Andrés Núñez Leites

1. The weakest theoretical point of queer theory, which has become hegemonic in the LGBTI + movement, is to suppose that a psychic structure can be sustained in the air, that is, without being coupled to a biological structure. This extreme constructivism, by which both sex and gender are mere social constructions dependent on power relations in a society and at a given moment, is theoretically unsustainable. This is because the different levels of organization of a person (and even of a society) function as sub-systems that are mutually coupled, that is, they adjust to each other. It does not mean that there cannot be variants, but neither does it admit of assuming that those levels of organization do not exist.

2. A person is male or female at the biological level under a certain configuration in which their genetic, endocrine and anatomo-physiological levels are made system. Hence, for example, women and men have differentiated reproductive systems, as well as differentiated secondary sexual characteristics and that on average we have different body mass and muscle power. This does not make us different species: in fact, men and women are very similar in everything: even at the intellectual level, the debate regarding which sex is more intelligent has long been overcome, since on average we have the same IQ, although the debate as to whether there is greater male variability (a flatter Gaussian bell: more dumb men and more genius men), but that it would not be statistically very significant, that is, on average, we are still the same. This coupling of levels within the biological sub-system that makes a person, admits variations: intersex people, that is, for example, with the coexistence of reproductive systems of both sexes (at a very low level statistically) and then the space in which More than 99% of the population is located: among those who more clearly have masculine or feminine characteristics and those who show a less pronounced character of the same, or a combination of characteristics of both sexes. But again the Gaussian bell appears: on the average, men share certain characteristics that differentiate them from women and vice versa. And I say averagely, because that natural variation of the biological base causes that there is not a "perfect" coupling between the levels more than as an exception. As the song by Caetano Veloso says: "De perto, ninguem é normal". But this variation does not enable us to say that there are not two sexes in our species either; It enables us to say that there are variations based on a preponderant average, regardless of the redundancy.

3. The psychic level of organization of a person is the most subject to controversy. Here we enter fully into the problem of "gender", understood as a set of characteristics in feeling and acting that are identified as "masculine" or "feminine". The psychic level is the most influenced by systems that are in the person's environment: culture and society. Here, it is true, power relations and hegemonic cultural patterns influence at any given moment, which explains, for example, the variations in the experience of motherhood and fatherhood in different cultures. However, the same rule of biological organization applies to the psychic: it admits variations, but it does not develop in the air. Just as we cannot suppose a psyche solely determined by biological bases, neither can we suppose a psyche solely determined by the cultural and social systemic environment. Both assumptions are errors that practically no one makes at the scientific level: there is a consensus that our way of feeling, thinking and acting is a product of biological and sociocultural factors; Some authors may find more weight to one or the other, but practically nobody, seriously, dispenses with one of these orders of factors. Since no subsystem of those that make up a person floats in the air, the psychic system appears as a transaction between biological and cultural systems, admitting variations that are not infinitely elastic, however. To the extent that on average almost all people show levels of variation in their biological bases that are not extreme and that, at least until now, our sociocultural environment provides positions (norms) for two sexes (male and female), the majority absolute number of people will be averagely masculine males and averagely feminine women. Again: the level of variation is important and here neither is the "perfect" coupling between the biological and psychic subsystems and the cultural patterns is anything but an exception, but on average the common is the norm.

4. Heterosexual women and men are more abundant not because of an imposition of a supposed "patriarchy" or a "phonophalogocentric" culture, but because the mutual adjustment in the coupling of the sub-systems that make up a person and in turn the mutual The fit between the person and the cultural system tends to produce those overriding results. Even if we go to variations, this same phenomenon explains why, for example, in the field of sexual attraction, there are more bisexuals than homosexuals.

5. This way that the systems that make and are the environment of a person work also explains that the vast majority of adolescents who wish to make a transition towards the other biological sex, after adolescence and the identity crises that it usually implies , tend to reverse this "gender dysphoria" and reconcile themselves with their biological sex, that is, with nothing less than their body, and with most of the cultural traits that make up their gender, beyond their preferences in terms of to sexual attraction. This does not mean that effectively for some people transsexuality is not a "solution" in terms of generating internal coherence and personal well-being, but it does mean that it is a statistically negligible phenomenon and that the "trans" experience cannot be extrapolated to all the population, to the point of making it seem that the most common biological and psychic configurations are an aberration and what is expected is the universalization of the fantasy of free and capricious flow between genders and sexes.

6. Paradoxically, scientific studies on the biological bases of transsexuality have not only not been ruled out but they continue and point, among other factors, to genetic variations. In other words, even transsexuality would have a biological basis and, without detriment to the influences of the cultural system, it could be assimilated to one more variation, albeit statistically negligible, in the conformation of the person based on their different levels of biological organization. In any case, what should be more prudent is, while weighing cultural factors, not denying the weight of biological factors, although thinking this is politically incorrect for some.