monagustafsonaffinito   CHATS AND RANTS — PSYCHOLOGY AND LIFE

The creator makes no two humans alike, but, if one chooses to think in terms of the Holy book, then it’s important to note that the hairs on each of our heads are counted and known, indicating that each of us is a treasured product of creation. If I’ve understood the holy writings correctly, no one is rejected by the creator for being imperfect. 

Or, maybe like the potter whose bowls all have the stamp of approval, not one is recognized as perfect, but each is recognized for its particular value – even its peculiarities.

We humans don’t particularly like that truth as we try to impose dichotomies like good/bad, worthy/unworthy, normal/abnormal, Republican/Democrat, even male/female. But that misleading convenience can lead us into a cruel trap. Why? Because it just plain isn’t accurate. And no human being has the Godlike authority to make it true by declaring that only two sexes, male and female, will be legally recognized.

I personally am most comforted by, even fascinated by, science — the ability given to us by whatever is our creative source to think and carefully study the product of creation. So I question friends with more knowledge than mine (like Dan Ress), and I read. Right now I’m on page 92 of Adam Rutherford’s A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived:The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes. No, I couldn’t possibly pass a test on the content that’s passed through my brain in those 92 pages. What I have learned is that truth is infinitely greater than our feeble human desire to simplify. Like the awe I feel when I read the more-than-I-can-remember content shared by Neil de Grasse Tyson’s Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. But then there’s an area where I do feel a degree of competence – human personality.

In teaching the psychology of women, I loved learning of the many hormonal response stages of fetal development where things can vary from dichotomous expectations. But these days there is a general enthusiasm for one particular measure of human genetic variety, the X and Y chromosomes. The assumption seems so conveniently simple, there are only two possible beginnings, XX or XY, one developing into a female and the other a male. Those in authority even take it on themselves to declare that those are the only two legally acceptable gender indicators  — male or female — anything else being a “hoax.” Taken a step further it’s convenient to conclude that one born with an XX combination is unequivocably a female and an XY is male. 

But wait! The creator has given us much more variety. Here’s a list of survivable combinations: XO (a single X), XXY, XXX, XYY, and everyone’s favorite XX or XY. Notice there is no survivable YO or YY combination. That’s because the Y chromosome doesn’t have enough genetic material to support life. It has a very important function though — to create male reproductive organs and secondary male characteristics by having its signals recognized at the appropriate time in fetal development. Occasionally, though, things don’t work out in the usual way and the responsible gene, probably the SRYgene, moves off its intended chromosome. In that case the XY person develops with no scrotum, no fully descended testes, even a vaginal canal. Identified at birth as a female, the XY person has the appearance and mind of a female, grows up as a female, and, to all intents and purposes, is a female, and is still a female after some dedicated chromosome detective discovers the XY source only when some authority deems it necessary to do the test. The problem lies in the reliance on that XY method of measuring gender, ignoring all the other measurement options that define her.

This is just one example of the problem of getting stuck on one dichotomous assumption that fails to appreciate the complexity of humanity. Actually I feel sorry for the folks who choose the simplistic either/or gate beyond which they don’t want to go. There’s so much fun and excitement to be found on the complex other side.