Given - determinative genes (and even those predict a very high probability of gene=outcome rather than a certainty) such as those used in classic Mendelian squares are by far the exception, not the norm. Most genes are more contributive and interactive with other internal biological factors and external factors which affect the organism that possess said gene.
Given - Unless one defines gender in a purely physical sense (and even then there are cases where the lines get blurred) the gender is a very nebulous concept that defies any certain definition.
Given - The degree to which one defines characteristics as being more "real" if they are internal or if they are performative/external along with the degree these must match in order to feel right varies from individual to individual. Compound this by the nebulous definition of gender. Add to this that there is pressure in current culture to define outer and performative as more real.
Given - breaking outside of gender norms is punished socially in a large variety of ways. The more visible the being outside is, the more it is punished. By dent of seeing externals but not internals culture works this way. Thus active transition is arguably the biggest case of "breaking gender rules" and most punished culturally.
Given - the way any individual balances internal and social pressures is, well, highly individual.
Conclusion - with the number of variables, many of them acting directly to repress the expression of said gene, 0.06% is a lot more significant than a cursory glance at that small number may appear.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 08:28 pm (UTC)Given - determinative genes (and even those predict a very high probability of gene=outcome rather than a certainty) such as those used in classic Mendelian squares are by far the exception, not the norm. Most genes are more contributive and interactive with other internal biological factors and external factors which affect the organism that possess said gene.
Given - Unless one defines gender in a purely physical sense (and even then there are cases where the lines get blurred) the gender is a very nebulous concept that defies any certain definition.
Given - The degree to which one defines characteristics as being more "real" if they are internal or if they are performative/external along with the degree these must match in order to feel right varies from individual to individual. Compound this by the nebulous definition of gender. Add to this that there is pressure in current culture to define outer and performative as more real.
Given - breaking outside of gender norms is punished socially in a large variety of ways. The more visible the being outside is, the more it is punished. By dent of seeing externals but not internals culture works this way. Thus active transition is arguably the biggest case of "breaking gender rules" and most punished culturally.
Given - the way any individual balances internal and social pressures is, well, highly individual.
Conclusion - with the number of variables, many of them acting directly to repress the expression of said gene, 0.06% is a lot more significant than a cursory glance at that small number may appear.