nucleus… Four different labs reported that the structure is larger in men, but the difference averages only 1.6-fold.. this 60 % volume difference is by far the largest “sexual dimorphism” in the human brain.” [74]
Figure 6 Diagrams of the area of the Anterior Hypothalamus
and the Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus INAH.
Legend: The top figure shows the location of the Anterior Hypothalamus; the second the area of the interstitial nuclei; and finally are shown three cross sections of human brain There are shown the Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus in humans. The purpose is to compare visually sizes of the INAH nuclei (labelled from 1, 2, 3, 4). Notice that INAH-3 is much smaller in the female example, than the male example. [75]
Hence while the non-invasive imaging tests show no major differences between a male and female brain – in other words there was no so-called “sexually dimorphic brain” – some data suggested that in the hypothalamus at least, there were areas showing differences.
But is this difference in hypothalamic INAH-3 nuclei, a causal line (i.e. a ‘cause and effect’ – causing homosexuality?) Or is it an association? Even the author of an initial report acknowledged that this was impossible to say. [76]
34. Information also emerged of differences in the area of the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN) between homosexual men and heterosexual men, and in the anterior commissure:
“The SCN was significantly larger (1.7 times) in homosexuals than in heterosexuals (Swaab & Hofman, 1990). This nucleus in homosexuals also contained about two times more neurons than in heterosexuals.” [77]
“The anterior commissure is the bundle of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres in the anterior hypothalamus. A study of the brains of 90 subjects (heterosexual men and women and homosexual men) showed that this connection is significantly more developed in women than in men when measured in the mid-sagittal plane (Allen & Gorski, 1992). Moreover, the size of this anterior commissure is larger among homosexual men than among heterosexual men and even than in women. The anterior commissure is in fact 34% bigger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men and 18% larger than in women.” [78]
35. Even more subtle physical differences have been found. These markers had the advantage of being less susceptible to the conscious or unconscious bias of the socialized sex of rearing – precisely because they are more subtle. This simply translates to meaning they are more likely to be true reflections of biological physical differences between individuals of differing sexual orientation. Such as the following phenomenon of “sounds generated from within the inner ear” or cochlea which can be detected, and are used as a screening test for hearing loss. These are known as “Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions”. [79] These sounds are:
“less frequent in males than females, a sex difference that is present at birth, are also less frequent in lesbians than straight women, with bisexual women intermediate between the two (McFadden & Pasanen, 1998)… (Data were – Ed) replicated when McFadden examined other sexually dimorphic aspects of the auditory system, including spontaneous opto-acoustic emissions (McFadden & Pasanen, 1999) and auditory evoked potentials (McFadden & Champlin, 2000).” [80]
“The sex difference in the pattern of finger lengths is that the ratio of the length of the second digit divided by the length of the fourth digit, the so-called 2D:4D ratio, tends to be smaller in men than in women… the sex difference is almost certainly the result of differences in prenatal hormone exposure… A meta-analysis (Which pools all available data and assesses it statistically – Ed) in 2010 concluded…” [81] that this difference was highly likely to be a true finding.
The citation gives the statistical testing for those interested.
While there is also emerging data of gene variants that may be found in transgender persons, [82] this has not been replicated. And we do not discuss that further at this stage.
36. How can all this be summed up?
We conclude that there is data to suggest structural and functional differences in a small part of the brain, between men and women, but also between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Yet again this is a complex area springing from the interactions of the three factors shown in Figure 2. Hence unsurprisingly, there are inconsistencies in the neurostructural data to date. These can be summarized as follows:
“An overview of brain morphometric findings in transsexuals and their relation to values of control subjects sharing their biological sex vs. gender identity .. In summary, the brains of Male-to-Female and Female-to-Male transsexuals do not seem to be entirely feminised or masculinised. Instead, some of the typically sexually dimorphic structures seem to be feminised/incompletely masculinised or masculinised/incompletely feminised… Viewing gender as a binary or dichotomous category has to be reconsidered, and locating transsexuals exactly in-between males and females certainly constitutes an oversimplification.” [83]
Many other scientists also caution against dogmatic interpretations. For example:
“Taken together, this evidence suggests a plausible explanation of the continuum of human sexuality: Small differences in the relevant brain structures generate significant differences in sexual identity and behavior. In analogy to the rodent, these brain dimorphisms are probably established by the early influence of hormones acting on the brain nuclei that mediate various aspects of sexuality. For instance, low levels of circulating androgens in a male early in life could lead to a relatively “feminine” brain in genotypic males, whereas high levels of circulating androgens in females could lead to a relatively “masculine” brain in genotypic females. As attractive as this hypothesis may be (and it should be emphasized that it remains unproven), the development of sexuality in humans is probably a good deal more complicated than this scenario implies…. the question of whether we are simply born “that way” with respect to sexuality remains difficult to answer with any great confidence. Like most developmental events, a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors are probably involved.” [84]
Furthermore many emphasise the brain’s “plasticity” – whereby even biological features that are impressed upon the brain can be amended by environmental factors:
“The (earlier – Ed) narratives often referenced inborn systems and hard wiring of the brain. More recent research has demonstrated greater neural plasticity than was imagined 50 years ago, and interactions between hormones and environmental factors in shaping the human brain and behavior. In addition, developmental scientists have moved .. to developmental systems formulations that conceptualize sex/gender development as involving many types of influences interacting over time.” [85]
After this brief review, it is important to move to the environmental interactions.
Part 3b. The Role of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)
37. The second factor noted in Figure 2, that we term the “Ecological Environment” – can give rise to further hormonal influences. These are likely much more frequent but more subtle than such intrinsic endocrine diseases such as CAH (see #19). The foetus can be exposed during the ‘critical window’ in development. If so environmental effects via the mother, are then transduced onto the development of sexual and gender identification. For example, environmental sources of steroids may externally affect critical determination points. These environmentally available agents are collectively known as Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs).
38. What is the source of such EDCs?
These arise from many polluting environmental sources. Most of these pollutants come from the drive to make profit for the ruling class. For example, various commercially driven processes such as feeding livestock with anabolic steroids to increase profits, has led to dramatic environmental pollution. This signal is mixed with natural human excreted steroids, but outweighs it considerably. [86]
But it is not only agricultural feeds of animal anabolic steroids are sources of EDCs from environmental chemical pollution:
“EDCs can have a natural origin, such as sex steroids, phytoestrogens, and mycotoxins, or a synthetic origin, such as the compounds used in manufacturing (e.g., phthalates, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), in the pharmaceutical industry (e.g.,17-ethinyloestradiol and diethylstilbestrol), or in agriculture (pesticides such as DDT, atrazine, and glyphosate). They are widely spread in the environment, since their presence has been reported in aquatic environments, in tap water, and in indoor and outdoor air. Finally, at low concentrations, they are present in a multitude of everyday products, such as personal care products and cosmetics. Sources of EDC exposure are numerous and very diverse (e.g., air, water, soil, food, everyday products)”. [87]
39. Apart from the obvious EDCs that are steroid-related, other widely spread chemical sources include agents known as phthalates, which have an anti-androgenic effect:
“Phthalic acid diesters, or phthalates, are a multifunctional group of chemicals found in a variety of consumer products including vinyl flooring, shower curtains, raincoats, bath products, nail polish, perfumes, cosmetics, medications, and food storage containers. Phthalates are ubiquitous in the modern environment and enter our bodies through food consumption, inhalation, or dermal contact.” [88]
In a prospective study maternal levels of phthalates altered the play behaviour of males into atypical directions, but not the play behaviour of females. Whether this results in longer term ‘feminisation’ of sexual behaviours in the males is unknown.
40. The actionss of at least some EDCs include effects on the brain resulting in altered neurogenesis and neurobehaviour as in inducing a precocious puberty. 60 The synthetic sex steroid DES (diethylstilbestrol) can be counted as an EDC. It was given as a drug to women to prevent miscarriage and had effects on gender. These parallel effects of a compound known as Bisphenol-F:
“In zebrafish, Bisphenol-F exposure caused developmental toxicity by inducing aromatase activity, disrupting sexual differentiation and reproductive functions (e.g., less eggs and hatching), and affecting 5a -reductase (Yang et al., 2017, 2018). Humans are extensively exposed to these compounds, and we showed their presence in human postmortem brain… Between 1939 and 1960, around two million expectant mothers in the United States of America and Europe were prescribed the synthetic estrogen known as DES, in the belief that it would prevent miscarriages. .. DES turned out to increase the likelihood of bisexuality and homosexuality in the daughters of women given this drug. In addition, a high prevalence of gender identity problems has been reported in DES sons.” [89]
41. But these effects are not restricted to one generation. Alarmingly the effects of EDCs have the potential to modify the genome and extend into future generations. [90]
42. To summarise this portion on the potential of the environment to affect the developing foetus in the womb – considerable data confirms that there are potential actions on the foetus. Later effects on sexuality appear confirmed for EDCs.
Parts 3a and 3b have shown evidence that there is a biological foundation for sexuality including the potential for perturbations. These can be internal – on the chromosomal or hormonal milieu of the foetus, or external from biochemical pollutants in the environment.
We are about to move to discussing the social environmental class structure of society – which can also have an effect on the developing foetus and its gender.
All these form a central biological plank for a materialist approach to gender and sexuality. Such material effects on the underlying neurodevelopment of gender, cannot be denied. It is true that the scientific data is still evolving, but while this is still being explored, it appears feasible that there are indeed some links beween foetal life and evolving sexuality.
But biology as discussed above, forms only part of the triad described in Figure 2. It cannot be considered in any way as an exclusive factor. As stated by Dieckmann:
“changes after prenatal exposure to stress could favor developmental adjustment accomplished by epigenetic alterations which should not only be seen as detrimental, but also evolutionarily adaptive to some extent. Finally, individual differences in the sensitivity to early programming should be considered.” [91]
We pass now to discuss the societal effects on sexuality – as depicted in Figure 2. This also has undoubted biological components. This is because life stresses acting on the mother also act on the foetal endocrine state, in a manner analogous to that seen with EDCs. Such life stresses are more often experienced by the poorest and most oppressed class in capitalism – the proletariat. Therefore they are discussed under the role of society, as follows.
Part 3c. The role of superstructural societal, educational and cultural effects
43. Frederick Engels described the historical destiny of the woman in family, in the approach of capitalism. This was to become dependent upon the man – who exercised “supremacy”:
“The stage of commodity production with which civilization begins is distinguished economically by the introduction of (1) metal money, and thus, of money capital, interest and usury; (2) the merchants, acting as mediating class between producers; (3) private ownership of land and mortgage; (4) slave labour as the prevailing form of production. The form of the family corresponding to civilisation and under it becoming the definitively prevailing form is monogamy, the supremacy of the man over the woman, and the individual family as the economic unit of society. The cohesive force of civilized society is the state, which in all typical periods is exclusively the state of the ruling class, and in all cases remains essentially a machine for holding down the oppressed, exploited class.“ [92]
The external environment in capitalist society abounds with oppression and alienation, all of which provoke major hormonal fluxes. As described by Engels women in a repressive patriarchal society undoubtedly experience not only alienation. We now know that this results in stress hormonal reactions. These can form added material pathways that are likely to alter sexual orientation.
44. These pathways exert effects by way of “foetal programming” whereby the physiology of the foetus is perturbed. [93] The foetus has to adapt to the new hormonal intrauterine environment. In an overview, a large body of literature is summarised:
“In general, studies point to a small, but reliable link between prenatal stress and pregnancy outcomes in humans.” [94]
“Maternal reports of daily hassles as well as depression and anxiety symptoms appear to be associated with both earlier delivery and smaller size at birth, which in turn, are risk factors for impaired cognitive and social developmental outcomes.“ [95]
45. How are such effects mediated? It is likely through what is known as the Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone (ACTH) axis. This is a link between the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland in the brain and the adrenal gland on top of the kidneys. Here we do not detail these interactions extensively.
However as stress rises, ACTH levels rise and signal to the mother’s adrenal gland to stimulate production of cortisol. This is the classic ‘stress’ hormone. But this ACTH elevation also results in higher circulating testosterone levels in the mother, which cross the placenta into the foetus.
For example, neighbourhood stress (e.g., vacant buildings, crime, exposure to violence, and neighbourhood disorder/poverty) is higher in poorer areas. Effects of such include increased maternal testosterone levels:
“In this analysis of neighborhood stressors and sex steroid hormones measured across pregnancy, higher neighborhood disorder was associated with higher maternal testosterone concentrations across pregnancy, these associations were stronger among women carrying male fetuses and grew stronger in late pregnancy.” [96]
Stressors like these in monkey models affect brain development by decreasing hippocampal volume by 10-12%. 73
There is ample other data about effects of maternal stress and neighbourhood poverty on markers of population health. This totality goes beyond this text’s scope but these references allow a start in exploring this data. [97],[98],[99], [100]
46. While these maternal life stresses are now well known to be clearly associated (and perhaps causally related to) long term adverse health consequences, is there any relationship to the development of sexuality? This has been asserted by some researchers:
“Pregnant women suffering from serious stress are also more likely to give birth to homosexual children, because their raised levels of the stress hormone cortisol affect the production of fetal sex hormones.” [101]
“Dorner noted that around time of World War II in Germany a high proportion of homosexual men were born, which he suggests was due to stress being experienced by pregnant women. His later study involved taking histories from groups of mothers of homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual men, and enquiring specifically about stress.” [102]
However serious criticisms of Dorner’s work includes it being a retrospective study with strong possible recall bias (i.e. memory) and lack of reproducibility. [103] Newer data continues to emerge however:
“One study of prenatal stress and sexual orientation looked at female offspring, and found that recollections of maternal stress during pregnancy were associated with reduced heterosexual orientation. These findings were echoed in the only prospective study of the effects of prenatal stress on behavioral sexual differentiation. This study found that the amount of stress reported by mothers during pregnancy correlated with increased male-typical behavior at age 3 and one-half years of age in their daughters, but did not correlate with sex-typical behavior in their sons.” [104]
47. The points made above show that the capitalist class structure of oppression of proletarians induces changes during women‘s pregnancies that can affect the foetus. Moreover, these have potential for some effects – as yet not as well documented as those in parts 3a and 3b, but still of importance.
48. But we should turn attention now to the whole educational and orientation of society in capitalism, which reinforces the bipolarity of gender. These forces are powerful, and given the plasticity of the brain – may simply override any initial hormonal imprinting – with the strong impetus to conformity. As Hines puts it:
“There is extensive evidence that socialization influences gender-related outcomes. For example, children’s preferences for different types of objects (toys) have been found to relate to external socialization and to self-socialization.” [105]
“from early infancy parents provide different toys for girls and boys (MacPhee and Prendergast, 2019; Rheingold and Cook, 1975). In addition, when observed playing with toys, parents encourage their children to play with same-gender toys more than other-gender toys and discourage them from playing with other-gender toys (Fagot, 1978; Fagot and Hagan, 1991; Langlois and Downs, 1980; Pasterski et al., 2005). A meta-analysis that included behavioral observation data, as well as other types of data (e.g., self-report), also concluded that parents encourage their children to engage in same- gender activities, including gender-typical toy play (Lytton and Romney, 1991).” 81
“Children also self-socialize gender-related behavior. Once they know that they are girls or boys, they tend to imitate or model the object choices of others of their own sex more than of the other sex (Hines et al., 2016; Masters et al., 1979; Perry and Bussey, 1979). They also have been found to prefer objects and activities that have been endorsed by children of their own sex over those endorsed by children of the other sex (Shutts et al., 2010). “ 81
The gender scientist Hines concludes then that:
“Gender is multi-dimensional and its causes are multi-faceted. We are far from a full understanding of the developmental systems involved in the development of gender-related characteristics. For human gender development, current evidence suggests that early testosterone exposure contributes to the development of gender role behavior, particularly gender-typed object (toy) preferences, as well as to sexual orientation and gender identity…” 81
An attempt to form a simple summary is given below.
Figure 7. Comparison of two opposing viewpoints on the formation of sex and gender.
Figure 7a – Biological determinism’
Figure 7b a dialectical view
49. What conclusions should MLists draw on the formation of gender orientation? The variability that follows such complex interactions warrants much caution, since MLists understand the enormous ramifications of cultural, social, religious and legal definitions of sexuality and gender.
Much other social, and political literature stemming from the work of Marx and Engels exists, and further extensive consideration of the matters so far discussed is deferred.
However, at present, the following summaries appear reasonable:
(i) There is a biological basis for early hormonal exposure – both endogenous and exogenous – affecting gender and sexual preferences.
(ii) Society and its family and educational structures can override some of these to some variable and un-defined extent.
(iii) It is likely that recent rising rates of volunteered gender dsyphoria and professed homsexuality, do reflect in some cases – a willingness to ‘identify’ with some peer pressure. However the biological components are very likely to apply to some those expressing gender dysphoria.
iv) Sexual preferences imprinted early on in gestation may persist, manifesting later in a proportion of those expressing variant sexual preferences.
(v) Some of the effects of both types of extrinsic (environmental) perturbations could be removed by a socialist society – by diminishing environmental pollution and regulating EDCs.
(vi) The stress on proletarian mothers of poverty and oppressive working conditions would also be alleviated – an obvious and clear reduction of the so-called ‘allostatic’ stress on families.
(vii) Societal pressures to conform to sex-stereotypical roles would not be present under socialism.
(viii) Even with a transformation to a socialist society, it is unlikely that gender would become wholly binary. A minority, possibly a decreasing minority – would be attracted towards variant forms of sexuality.
(ix) Acknowledgment of the rights of variant sexuality of adults should be upheld under socialism.
(x) Children receiving various therapies including puberty blockers and definitive gender altering therapy are at risk, in especial if clinicians do not properly ascertain to what extent they understand decisions being made.[106] In the UK and Australia medical courts – a framework known as ‘Gillick Consent‘- is usually applied. This follows a UK case where a mother – Gillick – sued to prevent contraceptives being used for her child. She fought up to the House of Lords, where she lost.[107] The concept handed down from that case, argues that if a child understands the implications of a health care decision, she/he may receive treatments regardless of parental knowledge. In the UK now the age of consent is 16, but under the Gillick ruling – Lord Scarman argued the only relevant issue was if the “child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.”
The UK Cass Report that is discussed below, defines “Gillick Competency” as follows:
“Gillick competence/ Fraser guidelines:
A term derived from Gillick v West Norfolk And Wisbech AHA,1984 – that is used to decide whether a child or young person up to the age of 16 years is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. A child or young person will be ‘Gillick competent’ for that decision if they have the necessary maturity and understanding to make the decision.” [108]
Other countries may not follow such legal routes, but instead apply the age of consent. But that age certainly differs by countries and historical time. For example, in the USSR after the 1936 constitution was adopted, the age of voting was 18:
“The new Constitution introduced secret elections, open to all aged over eighteen, regardless of class background.” [109]
All this is relevant only because of current furores over whether teenagers below current ages of consent – can choose gender altering therapies up to and including surgical procedures for themselves – without parental involvement; or, without perhaps fully understanding them long term. In the UK a detailed consideration of these matters was provided by an independent review authored by Dr. Cass in her 112 page report is.[110] Although it is an interim report, it states that adequate evidence is not available to be definitive as yet:
“1.5. The Review is not able to provide definitive advice on the use of puberty blockers and feminising/masculinising hormones at this stage, due to gaps in the evidence base.”
Nonetheless it immediately goes on to unequivocally state that:
“Every gender-questioning child or young person who seeks help from the NHS must receive the support they need to get on the appropriate pathway for them as an individual.
Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services.”
We definitely agree with this. However we go further.
Currently, we believe the data argues there are enough grounds to delay definitive therapies – especially since many have not been extensively studied for safety (see below). There are adequate concerns of later decisional regret in some teenagers who have made such potentially irreversible changes, to warrant a cautious approach. [111] The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) makes the point that decisional regret rates are simply unknown, and it expresses concern about the state of knowledge currently:
“Less attention has been paid to adverse psychological outcomes. Although the proponents of youth transition assert that detransition should not be thought of as a manifestation of a failed transition, this argument is hard to justify. Hormones and surgery irreversibly change the body and some of its key functions. And since gender transition is a lifelong process required to maintain a masculinized or feminized appearance, instances of medical detransition—reported by one study as reaching 30% within just 4 years of initiating treatment—is an alarming warning signal of high numbers of inappropriate transitions.” [112]
The number of these types of therapies have risen dramatically in the USA recently:
“The numbers of gender altering – or as the literature now tends to say “gender affirming” – surgeries in the USA are very large. For example between 2013 and 2020, the “incidence of gender-affirming mastectomy increased 13-fold (3.7 to 47.7 per 100,000 person-years).” [113]
“Last year Reuters performed an analysis of insurance data to try to quantify the number of children receiving medication or surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria. It found that the number of children accessing puberty blockers had risen, from 633 in 2017 to 1,390 in 2021. The number of children in hormone therapy had more than doubled, to 4,231. The analysis found evidence of 56 genital surgeries between 2017 and 2021. The number of children who underwent mastectomies as treatment for gender dysphoria in 2021 was 282, up from 238 in 2019.” [114]
Yet in January 2024 the W.H.O. pointed out that the evidence base for gender-changing therapies in children is weak, including safety of long term outcomes:
“5. Why will the guideline only cover adults and not also children or adolescents?
The scope will cover adults only and not address the needs of children and adolescents, because on review, the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents.” [115]
This probably in part explains why many European countries have limited childhood access to definitive gender changing therapy until more data is available. [116]
In a socialist society, it is expected that considerable effort would be made to ensure the child understands fully – both short and long-term consequences of gender altering therapy – before such routes are taken. However, the precise content of any laws to determine this process will require extensive working class consultation. These should start with the aim of defining the best interests of both individuals and society. Ultimately – we believe that society cannot benefit by oppressing the private, sexual wishes of a small minority. We will discuss the population dynamics and growth patterns, of a socialist society – at another juncture.
Part 4. Political conclusions in modern capitalist society
50 Under the most right-wing of capitalist governments – fascist regimes – those who were ‘different’ in many ways were persecuted. These included persecutions in Nazi Germany of Homosexuals, gypsies – as well as of course political dissenters led by Communists and socialists. In modern society, there are several instances of reactionary forces that espouse the suppression of Gay or LGBTQ+ Rights. These include several African states, Hungary, and the Republican-governed states of the USA.
51. Communists understand that they must stand with all the oppressed of the world, whether by dint of their class, or race, or religious doctrine, or nationality, or gender. While Communists emphasise the primary role of class oppression, they have always stood against all oppressions of the people – as they struggle against the ruling class. They build the widest united front against capital that is possible. But never disguising their goal of socialism of a working class-led state. It is time that the historic and correct stand against oppression of communists, is extended to variations of sexuality.
Notes
[1] Alison Flood, “Richard Dawkins loses ‘humanist of the year’ title over trans comments”; The Guardian 20 Apr 2021 at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments; and Richard Dawkins, “Why biological sex matters -Some argue that lived experience and personal choice trump biology–but they are wrong”; New Statesman, 26 July 2023;https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
[2] “ Your Maxim? Nihil humani a me alienum puto”; in “Karl Marx’s “Confession”, Zalt-Bommel, 1 April 1865; in Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, CW, London 1987; Vol. 42, 567; and at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm
[3] Anna Coco; “Use of Identity Politics to Undermine the Left”; Revolutionary Democracy; April 2023 Vol. 2, No. 1; 2023; at: https://revolutionarydemocracy.org
[4] Vol 47 No. 9; Socialist Unity Center India (Communist); Dec 15 2013; Provash Ghosh, p.2 at: https://pearchives.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pe12152013.pdf
[5] Ian Ocx, “The anti-Marxist nature of Queer-Antagonistic Revisionism”; “Red Phoenix” APL, July 10, 2023.https://redphoenixnews.com/2023/07/10/the-anti-marxist-nature-of-queer-antagonistic-revisionism/
[6] Alfonso Casal, ‘On homosexuality in the USSR’, Red Phoenix APL, May 8, 2023, MAY 8,
https://redphoenixnews.com/2023/05/08/on-homosexuality-in-the-ussr/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allostatic_load
[8] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The German Ideology”;1845-1846; vol 5; Moscow1976; p.89
[9] Hari Kumar; “Engels, Reductionism and the Epigenetics: The Lysenko Debate”; Marxism and Science Winter 2022; at https://marxismandsciences.org/engels-reductionism-and-epigenetics-the-lysenko-debate/
[10] Waddington, C. H. 2012. “The Epigenotype.” International Journal of Epidemiology 41(1):
10-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr184
[11] Lenin V.I. “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”; Collected Works 14; pp. 17-362; Moscow 1972; and at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/
[12] F. Engels letter to K. Marx from June 22, 1869; Engels, letter to [Friedrich] Sorge February 8, 1890;
[13]Harry Whyte: A Letter to Stalin”; and J.V.Stalin’s comment; https://homintern.soy/posts/harrywhyte.html
[14] Cited in Samuel Huneke; “Communist states have sometimes been havens for LGBTQ rights – When communism was queer”; https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/22/communist-states-have-sometimes-been-havens-lgbtq-rights/;
[15] Rebecca Jordan-Young & Raffaella I. Rumiati, “Hardwired for Sexism? Approaches to Sex/Gender in Neuroscience”; Neuroethics (2012) 5:305–315
[16] Melissa Hines, “Neuroscience and Sex/Gender: Looking Back and Forward”, The Journal of Neuroscience, 2020, 40(1):37– 43
[17] Lise Eliot, Adnan Ahmed, Hiba Khan, Julie Patel; “Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size”,
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (2021) 667–697
[18] “Gender and Health” World Health Organization (WHO) at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab1
[19] W.H.O. at https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#
[20] W.H.O. at https://www.refworld.org/docid/4e6073972.html
[21] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality”, New York 2011.
[22] Joshua D. Safer, and Vin Tangpricha, “Care of Transgender Persons”, New Engl J Med 2019;381:2451-60.
[23] Bolshevik Union, “On the Question of Homosexuality – Reply to the Body Politic Collective”; p.14-15; Lines of Demarcation, Montreal, January 1981.
[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KinseyReports#citenote-27
[25] Francis Sill Wickware, “Report on Kinsey“; “Life” magazine 2 August 1948; p.87-98 https://books.google.ca/books?id=10cEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA87&rediresc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
[26] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality”, ibid, p.5
[27] Melissa Hines, “Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior”, Front Neuroendocrinol. 2011; 32(2): 170–182.
[28] https://www.usa.gov/census-data
[29] Lydia Anderson, Thom File, Joey Marshall, Kevin McElrath, and Zachary Scherer; “New Household Pulse Survey Data Reveals Differences between LGBT and Non-LGBT Respondents During COVID-19 Pandemic”; November 04, 2021
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/census-bureau-survey-explores-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity.html
[30] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/lgbt-pride-month.html
[31] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1331358/sexual-orientation-gender-identity-us/
[32] Safer, and Tangpricha, New Engl J Med 2019; Ibid
[33] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality”, ibid, p.13
[34] Safer, and Tangpricha, New Engl J Med 2019; Ibid
[35] F. Engels letter to K. Marx of June 22, 1869; CW Volume 43; p.295-6; Moscow 1988.
[36]Harry Whyte: A Letter to Stalin”; and J.V.Stalin’s comment at: https://homintern.soy/posts/harrywhyte.html
[37] August Bebel, “On Homosexuality and the Penal Code“; Speech to Reichstag 13 January 1898; https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1898/01/13.htm; and Samuel Huneke; “Communist states have sometimes been havens for LGBTQ rights – When communism was queer”; https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/22/communist-states-have-sometimes-been-havens-lgbtq-rights/;
[38] V.I.Lenin “August Bebel” 1913; Collected Works Vol 19 Moscow 1977; and at https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/08.htm
[39] See Clara Zetkin; Reminiscences of Lenin (January 1924); Originally New York; 1934; at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1924/reminiscences-of-lenin.htm#h07
[40] Letter to Inessa Armand; January 17, 1915; CW Volume 35; p. 180-181 or at: Moscow 1976; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jan/17.htm
[41] Cited by Dennis Healey, “Homosexual Existence And Existing Socialism: New Light on the Repression of Male Homosexuality in Stalin’s Russia”; GLQ (2002) 8 (3): 349–378. from Lenin and I.F.Armand,1915, in V.I.Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed. (Moscow: Politicheskaia literatura, 1960), 49: 51–52, 54–57.
[42] Cited by Dan Healey, “Homosexual Existence And Existing Socialism: New Light on the Repression of Male Homosexuality in Stalin’s Russia”; GLQ (2002) 8 (3): 349–378.
[43] Bland W.B. “The Struggle Against Revisionism In The Field of Linguistics,” in Compass Communist League London UK, February 1997, No. 126, at https://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1997/02/struggle-against-revisionism-field-linguistics.pdf
[44] W.B.Bland, ‘Stalin & The Arts – On Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics,’ Talk to Stalin Society London, 1993; in Alliance 53 August 2004; at: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/A2004/STALINART.html
[45] W.B.Bland, “Marxism and Law – The struggle over jurisprudence in the Soviet Union – Talk to the Stalin Society London, March 2000”, at:
[46] Oxford English Dictionary cited by Wikipedia; at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
[47] Dan Healey; Ibid pp. 356-7
[48] See for instance Bland WB “Stalin – The Myth and the Reality”; London 1976; at: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/combat/x01.pdf
[49] Healey Ibid; p. 362
[50] Igor Kon, chapter entitled ‘Soviet Homophobia’, 1998; at https://www.xgayru.info/english/history/kon/soviet.htm
[51] W.B.Bland, “Marxism and Law – The struggle over jurisprudence in the Soviet Union – Talk to the Stalin Society London, March 2000”, at:
[52] W.B.Bland, “Marxism and Law – The struggle over jurisprudence in the Soviet Union – Talk to the Stalin Society London, March 2000”, at:
[53] ‘Kodi Penal’ (The Penal Code), Articles 135-37, in: ‘Kodet e Republikes Popullore Socialiste te Shqiperise (The Codes of The People’s Socialist Republic of Albania); Tirana; 1982; p. 45; cited by W.B.Bland reply to J.Broom, ‘Albanian Life’ Journal of the Albanian Society, London Number 44 – No.1 1989; pages 32-38
[54] Elezi (Ed.): ‘E Drejta Penale a Republikes Popullore Socialiste te Shqiperise’ (The Penal Law of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania); Tirana; 1982; p. 338; Cited By Bland W.B. Ibid.
[55] V.I.Lenin “Materialism and Empiro-criticism”; chap 6; Moscow 1967; p. 341
[56] Modified from https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/X-Chromosome-facts
[57] Phoenix CH, Goy RW, Gerall AA, Young WC (1959) Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology 65:163–196.
[58] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
[59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
[60] Rebecca Jordan-Young & Raffaella I. Rumiati 2013; Ibid.
[61] Hines M, 2020 Ibid
[62] Hines M, 2020 Ibid
[63] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality” Ibid, 2011; p.24-5
[64] Dick F. Swaab, Samantha E.C. Wolff, And Ai-Min Bao
[65] S. Marc Breedlove, “Prenatal Influences on Human Sexual Orientation: Expectations versus Data”; Arch Sex Behav; 2017 Aug;46(6):1583-1592
[66] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23116-cloacal-exstrophy
[67] Melissa Hines, “Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior”, Front Neuroendocrinol. 2011; 32(2): 170–182.
[68] Bruno Gegenhuber and Jessica Tollkuhn, “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Brain Sexual
Differentiation”; Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2022;14:a039099
[69] Andreas Kyriakou, Angela K Lucas-Herald, Ruth McGowan, Edward S Tobias
S Faisal Ahmed, “Disorders of sex development: advances in genetic diagnosis and challenges in management“, Advances in Genomics and Genetics 2015:5 165–177
[70] Globa, Evgenia; Zelinska, Natalia; Shcherbak, Yulia; Bignon-Topalovic, Joelle; Bashamboo, Anu; MсElreavey, Ken; “Disorders of Sex Development in a Large Ukrainian Cohort: Clinical Diversity and Genetic Findings”; Frontiers in endocrinology. , 2022, Vol.13, p.810782
[71] Hines M; Ibid; Journal of Neuroscience 2020, 40 (1) 37-43
[72] Lise Eliot, Adnan Ahmed, Hiba Khan, Julie Patel, “Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size”; Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (2021) 667–697
[73] Joel, Daphna; Berman, Zohar; Tavor, Ido; et al; “Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic”, PNAS, 2015, Vol.112(50), p.15468-15473
[74] Lise Eliot 2021 Ibid
[75] Figure from: Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al., editors. “Neuroscience”; 2nd edition; Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2001. Figure 30.7; At: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10994/
[76] LeVay S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science. 1991;253:1034–1037
[77] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality” Ibid, 2011; p.119
[78] Balthazart, Jacques, “The biology of homosexuality” Ibid, 2011; p.120
[79] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otoacoustic_emission
[80] Breedlove, Arch Sex Behav; 2017; Ibid.
[81] Breedlove, Arch Sex Behav; 2017; Ibid.
[82] Madeleine Foreman, Lauren Hare, Kate York et al: “ Genetic Link Between Gender Dysphoria and Sex Hormone Signaling”, J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 2019;104(2):390-396.
[83] Elke Stefanie Smitha, Jessica Junger, Birgit Derntl, Ute Habel; “The transsexual brain – A review of findings on the neural basis of transsexualism“; Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 59 (2015) 251–266
[84] Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al., editors. “Neuroscience”; 2nd edition; Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2001; At: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10994/
[85] Hines M, 2020 Ibid
[86] Qian-Qian Zhang, Cheng Xing, Ya-Ya Cai, Xiao-Ting Yan, Guang-Guo Ying; “How much do human and livestock actually contribute to steroids emission and surface water pollution from past to the future: A global research.” Science of the Total Environment 772 (2021) 145558
[87] Marta Gea, Anna Toso, Giuseppe Nicolò Bentivegna, Raffaele Buganza, Enrica Abrigo, Luisa De Sanctis and Tiziana Schilirò; “ Oestrogenic Activity in Girls with Signs of Precocious Puberty as Exposure Biomarker to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Pilot Study”; Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, (14).
[88] Zana Percy, Yingying Xu, Heidi Sucharew et al: “Gestational exposure to phthalates and
gender-related play behaviors in 8-year-old
children: an observational study“; Environmental Health (2016) 15:87
[89] Chapter 31; Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 181 (3rd series) The Human Hypothalamus: Neuroendocrine Disorders D.F. Swaab, R.M. Buijs, P.J. Lucassen, A. Salehi, and F. Kreier, Editors; Elsevier 2021; Dick F. Swaab, Samantha E.C. Wolff, And Ai-Min Bao “Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus: Relationship to gender identity and sexual orientation.”
[90] Madeline Streifera and Andrea C. Gore, “Epigenetics, estrogenic
endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and the brain”; Adv Pharmacol Advances in pharmacology. , 2021, Vol.92, p.73-99
[91] Linda Dieckmann and Darina Czamara, “Epigenetics of prenatal stress in humans: the current research landscape”; Clinical Epigenetics (2024) 16:20
[92] Frederick Engels, “Origin of the Family, Private Property and State”; 1884; in Marx and Engels CW; Volume 26; Moscow 1990; p.274; a version is at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm
[93] Barker, D.J. (2002). Fetal programming of adult disease. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 13, 364–368; Barker, D.J., Gluckman, P.D., Godfrey, K.M., Harding, J.E., Owens, J.A., & Robinson, J.S. (1993). Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in adult life. Lancet, 341, 938–941.
[94] Nicole M. Talge, Charles Neal, Vivette Glover, “Antenatal maternal stress and long-term effects on child neurodevelopment: how and why?”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48:3/4 (2007), pp 245–261
[95] Nicole M. Talge, 2007 Ibid.
[96] Megan C. Hansel, Hannah R. Murphy, Jessica Brunner et al, “Associations between neighborhood stress and maternal sex steroid hormones in pregnancy”; BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2023) 23:730
[97] D. J. P. Barker, “The origins of the developmental origins theory”, Journal of Internal Medicine 2007; 261; 412–417
[98] Bates RA, Ford JL, Jiang H, Pickler R, Justice LM, Dynia JM, Ssekayombya P, “Sociodemographics and chronic stress in mother-toddler dyads living in poverty”, Dev Psychobiol. 2021 Sep;63(6):e22179;
[99] Evans GW, Farah MJ, Hackman DA, ‘Early childhood poverty and adult executive functioning: Distinct, mediating pathways for different domains of executive functioning”, Dev Sci. 2021 Sep;24(5):e13084
[100] Schwabe L, Bohbot VD, Wolf OT, “Prenatal stress changes learning strategies in adulthood”,
Hippocampus. 2012 Nov;22(11):2136-43.
[101] Dick F. Swaab, Samantha E.C. Wolff, And Ai-Min Bao “Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus: Relationship to gender identity and sexual orientation.” Chapter 31; Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 181 (3rd series), “The Human Hypothalamus: Neuroendocrine Disorders”; D.F. Swaab, R.M. Buijs, P.J. Lucassen, A. Salehi, F. Kreier, (Eds); Elsevier 2021; citing: L.Ellis, S.Cole-Harding “The effects of prenatal stress, and of prenatal alcohol and nicotine exposure, on human sexual orientation”, Physiol Behav 2001 Sep;74(1-2):213-26.
[102] G.Dorner, B. Schenk, B. Schmiedel, L Ahrens, “Stressful events in prenatal life of bi- and homosexual men Exp Clin Endocrinol;1983 Jan;81(1):83-7; and R.E.Goodman, “Understanding human sexuality — specifically homosexuality and the paraphilias — in terms of chaos theory and fetal development”; Medical Hypotheses, Vol 48 (3): 237-243,1997
[103] Melissa Hines, Front Neuroendocrinol. 2011; Ibid
[104] Melissa Hines, 2011; Ibid; citing Bailey JM, Willerman L, Parks C.”Maternal stress theory of human homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1991; 20:277–293; & Hines M, Johnston K, Golombok S, et al “ Prenatal stress and gender role behavior in girls and boys: A longitudinal, population study”, Hormones and Behavior. 2002; 42:126–134
[105] Hines, Melissa, “Human gender development”,
Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews; 2020, Vol.118, p.89-96
[106] Helyar S et al, “Gender Dysphoria in children and young people: The implications for clinical staff of the Bell V’s Tavistock Judicial Review and Appeal Ruling”, J Clin Nurs. 2022 May;31(9-10):e11-e13
[107] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence
[108] Cass “Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people:
Interim report’; February 2022 p.83 at https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf
[109] Sarah Davies, “Popular Opinion In Stalin’s Russia: Terror, Propaganda, and Dissent, 1934-1941”, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997; p. 102
[110]Cass Ibid ; February 2022;
https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf
[111] Pamela Paul, ‘As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do’;
New Y Times, Feb. 2, 2024; https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html
[112] SEGM, “Accurate transition regret and detransition rates are unknown
Widespread methodological problems limit the reliability of “low transition regret” claims’, September 11, 2023; https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown
[113] Annie Tang, J Carlo Hojilla, Jordan E Jackson, et al, “Gender-Affirming Mastectomy Trends and Surgical Outcomes in Adolescents”, Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May; 88(4 Suppl): S325–S331.
[114] Lydia Pohlgren,‘There Is No Way to Live a Life Without Regret’, New Y Times, Dec 1, 2023.
[115] W.H.O. “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) WHO development of a guideline on the health of trans and gender diverse people’, 15 January 2024; at: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/tgd_faq_16012024.pdf?sfvrsn=79eaf57f_1
[116]https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
