I see a post on the main page of Bodies Like Ours vilifying Dr. Eric Vilain, who is speaking at an AAAS symposium in a few weeks. Apparently several people were upset over a quote that was published in Scientific American regarding his WNT-4 research. I'm wondering whether this guy is really an appopriate target for such protest.

First let's explain what a WNT gene is. More than a decade ago, scientists discovered that fruit flies missing a certain gene grew no wings. They called this gene 'wingless'. It was subsequently found that the human genome, and that of nearly every other species, contained dozens of genes with a similar DNA sequence to the fruit fly's wingless gene. It turned out that these wingless-like (WNT) genes were important for cell differentiation, the process where some cells form arms and legs, while others form the heart, lungs, brain and so on. Embryos missing WNT genes were found to be missing major body parts or tissues.

Some WNT genes appear to be involved in the formation of the reproductive organs. This is potentially interesting research, as the process by which the male and female organs form is still poorly understood. It is known that a gene on the Y chromosome initiates the formation of testes, but most of the chemical signals that carry out this process are not known. Determining the role that a gene like WNT-4 plays in this process could yeild some valuable insights. Thus I think Dr. Vilain's research is quite interesting from a scientific point of view.

The quote at issue reads, in part "...in the future we may be able to correct the defect in the womb and restore the embryo to its original male status." This is a really odd thing for a geneticist to say, since surely he knows that a genetic defect present in every cell of a person's body can not be altered so easily. I hope someone asks him just what he meant when he said that.

I also note that Dr. William Reiner is on the speakers list at this conference. It would be interesting to find out what he has to say. As you may know, Dr. Reiner was one of the researchers in the followup study of genetic males born with cloacal exstrophy and raised as girls. Most of them identified as male.

Scientifically, sure. But actual use? That is what I have issues with. Here is just one quote from Mr. Vilain:



Parents? What about the person living in the body. According to this quote from Vilain, it doesn't matter.

Proof that there is a "gender gene"? Great. A girl born with a big clit will certainly then be subjected to surgery, because we can't have a girl with genitals that look male.

A boy born with a vagina? Better sew it up...he's a boy and our research says so. It ignores the fact he may like it.

His research ignores the fact that surgery is almost always cosmetic and unnecessary and most who laud his work ignore what could occur in the womb.

Got yourself pregnant with a baby that is male but has a gene that indicates the child will identify as female and thus be a transexual? I see abortions being done because that child is not going to be wanted due to transphobia. That reeks of eugenics.

Got yourself a little fetus with Kleinfelters growing inside of you? Better abort now (which already happens frequently)

Let me ask this...can you tell us how you would be today had you been subjected to gene therapy in the womb?

Got the gene for being homosexual...best get rid of that fetus right now.

This is what Mr. Vilain is heading towards with his research based upon my own investigation into what he is trying to accomplish. He is not our friend---rather, he is leaning heavily towards the elimination of intersex.

Betsy

__________________
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
--Bertrand Russell

Hello Neko



Homeo Box Genes? Perhaps?



So you are saying a gene that codes for one relatively small signalling peptide is a homeobox gene then? Well even if this were the case I think you need to examine exactly what Eric Vilain has missed out from the equation. Polygenic expression for starters. You dont always take the mendellian approach and say 1 gene = 1 outcome. and you certain do not suggest that "Children born with deformities can be made normal by using pre-natal somatic gene therapy" Especially with a gene that produces a signalling peptide.




Well yes this is another technical problem, but May I suggest his constant ducking and diving behing the UCLA press office, blaming them for the strange quotes rather than admitting to making one gigantic Gaffe be clarified.



I tell you what define "Genetic Male" (No MSR's, SRY included on the Y chromosome are not allowed!) As the WNT4 gene illustrates the process of sex determination is polygenic, and as such to state that "Y = Genetic Male" is rendered meaningless, Y simply has MSRs that increase the probablility of male differentiation from a female default. would this have anything to do with the old Socio-medical emergency ethic by any chance? The need to define some intrinsic genetic sex, in absolute terms?

I am sorry Neko I stick with what I have published and await an explanation, that is clear and precise from Prof. Vilain.

Shalom

Sophie.

hi Betsy :-)

How are you doing

I am with you on this, the debate surrounding Vilain seems to be about imposing genders or arbitrary defintions that do not reflect peoples lives.

Quite frankly some of these scientists who use such arbitrary defintions irritate me deeply. I am sick to death with the "XX = Girl XY = Boy, shame and stigma if you do not fit" routine. we are down to 28.000 genes now, the one gene one outcome model is past its prime, dead, pointless, belongs in the dustbin with eugenics. I have no time for a theoretical model that deliberately ignores the glaringly obvious (Polygenic structure to genome, Pliatropic genes) to bolster the ultra strict status quo.

If peoplelike Vilain want to convince us he is talking with humanitarian intent, then perhaps he could start by trying not to convince us to know our biological place by using Huxleyesque arguments.

Shalom

Sophie

Just a quick point, his 53 genes for transsexualism model was written AFTER he was questioned about polygenic expression, so nope that arguement will not work either. He can cite 100 genes, His WNT-4 study and Gaffe implied he originally missed the point about polygenic structure, also the fact that suddenly he has started trying to spin the spin on polygenic structure using "Gender identity" genes shows clearly he is missing the point completely.

Does he thing intersex people have the same issues as transsexual people? How about Intersex people dislike being operated on and how about intersex people dont like being pathologised as "Malformed lab rats"

i am very angry Neko, I will return to this debate when I have calmed down.

WNT genes are signaling peptides. Homeobox genes are transcription factors (bind to DNA). The WNT signaling pathway is complex and involves multiple genes, so it is true that 1 gene does not necessarily equal 1 outcome here.

But it's pretty clear to me that this debate isn't really about signaling peptides or transcription factors.

What I really want to know is, did the UCLA press office make up stupid crap to put in a press release, or did Eric Vilain actually propose an experiment where a pregnant woman would be injected with hormones to try to alter the sexual characteristics of the baby? I think you will agree there are some serious ethical problems with that kind of experimentation.

So, is someone going to ask him this? Or are we just going to rant about how Eric Vilain is evil?

The study found 54 genes in the brains of mice that differed in expression between males and females. What a surprise, male and female brains are different. David Reimer could have told us that. It seems to me that the "54 genes" experiment just confirmed something we already knew.

Doesn't the "54 genes" model merely confirm that mutilating a baby's genitals doesn't change that person's gender identification?

Well aside from the residual confusing of peptides with nucleotides, To start with describing coding regions as being thier product is unwise, because there are non coding regions such as promotors that can affect the outcome in terms of the peptide. (I am involved with research into this at present) what you say is about correct,



Well in part yes it is. it is to do with using confusing information to bolster ideas that are more to do with the status quo rather than the biology itself.
If you read my articles carefully you may find the UCLA spin plays a big part of it. what I find so mysterious is the way Vilain has not even bothered to put the record straight, Rather he went off into polygenic land with those 53 genes of his. As if saying that even though we are talking the unpredictable, and even though it would be almost impossible to predict "Gender identity" he proposes a test?



That's it right. basically proving Betsy's point that some clinicians regard us as little more than lab rats. The point is the scientific claims made by Vilain, or by the press office are bordering on science fiction.



Well he has been asked, he has also had ample opportunity to explain himself, given that there are people from within the community who do not like being presented with terminology and ideas that are so demeaning.

And one technical detail, if he is talking coding regions alone, whatever he tries will mosat likeley fail. though hopefully some ethics board will put a stop to some of his or the UCLA's Press offices "Suggestions".

shalom

Sophie

Hello Neko



two points.

Firstly Vilain is talking about producing this 53 gene model as the basis for a "Gender identity test" that will be used to decide what surgery will be carried out. If I am honest, while Money used socially deterministic models and Vilain uses biologically deterministic models, both are in effect advocates of providing some theory that is intended to provide a rationale for undertaking surgery.

The other, more telling point, is how many of these clinicians, seem to keep saying "They all want to be boys" Is there a reason for this? I suspect the reality is going to read more like "We do not want to be carved up, lied to and made to feel shame every time we walk into a medical practice".

Both points illustrate something quite disturbing, the notion that intersex people have no right to exist unless they are clearly one or the other sex, which is pretty much the same as saying they want to eliminate intersex people.

Vilain annoys me simply because he allows such utter rubbish to be published in his name, and then does not say a word when confronted. Does not respond to his critics, does not even go to the UCLA press office and tell them to put the record straight. Additionally, his understanding of genetics is presented as being that of some crackpot, if he is saying these thengs then he is a well paid, PhD weilding crackpot, but a crackpot nevertheless. If not, and the UCLA press office are garbling not just his intent but the science as well, then those responsible should be sacked. If I had written a paper and it was so maligned and incomprehensible after being fed through the press office I would be very very unhappy about it.

While the narratives we are reading with respect to Vilains research take on the fatalistic, pathologising, scientifically absurd and quite frankly contemptuous undertones, then he will be stridently questioned. He either clarifies once and for all what he is really saying, to those who's lives he will be affecting, or he owns up to being the author of some of the very nasty and cruel comments he has made about us, the people afrected by all this.

If there is one thing this proves, Intersex people are not stupid and are not easily blinded by science. this is a public forum. I have little or no doubt he has access to what is written here, perhaps he can come here and explain himself, if only to put the record straight. His current silence only makes him appear more guilty.

Shalom

Sophie.