Chromosomes, reproduction, and queer identities: why we need to start defining science and stop letting science define us
By: Palis Pisuttisarun
Tags: Biology, LGBTQ, Psychology, Science, Sociology

It isn’t a surprise that religion, culture, and law have historically inflicted the most hindrance on LGBTQ+ progress. But in recent years, the notion that queer identities are somehow incompatible with science has become a vicious vehicle in driving forward anti-queer rhetoric.

The phrase ‘Science doesn’t care about your feelings’ (most likely popularized by political amateurs on Reddit) has even been printed on t-shirts, with multiple designs available on Amazon.

Many are outraged that the increasing validity of LGBTQ+ people seems to be jeopardizing or degrading our scientific understanding. Very recently, J.K. Rowling infamously tweeted transphobic remarks about sex.

In her tweet, the Harry Potter author implied that ‘sex is real’ and asserted that ‘It isn’t hate to speak the truth’.

Her tweet essentially claims that discrimination can be justified by science. But are such comments truly as harmless as a reproductive biology textbook? Or are these innocent scientific facts disguising a more disturbing social attitude? The recent invasion of LGBTQ+ identities — apparently divergent, anti-science ones — on axiomatic anatomy has uncomfortably prodded much discussion between activists and scientists alike.

In trying to reconcile LGBTQ+ rights with scientific veracity, we must come to terms with the fact that science is merely a human construct. No, I don’t mean that scientific occurrences are a human construct. The sun will rotate, organisms will evolve, and chemicals will react regardless of human observation.

However, our study of science, our interpretation of scientific observations, and, ultimately, the implications we draw from science are all under human control and influence. As anthropocentric as it may sound, scientific understanding is entirely malleable according to our humanistic needs.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

Are the existence of XX and XY chromosomes a human construct? No, certainly not. No one is claiming we should invalidate these discoveries. No one is proposing we should tamper with the foundations of biology. At a very surface level, there are facts that are not negotiable. The truth is, some babies are born with XX chromosomes and others are born with XY chromosomes.

But that’s about where the science ends.

The rest of everything we know are artificial ornaments we have constructed around this primitive fact. Science never told us that people with XX and XY chromosomes must wear different attire or use different pronouns. In fact, science never even told us that they must intrinsically ‘feel’ different: that those with XX chromosomes must somehow feel ‘feminine’ or ‘female’ whereas those with XY chromosomes must somehow feel ‘masculine’ or ‘male’.

Gender is not so much a scientific fact as a scientific implication — a synthetic one at that. Humans dictate that everyone’s identity and expression must irrefutably adhere to their chromosomes. It has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with social conditioning.

This fundamentally short-circuits any argument against the scientific cogency of trans or non-binary genders. Simply put, it dissociates our identity from our anatomy, thereby rendering all perceived disagreement between them meaningless. A transgender woman may have XY chromosomes, but once we acknowledge that her identity and expression are not under the biological governance of her cells, science can no longer be used to invalidate her.

This way, we neither compromise on anatomical accuracy nor the freedom of self-identity. Scientists can embrace the truths of biology without doing a disservice to the LGBTQ+ community, and the LGBTQ+ community can identify as they wish, free from scientific judgment.

Photo by Fractal Hassan on Unsplash

A similar thought process can be applied to other anti-LGBTQ+ arguments too. For example, many people have rebuked homosexual relationships as ‘defying science’ since two people of the same gender cannot reproduce.

Yes, it’s scientifically correct that two men cannot naturally reproduce. Yes, it’s scientifically correct that the survival of a species, according to natural selection, relies on reproduction. However, this doesn’t conclude that homosexual relationships are wrong per se — we are unable to scientifically make that jump.

The intrinsic validity of a homosexual relationship cannot be objectively determined by their reproductive capability. These are implications that we have drawn ourselves, to dogmatically propagate the personal and unscientific belief that homosexual relationships are wrong. Such views are a moral stance and shouldn’t be framed as a scientific stance.

We often underestimate how much of our scientific knowledge is actually up for debate. The vast majority of knowledge are assumptions we make and implications we draw — these are bound to evolve in tandem with our social values. If the stuff inside someone’s cells matters more than who they actually are in the world, there’s something deeply concerning about our science.

There’s nothing inherently scientific about queerphobia. Science is never intrinsically discriminatory. Science simply describes microscopic properties within our cells, but discrimination is externally derived. Sometimes, we forget that we are the ones who define science. We mustn’t let it define us.