The first article, which was of great interest to me, confirmed the "essentialist" sex/gender understanding, that these sex and affective/behavioral gender are not socially constructed, but innate and genetic:
Human protandry...sex roles not socially constructed
If I am reading this correctly, all the presumptively "girl" children in the Dominican Republic village they researched who developed into men, were actually male genetically from the beginning (XY with SRY, like all males) but, because of an androgen receptor problem, looked like females in terms of external anatomy until puberty.
So they are not really girls turning into men. They always had Y chromosomes; they always had developing testes, not ovaries. But the testes were internal, within the abdomen; they enlarged and forced themselves to the exterior beginning at puberty.
This does not seem to be the case with the vast majority of transgenders now. Certainly not the case with Bruce Jennings.
That, however, does not rule out the possibility of some other external problem, such as endocrine disruption.
Here's a recent FR thread on the subject of endocrine disruptors in the water. They can suppress normal sexual expression in fish, 2-3 generations after exposure.
Yet another study shows: Birth control is reducing the fish population for generations
And humans?
I think we're seeing it now.
For instance, 25% of the baby formula used in the USA is soy-based, despite the fact that soy is a known endocrine disruptor (phytoestrogens).
All of our major watersheds are contaminated with xeno-estrogens, of which the waste effluent of Birth Control Pill and Hormone Replacement users is a significant source.
This is why it is so important NOT to assume that hormonally-confused and gender-fluid effects are a choice. It may very well be a matter of gender-toxins.
In order to respond compassionately and help gender-confused people, we have to locate, prevent, intervene, and remedy the underlying causes, genetic, epigenetic or environmental, which are pathological.
This is the opposite of supporting the LGBT agenda, which insists "it's their right!" rather than "something's wrong".
“So they are not really girls turning into men. They always had Y chromosomes; they always had developing testes, not ovaries. But the testes were internal, within the abdomen; they enlarged and forced themselves to the exterior beginning at puberty.”
Note, that is not entirely accurate with respect to the development of their genitalia. The details of their genitalia varied. Also, the Human fetus begins as a female with female and female sex organs. In the case of the affected Batista children, the female sex organs were supposed to end development and become dissolved while still in the womb. Instead, the female sex organs were not reabsorbed and continued development to birth and after birth, until the onset of a male puberty. The onset of male puberty then more or less triggered the dissolution of the female genitalia which normally would have occurred in the womb during gestation.
As for the assertion the presence of the Y chromosome is definitive in determining the sex of of a child as a male, such an assumption is under medical dispute. For an example of this issue, see:
Does having a Y chromosome make someone a man?
http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome
“This does not seem to be the case with the vast majority of transgenders now. Certainly not the case with Bruce Jennings.”
True, it would seem so. Bruce Jenner said there was no genetic component. However, it was not all that many years ago that medical science was unaware of the role of the SRY gene in determining sexual charatersitics. Medical science has already said there are other complex gene expressions they have not yet traced which apparently affect how sexual characteristics are and are not expressed as would otherwise be expected from a particular combination of sexual chromosomes. So, although it may be unlikely, the possibility Bruce Jennings and other people with other related conditions have not been correctly informed, so their genetics and/or other natural causes cannot be entirely excluded as a causative factor in their circumstances.
“That, however, does not rule out the possibility of some other external problem, such as endocrine disruption.”
Yes, although unlikely, such a possibility cannot be entirely excluded with the current state of knowledge.
This does not seem to be the case with the vast majority of transgenders now. Certainly not the case with Bruce Jennings.
“This is the opposite of supporting the LGBT agenda, which insists “it’s their right!” rather than “something’s wrong”.
That, however, does not rule out the possibility of some other external problem, such as endocrine disruption.”
The “LGBT agenda” does not necessarily represent the interests of all intersexed people or even most intersexed people, whether or not they are Christians. Nonetheless, it is often said to be quite a horrible proposition to contemplate how other people presume to have radically different ideas about how they can impose invasive surgery or non-surgical therapies upon a defenseless baby, a child, or an adult without their voluntary wishes. Each person has to imagine what it would be like if some government or other group forcibly or coercively compelled them to submit to an unwanted medical treatment.