For many years the scientific community has been seeking the “Holy Grail” of the origins of human homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and possibly everything “in between.” In my opinion, the “in between” does not make medical nor biological sense (including bisexuality) and is a contrivance by largely left-wing politics, media, and the unguided. I will also posit that religious doctrine is sharply opposed to humans dictating fanciful and illogical interpretations of Divine Providence. On the other hand, homosexuality and transgenderism are extremely complex issues which do have medical and biological foundations. This article will focus on transgenderism in a balanced and objective fashion although societal input will also be elaborated.
Objective foundational points:
- Biological sex in utero and at birth is not synonymous with gender (although it is for the vast majority of individuals). Most human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes (a total of 46) – ½ inherited from our mothers and ½ from our fathers. The 23rd pair of chromosomes determines one’s sex: XX for females and XY for males. There are very rare anomalies resulting in abnormal sexual and physical characteristics and possible mental effects: Turner syndrome (OX), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Trisomy X (XXX), and Jacob’s syndrome (XYY).
- Primary sex characteristics are the features present at birth that comprise the external genitalia for males (penis/testes/scrotum) and the internal genitalia for females (ovaries/uterus).
- Secondary sex characteristics develop during puberty: males grow pubic hair, facial hair, and deepen their voices, while females develop breasts, grow pubic hair, and widen their hips.
- Brain structural anatomy, neuroanatomical pathways, and neurohormonal pathways differ, resulting in the brain’s “masculinization” or “feminization.”
Gender:
This term is more complex and abstract. Gender comprises those qualitative aspects ascribing sexual identity, typically associated separately for males and females, such as behavior, cultural traits, self-representation, interests, lifestyle, roles, characteristics, at times psychological traits, and appearance… Although there are certainly intersections, little boys’ play commonly involves soldiers, police officers, and firemen, aggressive play such as with plastic weapons… whereas little girls commonly play with baby dolls, play house, and assume “nurturing” role play.
Definitions:
- Male transgenderism: Biological (anatomical) female at birth identifying as a male
- Female transgenderism: Biological (anatomical) male at birth identifying as a female
Neurobiological foundations:
Gender dysphoria refers to the psychological aspect of transgenderism in which there is distress and psychological pain due to a discrepancy and incongruence of one’s biological sex and sexual identity (gender).1 There is a clear biological dichotomy between the brains of males and females although aberrancies are now being discovered leading to the nascent field of the neuroscience for gender dysphoria and bona fide transgenderism. It has been hypothesized that transgender individuals have brain structural characteristics similar to those of their identifying sex and not their birth (biological) sex. On the other hand, researchers of a relatively recent study utilizing detailed structural MRI data found differences in the cortical (grey matter) brain volumes and cortical surface areas (although not of cortical thickness) of transgender men and women compared to non-transgender women and men, respectively.2 That is, the brains of transgenders (notwithstanding identifying as males or females) were at variance compared to the non-transgender brains of those of their biological sex. The conclusion was reached that transgender individuals may have their own unique brain phenotypes.
It is known that there is a higher prevalence of gender dysphoria among monozygotic identical twins compared to dizygotic fraternal twins.3 This has stimulated research into possible genetic causes for gender dysphoria and transgenderism. There is no single gene associated with the above, although isolated findings include a mutated allele (A1) of the cytochrome P450 17A1 gene (CYP17) (controlling sex hormone production) found more commonly among transgender males.4 Another study of whole-exome genetic sequencing among 30 transgender individuals identified 21 variants in 19 genes associated with estrogen receptor signaling pathways for sexual brain development.5 These variants were not found in a group of 88 control exome studies in non-transgender individuals.
A fascinating area of study involves the possible role of hormonal influences on the developing in-utero brain resulting in transgenderism. Sexual/gonadal development determining biological sex begins in the first trimester. Brain development aligns with the particular biological sex, leading to gender (that is, brain “masculinization” or “feminization”), which occurs during the second and third trimesters. Typically, there is coordination of biological gonadal development with gender (that is, testes associated with brain “masculinization” and ovaries associated with brain “feminization”), although aberrancies and “disconnections” may occur, resulting in gender dysphoria. As described above, there appear to be 19 genes responsible for estrogen receptor signaling pathways, which are one component essential for the determination of gender. Counterintuitively, the estrogen pathway appears to be activated before or shortly after birth in a biological male completing brain masculinization, whereas activation does not occur in a biological female completing brain feminization.6 It is theorized, therefore, that a biological male aberrantly not undergoing activation of the estrogen pathway may contribute to “feminization” of the brain and thus female transgenderism. Conversely, a biological female aberrantly undergoing activation of the estrogen pathway may contribute to “masculinization” of the brain and thus male transgenderism. It is interesting to note that there is a two to three times increase in the prevalence of female transgenderism compared to male transgenderism.7 The scientific reasons for this disparity remain unclear and are in need of further study.
Surveys/Statistics/Demographics
Social scientists have been grappling with numbers and percentages of non-heterosexual individuals globally since the original works of Alfred Kinsey in two seminal works: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)8 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).9 In essence, roughly 10% of males and 5% of females reported exclusive homosexual orientation, with 37 % of males and 13% of females reporting at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm. These numbers have been criticized throughout the years due to the earlier methods of data gathering at the time, although later studies corroborate these findings.
Many studies have since taken place on non-heterosexual orientation within the US and globally to include a focus on transgenderism. The US Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, based upon scientific surveys, estimated the number of transgender adults in the US (18 and above years of age) to be 0.3%, 0.6%, and 0.5% during the years 2011, 2016, and 2022, respectively.10,11,12 A meta-regression model based upon 12 surveys found approximately 0.4% of the US adult population to be transgender as of 2016.13 On the other hand, the most recent study by Gallup estimated an increase to 1.3% of all adults identifying as transgenders in 2024 (3.36 million individuals).14
Dissecting this data further, a very compelling study by PEW Research Center in 2022 examined the numbers of transgender and “non-binary” individuals in the US based upon the demographics of age:15
- 3.1%, 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.2% of individuals identified as strictly transgender per the age ranges of below 25, 25-29, 30-49, and 50+ years, respectively. As opposed to the 2024 Gallup study mentioned above, a total of 0.6 % of all adults in this study identified as strictly transgender (1.56 million individuals).
- On the other hand, 5.1%, 1.6%, and 0.3% of individuals identified as transgender or non-binary per the age ranges of 18-29, 30-49 years, and 50 and over years, respectively. Moreover, a total of 1.6% of adults identified as transgender or non-binary (4.16 million individuals).
As the social science lexicon of non-heterosexual orientation continues to grow, the term “non-binary” remains enigmatic as it refers to gender and/or sexual identifications that are not exclusively male or female. In fact, these “identities” may fall outside of the traditional binary male and female gender, with examples including agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, and demigender.16 Furthermore, these identities may not be mutually exclusive, and individuals may pertain to multiple or even a combination of segments of each.
Political party affiliation is also an important variable in examining the subject of transgenderism. Although not the scope of this article, a 2020 Williams Institute report revealed that among LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) voters, 50%, 15%, 22%, and 13% identified with Democrat, Republican, Independent, or another (or no) party, respectively.17 Based upon a more recent 2022 KFF (previously Kaiser Family Foundation)/Washington Post survey, 42%, 10%, 28%, and 20% of transgender adults identified as Democrat, Republican, Independent, or another (or no) party, respectively.18 Viewed in another manner, the majority of transgenders are not Democrats. Interestingly, this same study reported 29%, 31%, 26%, and 14% of non-transgender adults identifying as Democrat, Republican, Independent, or another party, respectively.
Lastly, the age demographics of political party affiliation of all voters (notwithstanding sexual orientation) also demonstrate noteworthy patterns when superimposed upon the age demographics of transgenderism mentioned above. Per the 2024 PEW Research Center findings, within the age ranges of 18-24, 30-39, 50-59, 60-69, and 80+ years, the percentage of Democrat party affiliation is 66, 55, 47, 43, and 39%, respectively.19 Conversely, within the age ranges of 18-24, 30-39, 50-59, 60-69, and 80+ years, the percentage of Republican party affiliation is 34, 42, 50, 53, and 58%, respectively.
Opinion/Commentary
There are many insights that can be gleaned from the above neurobiological and statistical discussions. Clearly, almost all data can be “spun” in various directions, particularly towards one’s desired intentions. Notwithstanding a strong conservative background, I have always espoused objectivity even at times counter to the dictates of my own Republican Party. For purposes of clarity, I will construct my comments and opinions in a sequential fashion:
According to the PEW Research Center study of 2022, there is a 15.5X increase in the number of self-reported transgenders from younger than 25 to 50 and over years of age. Enigmatically, there is a 17X increase in the number of self-reported transgender or “nonbinary” individuals from younger than 25 to 50 and over years of age.
Based upon the neurobiological determinants of transgenderism as discussed above, true transgenderism is determined in utero or shortly after birth upon completion of the hormonal and neuronal pathway determinants for biological sex and gender to reach fruition. As a result, it is clear that a large percentage of younger transgenders are fallaciously identifying themselves as such. There cannot be great variation in the percentage of true transgenderism (as based upon neurobiology) per age demographic, that is, a true transgender is such notwithstanding one’s age.
Moreover, it is quite compelling that there is such a tremendous increase in self-identification with transgenderism among the younger age ranges. These data are thus compatible with the fallible and errant judgment of many younger individuals in regard to this and other subject matter (to some degree not to their fault). In addition, many younger individuals are immature, by definition, thus they are more subject to external pressures and influences in all areas of life compared to older individuals with often much more experience and wisdom. This is not to say that all young individuals are to be characterized as such, as there are certainly those young people with greater judgment and wisdom from whom we can all learn.
The term “nonbinary” is clearly fraught with controversy. As per all religious, moral, ethical, and rational principles, human beings do not have the “poetic license” or agency to manipulate, confuse, and, in essence, make a mockery of the binary nature of humankind. I will also submit that God’s plan does not allow for making a travesty and circus of the sexuality of mankind, as per Scripture, we are created in the image and likeness of God.
Non-Christian religions likewise submit to similar precepts. As detailed above, there is a medically scientific foundation for transgenderism due to aberrancies of neurobiology (as well as homosexuality which is not the scope of this article). On the other hand, the recent coining of terms such as “agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, and demigender” (the meanings of which I am hardly familiar with) is an affront to our intellect and all the institutions of knowledge that define our human condition. It was not too long ago that the world was accosted on a daily basis by the acronyms spewed by the Biden administration’s Press Secretary. I would contend that this was one manifestation of the utter hypocrisy and ultimate downfall of that administration.
The greater numbers of female transgenders as opposed to male transgenders further highlight the cases of the injustices of female transgender athletes (biological males) allowed to compete against non-transgender biological females. It is a “black and white” fact of medical science (versus an opinion) that a biological male will develop the muscle mass and physiology allowing for the surpassing of a biological female in the domain of athletics. It is therefore ludicrous from all standpoints for biological men to compete against biological females – the injuries the world has witnessed in this venue are clear testimony and proof of these injustices.
Lastly, the superimposition of the following political statistics is indisputable: there are 4X more transgenders identifying as Democrat relative to Republican. Furthermore, among the total voting public, there is a 1.32-1.7 increase in individuals identifying as Democrats relative to Republicans from the youngest age demographic (18-24 years) compared to sequentially increasing age groups (up to 80+ years of age). What can be deduced from these statistics? I suspect strongly that the overlapping data is self-evident. That is, as younger individuals are much more idealistic and relatively immune to the realities of life, they are generally attracted to the more socialistic tenets of the Democrat Party. In tandem, the vagaries of sexual identity (particularly espoused by the far left) have been extending their tentacles into the Party and by extrapolation into the minds of the younger age groups. The idiotic allegiance of the previous administration with these awry mindsets was tantamount to Group Think lunacy.
In summary, the thesis of this article is that the “hysteria” of the subject of transgenderism reflects the influence of the hyper-partisan left wing of the Democrat Party (and global counterparts) in attempting to abnormally shape society’s values, norms, and ethics. As repeatedly mentioned, there is a certain number of bona fide transgenders although the fringes of the Democrat Party have grossly allowed for and enabled inflation of this actual phenomenon.
Furthermore, a perverted and gross extrapolation has also occurred in the formation and acceptance of the many different acronyms (LGBTQ1A+…) with a growing number of genders transcending the human state – this “hysteria” represents an affront to logical reasoning and is parallel to the many faces of Cognitive Warfare in serving to threaten the fabric of our society. The norms that are the foundations of solid communities and the human race overall inherently have strict definitions and boundaries – threatening and transgressing these principles with ludicrous ideology is an affront to human nature and societal, moral, ethical, and religious propriety.
End Notes
1 Cooper K, Russell A, Mandy W, et al. 2020. “The phenomenology of gender dysphoria in adults: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.” Clin Psychol Rev 80:101875.
2 Mueller SC, Guillaman A, Zubiaurre-Elorza L, et al. 2021 “The neuroanatomy of transgender identity: Mega-analytic findings from ENIGMA transgender working group.” J Sexual Med 18(6): 1122-1129.
3 Karamanis G, Karalexi M, White R, et al. 2022. “Gender dysphoria in twins: a register-based population study.” 12:13439.
4 Boucher F, Chinnah T. 2020. “Gender dysphoria: A review investigation of the relationship between genetic influences and brain development.” Adol Health Med Therap 11: 89-99.
5 Theisen JG, Sundaram V, Filchak MS, et al. 2019. “The use of whole-exome sequencing in a cohort of transgender individuals to identify rare genetic variants,” Scient Reports J 9:20099.
6 Roselli CE. 2018. “Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation.” J Neuroendocrin 30(7): e12562.
7 Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. 2020. “Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender.” ScienceDaily – www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.hym.
8 Kinsey AC. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
9 Kinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. 1954. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
10 Gates GJ. 2011. “How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ?” The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
11 Flores AR, Herman JL, Gates G, et al. 2016. “How many adults identify as transgender in the United States?” The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Adults-US-Aug-2016.pdf
12 Herman JL, Flores AR, O’Neill KK. 2022. “How many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States?” The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Pop-Update-Jun-2022.pdf
13 Meerwijk EL, Sevelius JM. 2017. “Transgender population size in the United States: a meta-regression of population-based probability statistics,” Am J Public Health. 107(2)e1-e8.
14 Jones JM. 2025. “LGBTQ+ identification in US rises to 9.3%.” Gallup News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx
15 Brown, A. 2022. “About 5% of young adults in the US say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/
16 Schudson ZC, Morgenroth T. 2022. “Non-binary gender/sex identities.” Curr Opin Psychol 48:101499.
17 Meyer I, Choi SK. 2020. “Differences between LGB Democrats and Republicans.” Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-party-affiliation/
18 Dawson L, Kates J, Sparks G, et al. 2023. “Trans People in the US: Identities, demographics, and wellbeing.” KFF. https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/trans-people-in-the-u-s-identities-demographics-and-wellbeing/
19 PEW Research Center. 2024. “Age, generational cohorts and party identification”. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/
Comments