i actually don't think that the causes of transsexuality - or homosexuality - are being approached from the right angles.

i don't think that the reimer study proves anything more than that identity cannot be enforced. and, there is absolutely no convincing evidence of a genetic cause for any of this at all, whatsoever. i'll acknowledge some logic in the ideas of prenatal exposure, but i would expect these to have measurable physical consequences - like hermaphrodism - rather than abstract effects on brain chemistry that are easy to imagine but difficult to actually demonstrate.

i think that the proper idea has more to do with what psychologists call conditioning, and that the orientations and identities we see in front of us are complex things that are the result of chaotic interactions - it is learned in the sense that it is not genetic, but a lot of it is learned in an unconscious manner. identity & orientation are consequently stochastic & non-linear phenomena that can't be reduced to any specific or easy to understand cause. the cause of my own dysphoria is likely entirely different than the cause of another person's, as they both come out of random conditioning processes.

but, at the end of the day, i'm an autonomous being, and i made the decision to transition. i would react pretty violently to suggestions otherwise, as it would be a denial of agency.

i think the real issue here is a kind of scam by the pseudo-left to try and work through the contradictions in dealing with equality and what religion says about equality. if you look at this carefully, these ideas are broadly legal, rather than scientific in origin (although there are some unconvincing studies that attempted to demonstrate these legal ideas). what these people want to do is bridge a gap - they're told that these are "sinful" choices, so they react by trying to argue that it isn't a choice at all.

it's a neat legal argument, granted. and, we should be grateful when it has worked to get people out of trouble for sodomy charges, for example. but, the evidence does not support this.

further, as an atheist, i don't feel any imperative to align my views with those of some church. i don't care if some imam or some pastor somewhere thinks my decisions are "sinful", or feel any need to bow down to their authority on the matter. i'm perfectly willing to look them in the eye and tell them they're wrong to question my choices, and have no right to tell me my behaviour is immoral. and, i'd really like to see the left adopt this position.

for the foreseeable future, though, this debate is likely to carry on without any meaningful resolution. so long as the money is there, scientists will keep looking for something that isn't there. at the end of it, we'll at least be able to understand that and start looking for another explanation.

but, i don't think there's a single cause; i think it's best understood using chaos theory and unintentional subconscious psychological conditioning, rather than using genetics.