The biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht wanted to give a lecture on the two biological sexes at Humboldt University, but the university canceled it at short notice over the weekend. But what do experts actually say about human dual gender? The Berliner Zeitung asked Heinz-Jürgen Voß, who holds a professorship for sexology and sex education at the University of Merseburg.
The HU canceled Ms. Vollbrecht’s lecture on the subject “Gender is not (gender) gender, sex, gender and why there are two genders in biology” at the weekend at short notice and now wants to make up for it in a different form. As a scientist, what is your general stance on such cancellations?
I followed the process and also listened to Ms. Vollbrecht’s online lecture. I find it fundamentally difficult when such lectures are cancelled. First of all, everyone should give a presentation, but at the same time it is legitimate if a group demonstrates in front of it. The Working Group of Critical Lawyers is also not known for being violent. I haven’t read anything about calls for violence. Therefore, I find the reaction of the university incomprehensible.
You listened to the lecture, you are a biologist yourself and hold a professorship for sexology in Merseburg. What do you say to the content of Vollbrecht’s statements?
In the case of Ms. Vollbrecht, one can say that she has not published a single essay on sexual development to date. Gender is not the focus of her work. She is a marine biologist or wants to become one. With her studies she has expertise as a biologist, but in a completely different field. In the lecture she described, to put it bluntly, school knowledge. She briefly introduced chromosomes and genes and added the popular argument of reproductive capacity. On this basis, she founded biological dual gender. It does not take into account today’s specialist debates in our discipline.
How does science view this debate? Are there two genders or not?
Scientifically, variability and individual diversity are assumed. In the development of the genital tract, in the expression of sexual characteristics, we see a variety of forms that the genitals can take on. It’s not as easy as people think. Various factors are discussed at the chromosomal and genetic level. The same applies to hormone effects and internal and external components of the genital tract. It is therefore important to recognize the individuality of characteristics.
To person
Prof. Dr. Heinz-Jürgen Voß has held the professorship for sexology and sex education at the Merseburg University of Applied Sciences since 2014. Before that, he did research at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder on the subject of “Sexuality” and “Gender” as Conceptual Cultures in Biology” and worked at the Medical Faculty of the University of Halle-Wittenberg.
His dissertation “Gender Deconstruction from a Biological-Medical Perspective” received awards from the Federal Foreign Office, among others.
At the same time, however, it is also correct that reproduction is important as a species characteristic of humans. Here the egg and sperm cells play a role, the fertilized egg cell needs a place where it can develop and so on. An unacceptable shortcut would be to transfer the generic property to the individual human beings as a kind of “duty”. Just because the human species, the maintenance of the human species, requires two sexes to reproduce does not mean that all humans must or must be able to reproduce. Incidentally, the basic conviction of evolutionary biology is: “Evolution seeks diversity”. This enables adaptation to different environmental conditions. And it also applies to gender characteristics.
Also read our comments here:
You speak of an individuality of characteristics, of individual differences, what do you mean by that specifically?
If we look at the group of men, for example, there are very individual characteristics of the genitals. There are testicles that remain inside the abdomen. That’s not even that rare. There may be undifferentiated gonad tissue in the abdomen. The entrance of a vagina can also be created in men. So there are very different manifestations of sexual characteristics, which is not so strange, because the female and male genital tract originally arose from the same tissue.
But how many genders are there?
If we only look at individuality, one would have to say that there are as many genders as there are people. For a long time—since the founding of modern biology around 1800—social gender stereotypes were simply applied to biological science. It was socially assumed that there was a clear order of the sexes and that women were neglected – and tried to prove this as biological. We in biology have only been taking back this stereotypical attribution for about 30 to 40 years. It is increasingly criticized when the research design – i.e. even before the study begins – is divided into women and men. If one divides in this way at the beginning of the research, there is no other way than to determine either equality or difference between these two fixed groups. You can’t get out of a two-gender grid. However, this approach is increasingly being questioned within biological research. Now people are starting to look at gender development with a more open mind.
How advanced is the scientific discourse in Germany? It seems as if the “biological gender binary” is more doubted in the USA than in Germany. Is that correct?
A lot has happened in the German debate in recent years. Olaf Hiort is a prominent example. Up until ten years ago, he repeatedly said that dual gender was biologically the norm and regarded intersex variants as deviations. In the meantime, he too has caught up with the international situation: last year, for example, he also published a popular article – in the magazine Spektrum – about the many genders that exist from the perspective of biology. This development is reflected in biology as a whole.
So is Ms. Vollbrecht’s position rather an exceptional case in the scientific context?
I would actually say so. I think that being a marine biologist, she has a limited view of the subject. This becomes clear from her lecture, in which she practically does not address the current biological state of affairs regarding gender development. She will have good expertise in her field and will prepare her for a career, but if you look at her lecture, then she has only acquired an overview of the knowledge about gender and is not involved in the specialist debates. That’s another reason why I found it strange that the university management prevented such a lecture. You will increasingly not find a professorship in the field of biology that represents the positions of Marie-Luise Vollbrecht.
So, do I understand you correctly that in the discipline of biology, gender diversity is generally the majority opinion?
Yes, the majority opinion in biology goes in that direction. Diversity is also perceived in real terms, and biology takes this into account. At the same time, research methodology is changing. It’s no longer just examining one gene and then making the sweeping conclusion that the exam has proven “genuine femininity” or “genuine masculinity.” Today people are more reserved and simply describe the effect that a gene failure has, for example. Extensive derivations are difficult anyway given the small sample sizes that are common in biology.
Let’s take a look at genetics. The conventional wisdom is that if you have XX chromosomes you are female, if you have XY chromosomes you are male. What role do genes and chromosomes play?
Basically, a lot of biological research is actually just theory. The understanding that biology would certainly know how sexes arise purely genetically is wrong. There are about 1000 genes that are important for sex development. Of these, 80 have been examined, and there are also conflicting results from different research groups for these 80 examined genes. The connection established by one research group could not be proven by another. This is normal behavior in research. Much is simply unknown. For example, there are men with a chromosome XX, which is considered to be typically female.
Now there is the SRY gene, which is also responsible for the gender traits that make testicles grow. People with XX chromosomes can also carry this gene. How does that fit together?
The SRY gene designates the sex-determining region on the Y chromosome. The search for the “testicle determining factor” led to this. “Testicle determining” because in science the gonads have long been considered very important and only what makes the man so special and perfect was sought – while the woman was seen as an imperfect basis. In other words, one looked for differences specifically on the Y chromosome, but neglected other chromosomes. Here, too, partisan science played a role. One looked for the testicular determining factor only on the Y chromosome. In 1993 it was believed to have been found with the SRY gene. But at the same time there were contradictions: the SRY gene was present and yet no testicles had developed. In other cases, SRY was absent and testicles had nevertheless formed. This gives a first idea of what I – and we in biology – mean by complexity.
In addition, there are the genes WNT4 and RSPO1, to which either an antagonistic or an intensifying effect on the formation of the genital tract is attributed. Both are found in some men as well as some women. What role do they play?
WNT4 is a signaling molecule. Significance is attributed to him in the development considered to be female. RSPO1 is a transcription factor. It possibly suppresses the development that is considered masculine. It becomes clear that “female” and “male” are not separate from each other, but that every embryo has the potential to develop in any sexual direction. Gender development is so closely intertwined that it is no longer possible to separate male and female. Instead, you have to look at how the individual factors interact.
What fundamental challenges does biological research face on this topic?
Of course, science always questions social certainties. That’s her job. And you can see it in the example of dual gender. This shouldn’t mean that all scientists who take a critical view of this dual gender are insulted. As a society, we must also want to allow science to see things differently. Our task is also to challenge things, because science penetrates deeper into the matter. There are very heated debates on the gender issue in particular, because many people are of the opinion that they only have to look down at themselves to see what gender is.
From your perspective, what would be necessary now?
Right now would be a good time to discuss the scientific status of gender more broadly in the societal debate and not just to say what popular general knowledge is. Science has to challenge the banal common knowledge, otherwise you don’t need it.
The conversation was led by Maxi Beigang.