Essay:Rationally Understanding Queerness

Introduction
“Queerness” may be too culturally anachronistic to describe the phenomena explored in this essay – but it is still probably the term from the cultural standpoint of the audience reading this that best fits what is being described. Queerness as it should be understood over the course of this essay is the conceptions and products of human sexuality and expression that exist beyond or outside of the narrow cultural confines of European cis heteronormative views regarding sex, sexuality, and what is broadly referred to as gender. The point of this essay is largely an empirical one – one that collects multiple lines of evidence from the study of history, anthropology, developmental psychology, animal behaviour, genetics, neurology, endocrinology, and prenatal development to give an evidence-based and philosophically justifiable conception and understanding of what we would typically call “queer” identities in the west. Often denoted by the acronym LGBT2A+. Despite this, I would classify this essay as being a matter of philosophy, one that hopes to analyze concepts, draw logical inferences, and explore questions of identity, essentialism, and social construction. I would encourage the reader to resist assuming from the outset where this essay is heading. This is not going to be an essay that insists that sexual orientation and gender identity categories in the west are biologically determined fixed essences of what a person is, nor is this essay going to argue that such categories reflect phenomena that is purely a matter of cultural artifact – no, both of these narratives will be resisted over the course of this essay in favour of a narrative that is (hopefully) complex, diverse, and nuanced.

From Anthropology
During the colonial era, it was observed by European explorers as they travelled around the world that different cultures had various practices surrounding sexuality – with differing attitudes regarding public nudity, same-sex sexual activity, open sex-play between children, and whether or not someone born with a penis and testes could live in a feminine role or with a "female" identity (Wilson, 2019). Many cultures did tolerate or openly celebrated these practices in ways that the Europeans did not, and on that basis, the colonizers came to view these cultures as shocking, uncivilized, and "irrational" in need of correction – this of course led to gross colonial domination and in extreme examples cultural genocide at the direction of various European governments and the church (Wilson, 2019). Darwin's theory of Natural Selection highlighted the importance of sexual reproduction for species survival, and this led many an anthropologist to describe cultures on binary terms even if the culture in question had differing cultural constructs for gender (Wilson, 2019). This changed over time and greater focus had been put on cultural variation and questioning the western opposition to the sex and gender norms of other cultures (Wilson, 2019).

Gender is broadly understood in anthropology as how cultures inscribe characteristics, identities, and associations to differing sexes, with gender roles being the types of tasks and expectations one assigns based on someone’s assigned gender (Kottak, 2005). Sexual Orientation is conceived as being the habitual sexual attraction and activities one engages in with other persons (Kottak, 2005). Gender rather than being fixed and rigid across time and place actually tends to be fairly flexible and varies based on factors relating to culture, politics, social transformations, and economics – attitudes towards same-sex sexuality also tend to vary widely across different cultures and it seems from an anthropological perspective that sexuality is more malleable and culturally constructed then one may initially expect (Kottak, 2005). Dramatic shifts in gender roles and duties change significantly when comparing foraging cultures, horticulturist societies, agricultural societies, and industrialized nations – with the roles of men and women shifting dramatically based on what society's perceived needs are for that particular time and place (Kottak, 2005).

Third-gender categories, co-genders, or transitional social roles based on gender are found cross-culturally all over the world. To name a few examples we have the “Winkte” which was the word for “two-sprit” for the Lakota people, individuals who were seen as possessing both masculine and feminine traits – they were often individuals who by the standards of modern medicine would be assigned male at birth who traditionally lived under feminine social roles and feminine identities by the standards of the Lakota people. In Albania, you had the Burrnesha or "sworn virgins", who were individuals who once lived as women who took a vow of chastity and then lived their lives as men. The Hijra of India and Bangladesh were often people born with a penis and testes, but also included individuals who would be classed as eunuchs or intersex by European standards. The Hijra is an adopted feminine identity taking on certain styles of dress and expectations; the Hijra are treated as their own separate category of gender distinct from men and women. Another interesting example comes in the pre-catholic-colonized Igbo people who were in a patrilineal society where polygyny was regularly practiced; when the husband died before having a son to pass on his lineage, one of his wives would opt to live as a man carrying on the lineage via directing the production of a son with those who had the appropriate physiology – they would no longer culturally be a woman (Kottak, 2005). This is just to name a few examples of diverse gender categories out of hundreds found globally.

From History
Many cultural identities that reflected a greater diversity of gender and sexual orientation than what is recognized within western cultures have been suppressed or erased due to the imposition of colonial settlers. Regardless these various categories and identities still existed and reflect humanity in some meaningful way, and greater gender diversity still exists around the world to this day. For most of history, same-sex sexual activity or attraction was not something considered part of a unique identity, but rather something people just did or experienced (Stein, 2012). The ancient Greeks famously normalized same-sex sexual activity and relationships, though the norms surrounding acceptable ages to engage with do not reflect what we would consider acceptable or appropriate today (Stein, 2012). Though the church did take same-sex sexual activity as a sin under sodomy, same-sex sexual activity has been documented throughout European and American history – especially under circumstances of long-term isolation from those of differing sex such as under the context of prison, or in military encampments during times of war (Stein, 2012).

“Homosexuality” was not coined until the 19th century and the term “homosexual” was not often adopted as an identity in the United States as it was considered a pathological diagnosis– many people who predominately experience same-sex attraction adopted different labels and identities for themselves separate from the medical terminology that is widely adopted today (Stein, 2012). Underground groups of same-sex lovers, crossdressers and folks who rather live under an identity different from what sex they were assigned at birth existed in America for quite some time throughout the 19th and 20th centuries before the rise of the homophile movement of the 1950s – the term bisexual originally meant folks who self-identified as having both male and female qualities about them long before the use of the definition of bisexuality we use today (Stein, 2012).

Magnus Hirschfield in 1919 founded the institute of Sexual Research in Berlin, from the viewpoint that people who did not fit the heterosexual or binary conceptions of sexuality were not, in fact, exhibiting a pathology, but rather, they were simply natural “sexual intermediaries” who needed support and acceptance (Schillace, 2021). Hirschfield was a medical doctor who wanted to study and support people who experienced same-sex sexual attraction like himself, and help those with identities different from the sex they were assigned at birth – the institute provided educational resources on contraception and sex education, a health clinic, living spaces, and resources to engage in both anthropological and psychological research regarding sex and gender (Schillace, 2021). The institute would even include resources to aid in the surgeries we would class as gender affirmation surgeries today, and if the institute existed to this day it would be 102 years old. The institute and its massive library were destroyed by the Nazi's with all the books contained within it burned to ashes in 1933 (Schillace, 2021). So much research and documentation were lost in the blaze, leaving the identities and stories of "sexual intermediaries" all the more obscure in Europe.

The homophile movement started in the 1950s in the United States and would eventually develop into the gay and lesbian movement in the 1960s and 70s – eventually transforming into queer activism in the 1980s and 90s (Stein, 2012). This a great example of how language has changed over time, and with it our understanding.

Cultural attitudes towards Gay and Lesbian identities began to shift considerably during the 1960s and 70s, especially after the Stonewall riots in 1969. Bisexual and Transgender rights became increasingly more visible in the 1980s and 90s through movements related to such rights existed long before then. It was around this time that the understanding of bisexuality meaning attraction to more than one gender (as in two or more, or regardless of gender) became more widely known. The terms pansexual, omnisexual, and polysexual though similar in meaning came to be seen as broader sexualities with more nuanced definitions that are sometimes lumped under the bisexual umbrella though they are individually sometimes viewed as distinct from bisexuality and each other.

The term transgender is relatively recent as in times prior folks used the term transexual to refer to themselves, but this fell out of favour given its deeply medical (and somewhat stigmatizing) connotations. Transgender activism has increased immensely in visibility within the United States especially within the 2010s presenting a stark contrast to how Transgender people have been viewed and talked about just decades prior.

From Developmental Psychology
Infants are seemingly able to discern the difference between men and women before they even have the language to describe them, and by the time they reach the toddler years they already have the means to associate certain things as being "for boys" and "for girls" and will often begin to self label their sense of gender – it is even at this time that the earliest signs that a child may be transgender start to show as some children as young as three will insist upon their gender identity being different from what they were assigned at birth (Siegler, et al., 2018). During the preschool years between ages, 3 – 5 children tend to lack what psychologists call gender constancy the idea that gender is a constant and fixed identity over time, and instead see gender as something contextual and changing; for example, little girls may fear they will become boys if they cut their hair, or boys fearing they will become girls if they wear a skirt (Siegler, et al., 2018). A little girl may even say something like “when I grow up I will become a daddy” without any sense of contradiction.

The Complexity of Sex Determination
Sex will no doubt play a part in gender and sexual orientation and for that one would have to look at the domain of biology – though this comes with a series of various caveats and confounding environmental factors (which should be said are a part of the domain of biology). The oversimplified narrative is that once the sperm fuses with the ova and creates the zygote it will either have sex chromosomal pattern XX which will lead to it developing into what is dubbed anatomically female, or the zygote will have the sex chromosomal pattern XY and will develop into what is dubbed anatomically male. The issue is the story of prenatal sex development doesn’t stop and end there, and those are not the only predetermined or relevant outcomes. Human beings are typically conceived with 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 in total) with each parent contributing half, the sex chromosomes exist in a pair and can have one of two shapes an X or a Y. The gestating parent always provides an X, but the inseminating parent's sperm can provide either an X sex chromosome or a Y chromosome but in some rare instances may provide more than one.

Within the first trimester, many proteins associated with genes found on these sex chromosomes start to differentiate the previously undifferentiated gonads into either ovaries or testes – more specifically the WT1 and Sf1 genes on the X chromosome will heavily contribute to the development of ovaries, and the SOX9 and SRY genes on the Y chromosome will heavily contribute to the development of testes (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018). Many other genes take part in this development which differentiates the Primordial Genital Ridge into the external and internal genitalia we most associate with being either biologically male or female (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018). During the meiosis of germ cells into sperm, the SRY gene may become translocated off a Y chromosome onto an X leading to instances of girls being born with XY chromosomes and boys being born with XX chromosomes.

Not every fetus develops into a child that can be unambiguously classed as male or female by the standards of medical practice as is the case with intersex children who may be born with genitalia that is a mix of what we associate as male and female anatomy – for example, a child may be born with both a vaginal opening and a penis in place of their clitoris.

Genitals tend to differentiate in the first trimester, but the brain gets “imprinted” by hormones in utero during the later half of gestation (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018). The production of either androgens or estrogens leads to differentiation in how the brain is "imprinted" during prenatal development which seems very much relevant to how the child may come to identify later in life (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018). An experiment has been performed on male rats with researchers intentionally exposing them to estrogens and testosterone suppression during prenatal development – these so-called male rats would then take on female sex-typical behaviour as adults (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018).

O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan (2018) stress that these different factors for the development of sexually dimorphic traits in utero do not as it is commonly conceived exist on the pathways of a mutually exclusive binary but rather as a complex spectrum of masculine/feminine traits. The brain can develop differently on the sexually dimorphic spectrum than the genitals leading to what some expect as the biological origins of many transgender people’s identities (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018). Overlap exists to the effects on the brain regions thought to be related to sexual orientation suggesting a hormonal effect on brain development in utero to be relevant to future sexual identity (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018).

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a deficiency in the adrenal enzyme C-21 hydrolase that results in excess androgen production in children assigned female at birth; it leads children to commonly develop boy-style play, masculinized voices and skeletal structure, and many of these children go on to identify as lesbians or bisexual women in adulthood – about 5-10% of these children go on to identify as a transgender male by adulthood (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018).

It has been found that many gay males have uncles who identify as gay and there is a correlation between identifying as gay and the presence of the Xq28 on the maternal X chromosome; leading some to speculate that genetic factors related to sexual orientation is passed down by gestating parent's side to their male offspring (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018).

Neuroscience with Nuance
There is a considerable amount of literature that reports average statistical differences in neuroanatomy and cognition based on biological sex – but I think stating that without context can be exceptionally misleading and could very well lead to unwarranted sexist conclusions.

As examples of reported average differences in neuroanatomy; the planum temporale is more often larger in the left hemisphere in men than it is for women; men seem to have more often a larger asymmetry of the Sylvian fissure than do women; women tend to have on average greater interhemispheric connections in the corpus callosum and the anterior commissure when compared to men; women on average tend to have larger areas associated with language; men often tend to have greater white matter volume, and greater amygdala size -- all the while women tend to have a greater relative amount of grey matter and thicker cortexes (Kolb & Whishaw, 2015).

Differences on average for cognitive ability in things like mental rotation, mathematical calculation, fine-motor skills, and throwing accuracy have all been observed though for most of the categories the effect sizes are rather small (except for throwing accuracy) – it should also be said that girls get the higher average in mathematical calculation in this context (Kolb & Whishaw, 2015). There is no statistically significant difference in IQ scores based on sex (leaving questions aside about the legitimacy of IQ testing, to begin with). It is also not known if these differences in cognitive measures are the result of strictly biological or alternatively sociocultural factors, or even if it is meaningful to class contributing factors as either one or the other.

With all this, it may give someone the impression that there are "obvious" differences between men's and women's brains, as well as their abilities that show categorically there exists such thing as a "male" and "female" brain. This is not the case.

Like many sexually dimorphic traits, neuroanatomy exists on a spectrum rather than a strict binary. Ritchie et al (2018) took the MRI results of over 5216 participants – 2750 who reported as female, and 2466 who reported as male, all of whom were participants in the UK Biobank program. The images were processed using techniques to analyze subregions of the brain, as well as white matter microstructure, in addition to resting-state fMRI for resting-state brain connectivity (Ritchie, et al., 2018). The researchers looked at the hippocampus, the nucleus accumbens, the amygdala, the caudate nucleus, the putamen, the thalamus, and the dorsal pallidum for raw volumetric differences based on sex (Ritchie, et al., 2018). The normal distribution for the male population had an average shifted to the right of the normal distribution from the female population with a higher degree of variance for most of these volumetric measures, but Ritchie, et al. (2018) still thought the degree of overlap between the two distributions were "substantial". This suggests a greater degree of variability within sex distributions than between them, with a greater degree of variability present in the male population. This still yielded statistically significant results with some differences being noted as “substantial”, but regardless you would not be able to predict the features of one’s neuroanatomy on the simple basis of sex alone (Ritchie, et al., 2018).

Writing for the Conversation Neuroscientist Lise Eliot (2021) argues that besides differences in size there is nothing at all meaningful that is different between women’s and men’s brains. Arguing in her piece Eliot (2021) states...

Dr. Eliot (2021) argues that many of these consistent findings for brain differences are more so the result of body size and not strictly speaking sex given ratios for white/gray matter also holds for people with smaller brains/bodies generally -- regardless of their sex. This is consistent with everything described above. It should also be said that Lise Eliot (2021) is not simply talking of her expert opinion but reiterating her findings in a meta-analysis she co- authored looking at over three decades of neuroscientific research.

This does not stop some researchers from talking of there being male and female brains, and they will even go as far as to argue for the existence of a "homosexual brain" as the previously cited Kolb & Wishaw (2015) do in their textbook Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology. This is in commenting on how the hypothalamus of homosexual men differs from both heterosexual men and women, and how homosexual women throw more accurately than heterosexual women (Kolb & Whishaw, 2015).All things considered, this is weak evidence to suggest anything of the sort as a categorically "homosexual brain". Likewise, we see similar claims of the “transgender brain” often reporting how their brain structurally resembles the gendered population they identify with (i.e transwomen expressing volumetric structure more similar to that of the female population than male) (Cleveland Clinic, 2019). The interpretation of the statistical evidence is again falling in line with a categorical/essentialist fallacy of assuming statistical differences imply distinct categorical differences between populations. This often leads to the false notion that transgender men for example are simply people who are born with vulva and "male brains" that determine their gender identity. This is a logical error.

There is no such thing as a “transgender brain” or “homosexual brain” as much as there is no such thing as a “male brain” or “female brain”.

Does this mean however that neurological factors are irrelevant to phenomena dubbed as gender identity and sexual orientation? On the contrary, they may still be influential in considerable regards, but we have to resist thinking about this in categorical male/female, homosexual/heterosexual, and cisgender/transgender terms as if brain differences exist only as a mutually exclusive “either/or” binary. There is nothing about the neurological statistical differences that require us to think about brains in this series of false dichotomies that are themselves culturally and socially constructed.

There is still something of interest or even possibly of value in noting the limited evidence that shows the average size of the BSTc region in certain samples of transgender women more closely matches that of the cisgender female population than it does the cisgender male population (Zhou, Hofman, Gooren, & Swaab, 1995), or that gray/white matter ratio in the cerebral cortex of transgender men more closely resemble that of the cisgender male population (Rametti, et al., 2011). Does this limited evidence suggest categorical differences? No. The Zhou et al, (1995) study in particular looked at a remarkably small sample of cadavers totaling six transgender women – relevant caveats of limited generalizability do apply.

A 2016 systematic review of the existing literature on brain research as it relates to transgender individuals struggling with gender dysphoria found for the population a distinctive brain morphology that differs from heterosexual male and female populations in cortical structures that underlie body perception -- which may in part explain some of the experiences related to bodily dysphoria (Guillamon, Junque, & Gomez-Gil, 2016). This might reveal something that may help us better understand the role neurology plays in identity, even though conceptual confusions are abound. For example, looking at the neurological correlations to gender dysphoria is not interchangeable with looking at the neurological correlations to being transgender. Though related these concepts are not interchangeable. The language of such research also tends to obscure the degree of statistical normalization that brain imaging requires, the overall results of morphology may not necessarily reflect any individual’s brain within the sample. We can both acknowledge the reality of these statistical findings, and yet still resist essentialist or categorical interpretations of such results as they are not logically entailed. Other than being not rationally justifiable, they can also lead to ethical problems.

General Ethical Remark
Biological science in this regard can be a double-edged sword as it can be used to legitimize queer identities as immutable characteristics and not a matter of choice, but it can also serve to invalidate or even pathologize certain individuals without an adequately justifiable basis as “abnormal” neurology. There is also the concern of viewing such biological phenomena as only coming to legitimize the western cultural construct surrounding gender and sexuality as being universal and objective – as explored earlier in this essay the anthropological evidence does not seem to support that view.

Why Feminists are Uneasy with Essentialism
Throughout the history of the humanities and feminist theory, there has been a present concern about the use of essentialism to produce ideologies that serve to rationally justify the status quo. This is most famously explored in the work of Simone De Beauvoir, especially in the book entitled The Second Sex which was published in 1942. The idea of "essence" within this context was in the idea of something coming into the world with a purpose, much like how a soda can comes into the world with a specifically designed function before its actual manifestation. The existentialist mantra of "existence proceeds essence" was to communicate that human beings are not designed; they do not come into the world with a pre-ordained purpose.

The Second Sex applied this idea to the concept of a woman – emphasizing that regardless of the anatomy one is born with this does not entail a certain "biological destiny" that must be fulfilled within society by people labelled as "women". Beauvoir (1942) even went as far as to challenge "women" as a biological category insisting it was a socially constructed category largely enforced upon people, captured famously in the phrase “one is not born but rather becomes a woman”.

Within the context of analytical philosophy, the idea of essence is meant to denote what are "essential" properties to a given category as opposed to merely accidental properties.Essential properties are defining properties – the necessary and sufficient conditions that make something what it is. For example, we may say that the defining property of a gold atom is that is an atom so it is made up of electrons, neutrons, and protons with the defining characteristic of having 79 protons in its nucleus. Those conditions come to define what a gold atom even is and in that application essentialism is almost harmless, even innocuous.

In Beauvoir's time, many notable male figures tried to argue for the existence of a female essence that was dictated either by biology or some spiritual entity to explain and justify women’s place in society. This also informs and reflects the opposition to essentialism we find in feminist and queer theory to this day – discussions of sex differences in the brain or even biological factors that may influence gender identity or sexuality are met with (justifiable) suspicion given this historical precedent. This is not unique to the topic of gender/sexuality either as white supremacists appeal to a sort of “bio-essentialism” to argue for the concrete existence of human races on a genetic level determining the racial hierarchies of society.

On the (Lack of) Support for Essentialism Within Science
There is no denying the corporeal realities of one's sexual anatomy, but gender as already established is something distinct and cultural and to ascribe biological determinants to gender is a bit suspect given the vast degree of diversity that exists for the classifications of gender identities, roles, and expectations cross-culturally.

There is a certain irony in appealing to biology of all things as the basis for essentialism, as biology is one of the fields of natural science most incompatible with essential categories and natural kinds – denoting more so vast collections of family resemblances (both abstractly and concretely) in an ever-evolving tree of life. One only has to provide an attentive glance at the literature about "the species problem" or how to define “life” to see why. Categories like “sex”, “mammal”, and “disease” are not so different in this regard. Essentialism works more so for chemical kinds and the kinds of sub-atomic particles as described in physics than it does for classes of multicellular organisms with no natural distinct boundaries.

As obvious as it may seem to make being born with a penis and testes, or being born with a vulva, vaginal opening, and ovaries as a categorical distinction under the label of male/female, we know that these physical properties are not mutually exclusive and only denote one part of what biologist classify as a part of a person’s sex. There are genitals sure, and you can either be born with or without a particular organ but there is also the dimension of secondary sex characteristics, gonads, hormone production, receptors that respond to said hormones, sex chromosomes, and (arguably) neurology to a certain extent that considered a part of a person’s “sex”.

In that case, you do not have the basis to state that someone is either one sex or the other with no exceptions without creating new and increasingly arbitrary standards to justify the categorizations of male/female. Science already increasingly accepts this as a spectrum of correlating traits. There is no unambiguous "essence" to being male or female without a relevant counterexample. The natural state of biological phenomena did not come into the world with the essence of being neatly labelled and classified for human purposes.

Pure Social Construction?
The backlash to essentialism goes into the "opposite" view of total human social constructionism – which depending on your interpretation is the innocuous observation that human knowledge and concepts are the product of social processes or the more radical view that reality itself is entirely a product of cultural construction.

This lends itself to the view that gender and sexuality are merely cultural artifacts totally at the whims of the norms and practices that historically arise within a given culture – and it would be inaccurate to state that this view is without empirical evidence but that evidence, in particular, does not discount factors in biology that may influence sexuality and gender -- and given the evidence for such biological factors that creates an inconsistent picture for this narrative.

Some Queer theorists from the humanities have come to criticize political activists for LGBT2A+ rights as being overly essentialist in their approach in appealing to "born this way" narratives that insist that sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice – citing the diversity of sexuality and gender identity cross-culturally that suggests something more fluid and dynamic than the essentialist labels and categories argued for by political activists in the west. There is a political purpose in this activism however in ensuring that the identities of sexual minorities are seen as immutable so that from a civil rights perspective such identities are not viewed simply as a lifestyle choice that deserves no special legal protections.

There also of course considerable evidence to show that efforts to change one’s sexuality or gender identity through to use of therapeutic interventions are largely ineffective, and there is no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation or even gender identity is simply “learned” (O'Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018).

There is a tendency in some to view the concept of queer identity as necessarily being the product of essence or the product of social construction but only exclusively as one or the other. There is an argument to be made however that even if biological factors can and do considerably impact one's sexuality and identity – the categories, expectations, and language we use to talk about it or the ideas we associate with it are still very much socially constructed. Biology itself does not lend itself well to the view of sex itself being a mutually exclusive essentialist binary -- so why would sexual orientation and gender identity be any different? There is a way to reconcile biology with social constructionism.

We know in the animal kingdom that same-sex sexuality exists and seemingly occurs naturally, so no doubt that creates a precedent for the possibility of that happening in human populations as well, especially when that sexual behaviour is seen in our closest evolutionary relatives. Bonobos especially seem pretty fluid in what sort of sexual partners they are willing to have – often not limiting themselves to only males or only female bonobos. We know too that hormonal exposure during prenatal development can influence an organism's behaviour and psychology later in life -- with animals of one sex taking on cross-sex behaviours of a different sex when exposed to certain hormones in utero. Cortical structures regarding body perception develop atypically in human populations that experience gender dysphoria and that underlying phenomena may be related to said pre-natal hormone exposure.

Conclusion
Let us say for the sake of argument that various biochemical factors do shape not only a person's anatomy in prenatal development, but various aspects of the brain that relate to the perception of one's body, their sense of self, and what other bodies someone will be become attracted to later in life given certain developmental triggers throughout one's life span (keeping in mind this very well may not be the case).

Is it required then that factors only produce one of two outcomes? No, all these traits can exist on a continuum as many already seemingly do. With that, we have no reason to rule out ambiguous or even intermediary outcomes. Now maybe the vast majority of people turn out generally one of two ways with various intermediary outcomes sprinkled throughout the population in small percentages --- simply being a statistical minority does not make such individuals pathological. They are just as much a product of nature and evolution as any other living being.

Is there necessarily a fixed outcome to how these individuals must be classified and interpreted? No. Is there the possibility of a considerable degree of variance and ambiguity within such minority populations? Yes. That’s where culture comes in. There are countless ways in which such individuals can be named, interpreted, and accounted for with varying degrees of specificity to their lived experiences. Different cultures have done so in different ways. To apply the label of “homosexual” or “asexual” or “bi-gender" or “Two-Spirited” is just a handful of countless ways to draw cultural lines. This does not mean that people’s experience of their sense of self, their dissonance/consonance with their body’s sexual features, sexual attraction to others or lack thereof, or their sense of being socioculturally classified in the right way for themselves is any less a natural or even immutable a disposition. It also doesn’t rule out the possibility of some individuals lacking any sense of disposition one way or another and simply opening themselves up to new identities or experiences as they see fit (as is sometimes common in certain cultures).

It's in the same sense the seeming fluidity of sexuality does not discount the possibility of someone feeling a predominant experience of sexual attraction to people of only one sex/gender; there is a complexity to human sexuality that lends itself to many different ways of describing it and experiencing it.

We know too that people can experience sexual attraction to people, objects, or things in ways that really couldn’t be selected for evolutionarily. Think of people who are intensely attracted to lingerie, smoking, leather, or cartoon characters. There is always room for cultural factors to play a considerable role even acknowledging the possibility of biological influences – even in ways unique to a time and place.

So, in all that, we have a phenomenon that may very well be neither nature nor nurture but intractably both in ways that can not so easily be teased apart but regardless still leaves open an indefinite number of cultural possibilities as it relates to human sexuality. That's of radical political importance – that is by no means inherently unscientific.

We are bound by the natural laws of physics and chemistry, products of evolution and natural selection, and though some may feel that there is no room for "sexual intermediaries" as putting in this naturalistic picture of the world – the empirical evidence across the natural kingdom, various cultures, and history tell us a different story. Prejudiced individuals have never been able to entail a contradiction from natural law to why such intermediaries should not exist – to why queerness cannot exist.

Arguments regarding reproduction often strike one as fallacious as being non-cisgender or non-heterosexual does not make one sterile or unable in reproduce. The feeling that these identities are a recent phenomenon is not best explained by an explosion of ideological movements and social contagion – but rather by the uplifting of the ideologically motivated suppression of such identities that were the initial products of violent colonization.

We have no means to know what the technological limitations of human beings will be, and on that basis, we have no means of knowing what may be able to accomplish with our bodies in the future and what dramatic changes we may make to them. And so, to declare on no basis of physical or chemical restraint that something is to be biologically impossible is about as justifiable as what was previously stated about the human impossibility to walk on the moon.