Clinton St. Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4 | Winter 1984 (Seattle) /// Issue 2 of 24 /// Master# 50 of 73

different samples and even with different syndromes that amount, hormonally, to much the same thing. Taken together with the increasing animal evidence, these findings suggested to Ehrhardt and her colleagues — and to many others as well — that humans too could experience psychosexual differentiation, affecting both behavior and the brain, as a result of masculinizing hormones acting near or before birth. This possibility received stunning confirmation in a series of discoveries made by endocrinologist Julianne Imperato-McGinley of the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center. These had to do principally with the analysis of a new syndrome of abnormal sexual differentiation that defied all previous rules. It was confined to three intermarrying rural villages in the southwestern Dominican Republic and, over a period of four generations, afflicted 38 known individuals from 23 interrelated families, it is clearly genetic but has arisen only recently due to mutation and intermarriage. Nineteen of the subjects appeared at birth to be unambiguously female and were viewed and reared that way. At puberty they first failed to develop breasts and then underwent a completely masculine pubertal transformation, including growth of a phallus, descent of the testes, deepening of the voice, and the development of a muscular masculine physique. Physically and psychologically they became men. The physiological analysis undertaken by Imperato-McGinley and her colleagues revealed that these individuals are genetically male — they have one X and one Y chromosome — but lack a single enzyme of male sex- hormone synthesis, due to a defective gene. The enzyme, 5-alpha-reductase, changes testosterone into another male sex hormone, dihydrotestosterone. Although they lack dihydrotestosterone almost completely, they have normal levels of testosterone itself. Evidently these two hormones are respectively responsible for the promotion of male external sex characteristics at birth and at puberty. The lack of “dihydro” makes for a female-looking newborn and prepubertal child. The presence of testosterone makes for a more or less normal masculine puberty. But for present purposes, the most extraordinary thing about these people is that they become men of their culture in every sense of the word. After 12 or more years of rearing as girls, they are able to completely transform themselves into almost typical examples of the masculine gender — with family, sexual, vocational, and avocational roles. Of the 18 subjects for which data were available, 17 made this transformation completely, the other retaining a female role and gender identity. The 17 did not make the transformation with ease. Imperato-McGinley reports that it cost some of them years of confusion and psychological anguish. But they made it, without special training or therapeutic intervention. Imperato-McGinley and her colleagues reason that the testosterone circulating during the course of growth in these men has a masculinizing effect of their brains. What are we to make of these extraordinary facts? For the immediate future, at least as far as I am concerned, nothing. It is simply too soon. Given present knowledge, for instance, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the observed differences between the brains of the two genders serve only physiological functions. The brains must be different to exert different control over different reproductive Systems, having nothing at all to do with behavioral subtleties. But I think this unlikely. If not now, then in the very near future, it will be extremely difficult for an informed, objective observer to discard the hypothesis that the genders differ in their degree of violent behavior for reasons that are in part physiological. If the community of scientists whose work and knowledge are relevant should come to agreement on this point, then it seems to me that one policy implication is plausible: Serious disarmament may ultimately necessitate an increase of women in government. Some women are as violent as almost any man. But speakThe Responses Ursula K. Le Guin In Dr. Konner’s informative, interesting and responsible article there’s one point that worries me a bit. At the beginning and end of the piece he speaks of the difficult intellectual reconciliation and the “formidable .. . balancing act” required of woman scientists who favor equal rights for women and men and whose research indicates irreducible biological-level differences between women and men. Why, I wonder, did Dr. Konner choose to speak only of woman scientists? Given the tremendous maledominant hierarchy of the scientific establishment, there may not be a whole lot of male scientists whose interest in equal rights is intense enough to make them aware of such problems, but to imply, by speaking only of women, that there are no such men, is unfair, surely. And worse: misleading: for the impression is that the problem concerns women only, and is no concern of men. This said, I have to admit that I don’t think it’s much of a problem for either men or women. Sexual oppression, Dr. Konner says, has been “bulwarked and bas- tioned by theories of ‘natural’ gender differences.” This, God knows, is true. But it doesn’t mean that an opponent of sexual oppression has to want to deny that there are gender differences. There’s a difference between a fact and a damn fool theory that distorts the fact; to despise the theory isn’t to fear the fact. It was not only the great egalitarians of the Left and of feminism, but the scientists, too, who have taught and shown that to be different is not to be inferior, not to be superior, but to be different. And that difference is the engine of evolution and the most enterprising device of sex, as well as the essence of ining of averages there is little doubt that we would all be safer if the world’s weapon systems were controlled by average women instead of by average men. I think it appropriate to end where we began, contemplating the women who have helped unearth these facts. Visualize them in their offices and laboratories, trying to sort out what it all means; how do they handle the dissonance their findings must engender? I suspect that they do it by making a reconciliation — not a compromise — but a complex difficult reconciliation between the idea of human difference and the ideal of human equality. It is one that we must all make soon. ■ dividuality. Quite unaided by scientists, people have noticed differences between women and men. Awareness of the fact that men generally have a penis and women a vagina isrv’t going to hinder the cause of social justice; igIt was not only the great egalitarians of the Left and of feminism, but the scientists, too, who have taught and shown that to be different is not to be inferior, not to be superior, but to be different. norance of the fact might set us back a good bit. As for the subtler distinctions of physiology and behavior discussed in Dr. Konner’s article, offered as testable or verifiable observations and hypotheses, they are very interesting and possibly useful. They do not in any way justify injustice. Injustice is not justified by facts: only by power, fear, and the lie. Elaine Spencer Many animals have very stereotyped sexual behavior responses to specific sexual stimuli. The effects of hormones on the responses of these animals is relatively easy to study. The human animal is not nearly so simple. The extent to which biological function determines social function is a totally unsolved problem in human society. The mechanism by which the physiological and psychoNurturance is an even more nebulous and indefinable quality than aggression. Is the female turtle who buries her eggs and leaves them to the sun to hatch less nurturant than the female hamster who nurses, but sometimes eats her young? logical manifestations of sex are orchestrated and carried out in simpler organisms is the only question elementary enough to be investigated at present. Reproductive behavior does have a psychological component. The origin of that component must be in the chemistry of the hypothalamus, for, acting as a gland, it secretes the stimulating hormones that trigger sexual development and function. The hypothalamus is also the seat of the emotions. It is true that in animal studies testosterone has been shown to produce aggressive behavior. There are also studies showing that men who complain of weakened interest in sex or of impotence tend to have high blood prolactin concentrations. Usually high prolactin in men is correlated with low testosterone. Prolactin in women stimulates milk production following childbirth. It is, therefore, remarkable that the sow bear with cubs is one of the most aggressive and ferocious of animals. Thus, in this case, a co-existence is shown between aggression and nurturance, stimulated by a hormone that decreases the hormone stimulation of aggression in the male. Many such paradoxical occurrences are found in animals. How much more complex is the physiology and psychology of man! Nurturance is an even more nebulous and indefinable quality than aggression. Is the female turtle who buries her eggs and leaves them to the sun to hatch less nurturant than the female hamster who nurses, but sometimes eats her young? How about the male penguin who all through the Antarctic winter night cradles his precious eggs on his feet while his mate restores her depleted 24 Clinton St. Quarterly • Nome Nugget • Reno Evening Gazette • Corriere Della Sera • Spokane Spokesman-Review | NEWSPAPER LOVERS! Find more than 100 papers ° and 400 magazines from | across the country and around the world. o’ ° At First and Pike, in the Market E s Mon.-Sat. 8-7, Sun. 8-5 Ph. 624-0140 CO•China Daily • Wall Street Journal • Everett Herald • Chicago Tribune • • Sacramento Bee • Give | ’em a s good s About H read °

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz