Is There Really A Continuum of Human Gender?


Along side the debate over human cloning is another equally contraversial area of research. Scientists all over the United States are wanting to do more research in the field of Behavioral Endocrinology. A related area to this, and the most hotly contested area of research, concerns the role of nature vs. nurture in the differentiation and development of human gender and sexuality. In other words, How sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, dihydrotestosterone...etc) affect the development or expression of gender specific (male vs. female) characteristics and behavior in humans. Very few of these experiments can be done ethically on humans themselves. This is because of the "GIGANTIC" influence which these hormones exhibit over multiple system masculinization and feminization. These hormones determine internal and external genitalia, the ability to produce viable sperm and eggs, and the development of some masculine and feminine brain areas; just to mention a few (not including any behavioral effects). Any significant manipulation of these hormones can result in drastic changes to any one of these very important aspects of Human sexuality. For example, If a female fetus were to be exposed to significant levels of testosterone during a critical period in-utero the fetus could develop masculinization of some neural nucleii. Thus leading to a genetic female (XX) with an inability to bear children due to failed development of the neural "surge-center." Because scientists cannot directly test their hypotheses through human experimentation, they must rely upon the study of patients that have been born with diseases or defects.

There has been a fringe movement among behavioral neuroscientists and behavioral Endocrinologists whom, upon examination of these patients, have called into question the traditional view that the human species is limited to two genders (male and female). They have actually suggested that there is a continuum of human gender. From male-----to some number of intermediates-----to female. This theory has had many proponents, a large proportion of whom are among the homosexual population. Feminism, with its blurring of gender specific roles, has prepared our society to buy into this theory and it is beginning to prove persuasive to many (especially non-scientific) groups around the world. Mainstream science is, however, beginning to be affected by these claims and there has been a willingness on the part of some to accept the "possiblility" of a Gender Continuum. Listen to how a modern medical text on Human Endocrinology defines male gender;

"1) Chromosomal Composition and structure (the inclusion of a Y chromosome among the sex chromosomes)
2) gonads that are functionally and structurally testes
3) tonic (constant) androgen production in adequate amounts
4) external and internal genitalia that are appropriate for a male
5) rearing as a male
6) acceptance of a male role

Thus, the male sexual Identity is the summation of the four genetically determined organic charicteristics (1-4) as well as the two psycological characteristics (5 and 6)."

The logical extrapolation from this assessment is that an individual who does not exhibit one or more of these traits could not be classified as a "true male"- but rather something else. This is only one example of the trend which is invading this area of medical research. There is a real reason that this view is on the fringe of the science community. This reason is that there is really no evidence to scientifically support this theory unless you minimize the far-reaching and diffuse differences between males and females, and begin to call diseases "trials of nature" or really to call individuals "healthy" when it is clear that they are "sick" (in the medical sense). In the following discussion I will examine the "evidence" used by proponents of the "Continuum Theory" and show why this theory of human gender fails to accurately represent the facts.


Polysomal Mutations are "DISORDERS" and are "NOT" normal:
Many of the "sexual variants," used by supporters of the "continuum" view of human gender, are produced by polysomal mutations of the sex-Chromosomes. Polysomal mutations occur due to abnormal or disjunct dissassociation of sex chromosomes durring either oogenesis (production of eggs) or spermatogenesis (production of sperm). One such example of this is Klinefelter Syndrome (Paternal Trisomy-47) which results in a genetic male having the external anatomical characteristics of a female. When this happens with other genes, scientists and doctors are quick to recognise that these occurences are abnormal and detrimental. Rarely do fetuses with a polysomal mutation actually survive to birth. Those fetuses that do, result in abnormalities, which severely limit life expectancy. There are multiple Trisomy disorders in humans, most of which cause spontaneous abortions. Trisomy-47 (Klinefelter's Syndrome) is one of the few that do not always result in unsustainable pregnancy. There is one trisomy disorder that is familiar to most of us, Trisomy-21, which results in some forms of Down's Syndrome. It is interesting that some scientists would actually suggest that this trisomy "disease" is a sign of the human gender "continuum." Maternal Trisomy-47XXX results in a disease known as "Triple X Syndrome." This syndrome is chracterized by severe mental retardation, and other mild skeletal abnormalities. It is not sound scientific inquiry for a person to arbitrarily claim support for their theory from genetic diseases.

Single gene mutations result in "Disease":
Others of these sexual variants are the result, not of a chromosomal (large collection of genes) mutation, but a mutation of single genes. AIS (Androgren Insensitivity Syndrome) is one such example. This syndrome occurs when the gene for the androgen (testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, etc.) receptor is missing or contains programming errors. This leads to an individual with either an absence of the androgen receptor or, in milder cases, a mal-functioning androgen receptor. Without a properly functioning copy of this receptor, the body cannot respond appropriately to androgens. These hormones are responsible for some of the masculinization of the male brain, and most of the male body (at least on the gross anatomical scale). There are multiple other examples of single gene mutations; these mutations lead to disease. One example is when there is a deletion of Hox-4. The Hox genes are very important in the development of the hindbrain of the developing fetus. The hindbrain is called the rhombencephlon. It is devided into 8 segments known as Rhombomeres. These Rhombomeres become definite parts of the adult hindbrain (Cerebellum, Pons,Medulla, Spinal Cord). When the Hox-4 gene is absent the developing hindbrain only gets separated into 7 segments. Segments 3 and 5 fuse together and segment 4 is therefore missing. This single gene mutation has been associated with a common form of Autism. Some people may point to other single gene mutations which result in positive effects in patients who have them. The mutation whose homozygous karyotype results in Cystic Fibrosis( a severe blood disorder) also results in a limited immunity to specific types of malaria. Another such example is a single gene mutation which results in the absence of an immune molecule known as CD-40. This molecule is necessary for the Aids Virus to access human T-cells. There is a small population in South-Central Europe who lack the gene for the CD-40 molecule. These people are immune to the Aids Virus. The question could be asked, "If these mutations result in positive outcomes for those who have them why can't we consider those who lack an androgen receptor or the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme to be positive mutations rather than diseases?" The reason is that patients who suffer from these mutations also have adverse effects as a result of their presence. Those who are heterozygous for the Cystic fibrosis mutation also suffer from a much higher incidence of asthma and other mild lung infections. Those who lack the CD-40 molecule also suffer adverse consequences due to this mutation. The CD-40 molecule is an integral part of our immune systems and is involved in modulating the immune response. Those who lack the CD-40 molecule are immunocompromised and are much more susceptible to other viruses and infections which would be avoided by other healthy individuals. Simply because the presence of one disease leads to the exclusion of another disease does not mean that it is a "good" mutation, nor that it is "normal." Here is an example that will make this a little more clear. There are a number of recent studies which implicate a process known as "molecular-mimickry" in the development of many neuro-degenerative diseases, especially those whose pathology are focused on the myelin sheaths surrounding nerve cells. One such disease is MS (Multiple Sclerosis). Here is how the process works. As our bodies are introduced to various viruses, such as HPV (human papillonoma virus), our adaptive immune response becomes more and more specific for the virus over time. It does this by modifying it's repatoire of antibodies. As the concentration of these antibodies increases in the blood, they come into contact with normal tissues that have molecules on the outside of them which can look very much like a molecule on the outside of the human papillanoma virus. This is sometimes the case with protiens on the outside of nerve cells such a MBP (myelin basic protein and etc). Those cells which are marked by these antibodies are then eliminated by cytotoxic T-cells. This means that perfect healthy "self-tissues" can be targeted and distroyed by T-cells which were supposed to be killing the human papillonoma virus resulting in organ failure or tissue distruction. Diseases of this kind are known as Auto-immune diseases. This means that mutation which leads to an auto-immune disease also results in the more efficient killing of HPV. This is an example of a bad mutation resulting in a "good" effect. It should be clear that simply because there are good aspects to a disease, does not mean that it is not still properly a disease.


Male vs. Female Differences are "diffuse":
Another reason why the gender continuum fails miserably to match scientific evidence is because it gives the impression that the only differences between males and females are hormonal. There have been a number of recent studies that implicate non-hormonal genes and gene-products in the differentiation between male and female conspecifics in mammals, and extend beyond the differentiation of internal and external sexual apparatus and reproductive behavior. This has been largely apparent in the mammalian brain, where multiple neural nucleii are affected by gender specific gene products which are not hormones. This is almost totally ignored by those who wish to foist their ideas of a gender continuum upon the scientific world and the general public. It is true that there are some very surprising abnormalities resulting from genetic diseases or other toxic insults to the development of "normal" male and female characteristics. These abnormalities, however, should not be thought of as "norms" simply because it allows us to maintain our own worldview. The appropriate question arising from these sexual anomalies is not, is there a continuum of human sexuality, but rather to which of the two gender classes do they belong. In other words, are hermaphrodites, Klinefelter sufferers, and others anomalous males or anomalous females? We know from Scripture that it is one of the two, rather than some 3rd or 4th or 5th variant, "male and female He created them." The term disease applies no less to a missing or mal-shaped androgen receptor than it does to a missing or mal-shaped insulin receptor. Nor is it more appropriate to call a trisomy disorder of Chromosome-21 an illness than to give the same designation to a trisomy disorder of the sex-chromosomes. Procreation should never be implied to be the only thing which differentiates a male and a female. Rather the Scriptures speak of these difference as being much deeper and diffuse. These differences are pervasive and stem from God himself, in whose image mankind is created. They extend much further than the reproductive relationship and are woven into every aspect of life. It is certainly a scientific oversimplification, but it is also a biblical oversimplification to limit the differences between males and females to their reproductive repitoire.


Conclusion:
Why is there this dispairity between diseases that we all ( human society) see as detrimental and these sexual variants? The reason that we do not see this same type of concern with regard to androgen insensitivity and the like, is that it strikes too closely to our sin. Romans 1 calls this "supressing the truth." If science is able to prove that there is a continuum of human gender then the long held Judeo-Christian view of the Human race is false. There is not merely male and female, with their clearly defined biblical roles, but there is a continuum of genders whose responsibilities and roles are self-prescribed. If we begin to call the difference betwen males and females a "gray area," and we blame our sins of homosexuality and feminism on genetic programming rather than rebellion against the Law of God and a "perversion" of His design as seen in nature and revealed in his Word then we are led down paths toward confusion. This confusion leads to giving our own sin "Nature's stamp of approval," but spiritually, physically, and communially it creates a willful inability to help the sick. This is obvious from what Christ himself said, "the well do not need a physician, but the sick." In the same way we will be turning our back as a medical and scientific community on those who are sick by calling them "well," thereby placing them outside of the realm of help.

"Am I, or Am I Not.... Pregnant?!"
No, I am not asking this question for myself. Look at my profile; I am a male, and I understand the great improbabilities of a person of my chromosomal make-up actually conceiving a child. I am asking this question on behalf of parents who may be a little confused over this issue. Some people may laugh at this remark and wonder, "Is any woman really in doubt about whether or not she is pregnant?" The answer is "Absolutely Yes." Some of you might want to simplify this question and answer it by telling these women to go buy a pregnancy test or go to their physician and get a blood test and stop tormenting themselves with a question that can be easily answered with available diagnostic techniques. It is true, this has not always been such a difficult question to answer. There once was a time when it was obvious whether or not a woman was pregnant. The characteristic "Absent Period," morning sickness, abnormal food cravings, fainting spells due to gestational orthostatic hypotension (sudden drop in blood pressure upon standing up from a seated position during pregnancy), and if these were not enough, the swollen abdomen was usually an obvious give-away. But for those who were still left in the dark in spite of these clues, there is no denying the pains of actual child birth. However, gone are the days of "obvious" signs of pregnancy. Gone are the days of even going and getting a blood test, or picking up a pregnancy test at the nearest drug store for determining whether or not a woman is pregnant. In spite of all of our advanced biotechnologies which are professed to the layman by the medical and scientific community as being "elucidating," it seems that the answer to this question is still "eluding" many.

So, now that some of us are thoroughly confused; why am I saying this? Well, believe it or not, the question in my heading is actually a very insightful one. At one point in history it would have been seen as the question of knaves and children, but now it is a query that belongs to many highly intelligent men and women. In large part it is due to a change in modern medicine and reproductive biology which breeds this kind of confusion. It is a change that has taken over the scientific community with a silence that is deafening. This change has occurred without notice by most of the general public, and the scientific community has been anything but forthcoming with it's shift. This silent morphing of the scientific community is what I like to call, "The Mute-ation of the Biological Sciences." This silence is characteristic of a movement that has been cementing itself in the minds of many scientific and medical practitioners for about 40 years. The scientific and medical communities think that the average American has no ability to discern the meaning of scientific experimentation and discovery. "The masses cannot be trusted," is the theme of many professionals in these fields. The biological sciences, probably more so than any other field, has become a field of "specialists" and "experts." This broadening of the gap between the "experts" and the "layman" is beginning to look more and more like a case of the "blind leading the blind." But all of the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the so called "experts." When it comes to scientific inquiry the average American has put their brains on the shelf and have accepted, without hesitation, every word from the mouth of self-deified "experts." What If I were to tell you that it is this change which has led to a real confusion over the topic in my heading? This is something of the measure of the great insanity that has become the characteristic of post-modern man. We cannot any longer understand in clear terms what a person, especially in the medical and scientific communities, means when they speak of "pregnancy." There is an old saying of protestant ministers which describes perfectly the situation in which many women find themselves today. It goes like this; "When there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the pew." The troubling question of my heading is a product of the great confusion in the medical and scientific community over this once very simple issue. It is a confusion which permeates many other important issues; ranging from Embryonic Stem Cell Research to ART (assisted reproductive technology) to the use of birth control.

How, exactly, has this definition changed? It used to be that when a doctor told a woman she was pregnant there was no confusion over what was intended. There was clear, definite communication. This is because there was no ambiguity in the terms that he used. They were both speaking the same language. Likewise, when a doctor told a woman that she was not pregnant, his meaning was clear. The woman did not walk away in a mental haze wondering what the doctor had just said. For many it was painfully obvious. But now, If a woman were to be told by her physician that she was not pregnant, it would be a legitimate response for her to question what the doctor really meant. Why is this? It is because the medical and scientific community and the average man or woman are, in many cases,no longer speaking the same language. There is no longer an agreement between the doctor and his patient or the scientist and the public concerning what it means to be pregnant. Formerly, when a doctor said that a woman was pregnant he meant, and was understood to mean, that there was a baby (in whatever developmental stage it was in) inside of her. (For now I am going to put aside the fact that there is equal confusion over what constitutes an ovum, a blastocyst, and an embryo, as well as the ways in which these differ from one another). But, now, suddenly, when many physicians tell a woman she is pregnant they are no longer meaning that she has a BABY inside of her. What they mean is that a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall. What does this mean? Well for starters it means that what once was considered to be a pregnant woman is no longer considered to be a pregnant woman. In other words, a woman does not become pregnant until the fertilized egg (the baby) has implanted in the endometrial lining of the uterus. She may have a "fertilized egg" or an "ovum" for almost 72 hours (sometimes longer)migrating down her fallopian tubes, but she is not pregnant (according to the new definition) until the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall. Some may now see this question for what it really is; it is the other side of the coin of the "when does life begin" issue. When viewed from this perspective, it cannot be denied that a shift has taken place in our scientific and medical communities. I am not here going to debate the issue of the evidence for or against any particular view of this topic. However, what I hope to do, is to help unsuspecting people who have already made up their minds concerning the "when does life begin" dilemma, to see through some shifts in the medical and scientific community, or at least to motivate them to think about these things in a more informed manner.

For most of orthodox Christianity life is believed to begin at conception ( When an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm). This is at the heart of the embryonic stem cell research debate. But many Christians do not realize that this is practically the same issue that is at stake when we think about "chemical" birth-control. This was the same conclusion to which the members of the President's Council on Bioethics came as they debated this topic among themselves. This council is made up of the leading scientists, doctors and theologians of our time, many of whom are in favor of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They too recognize that if one is to oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research because they are "babies" and not just "inchoate clusters of cells" then he/she must also oppose the use of all known "chemical birth control." This may sound shocking to some Christian men and women who are currently using "the pill" or "the patch" or "the shot" or "the implant" in hopes of avoiding "pregnancy." Many Christians use "chemical" birth control because they believe it will keep them from getting "pregnant." However, this is not a realistic hope, at least not using the "traditional" rather than the "new" definition of pregnancy. All known chemical birth control agents (except spermicides) act in 3 ways. The first way is by changing the chemical make-up of the vaginal mucosa which impedes sperm motility, thereby decreasing the probability of egg fertilization. The second way is by "tricking" the body into thinking that it is already pregnant by mimicking the elevated concentration of serum hormones that occurs during pregnancy , and therefore reducing the likelihood of ovulation. The third way that these chemical birth-control medications act is by making the endometrial lining of the uterine wall inhospitable to a "fertilized egg" (a baby) if one should exist, resulting in spontaneous abortion. Calling these chemical birth-control agents contraceptives is a misnomer because all non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents are abortifacient as well. It is this third action which is the troubling one. It has been estimated that every woman who has consistently taken birth control, and who has had sex an average of 1 time per week, will have aborted at lest 1 fetus every 3-5 years(Some more, some less). Some people may argue that this third action is most unlikely because the other 2 are about 95% effective in preventing conception. This is completely accurate and has been factored into the estimated number of spontaneous abortions in the statement above. It is the 5% in which these first 2 actions fail to prevent conception that leads to the spontaneous abortion of nascent life.

Some men and women may feel like they have been misled by the scientific community after reading this. I wish I was able to disagree with you, however, I cannot. You might have gone to your physician in an attempt to be responsible parents and simply asked, "What can I take to keep from getting pregnant?" Maybe your doctor then gave you a prescription and you have thought nothing about it since. I hope this essay changes that. Unknown to many Christians the scientific community has already begun to answer some of these moral questions for us, but they are hiding their answers behind the scenes. They have in some cases, such as our topic here, already moved ahead on the basis of their own definitions and have covered their tracks by using "old" and "familiar" terms, but only after evacuating their old and familiar meanings. Someone might ask, "are you saying that the use of chemical birth-control is wrong?!" I hope this is the question that many are asking themselves right now. The answer is, "Yes, for now." What I mean by that is, that the current chemical birth control agents are not permissible for use by Christians as a means to avoid "pregnancy." However, there may be future discoveries which may avoid the aspects of current medicines which make them unbiblical for use as contraceptives. The broader question of "is birth-control, in general right or wrong" is beyond the scope of this essay which is only intended to address the issue of non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents.