The controversy over SOGI has produced on these pages more heat than light.
Opinionated passion has obliterated factual reason. To aver that there is “lack of evidence” for the reality of gender dysphoria experience misrepresents the role scientific research and evinces a disingenuous mindset of denial and purposeful obfuscation. The admittedly sparse literature on gender identity over the past quarter century has brought to light the close interconnection of mind and body, of biology and cultural environmental influences. That the work of G. Rieger, et al., R. Blanchard, et al., and A. Bogaert has survived the gauntlet of peer-review in prestigious journals such as Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine and Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, representing years of hard but careful effort on sensitive areas with vulnerable people ought to be accorded more credence than the unfounded dismissive pronouncements of self-anointed local public “experts” seeking approval (nobody ever said science was easy).
The current consensus among real, not quasi scientists is that gender identity and hence gender dysphoria stem from embryological causes in utero, most often during the first half of pregnancy.
Thus, this circumstance is no more of a choice than congenital heart defect, and no more easily “correctable” by surgery, if done early enough. Indeed, it takes some time for visible objective markers to manifest: morphological (finger-length and limb/trunk ratios), familial (sibling birth order and gender), cognitive (brain lateralization) and behavioural (playmate choices). These effects are supported by monozygotic twin studies in Denmark. Provisionally, then, gender identity is an emergent property of random prenatal differential of fetal brains, with lead actors genes, sex hormones, and neural systems they influence. No single piece of evidence is a clincher. Most gendered traits are continuous and dimensional, lying anywhere along a broad spectrum but sexual orientation is categorical, a deterministic developmental process.
To excoriate, render a fragile segment of society nugatory is not only totally and morally irresponsible, but evinces a dearth of empathy and compassion in our public discourse. This intrusive foray into private worlds and the bullying exclusionist thinking is all too reminiscent of the cruelty of racism.
Owen Delane,
Chilliwack