Hierarchical segregation and discrimination are practices that have existed in some form for as long as formal societal structures have existed. However, the reasoning behind these practices have changed over time, more recently often taking a more pseudo-scientific approach disguised as biology.
The idea that biology is responsible for specific “undesirable traits” in people was popularised following the proposition of the Germ Plasm theory of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann in 1892. Weismann’s theory postulated that heritable information was transmitted from one generation to another via germ cells, which contained determinants (genes). While his theory never explicitly talked about the nature of the inherited traits, early eugenicists, such as Francis Galton, viewed this theory as the potential inheritance of “undesirable traits” such as alcoholism and criminality, further going on to advocate for forced sterilisation of people considered “genetically unfit”.
Ideas which are rooted in the belief that an individual’s behavioural and social characteristics are primarily determined by their biological makeup fall under biological determinism. It posits characteristics such as gender, intelligence, and race as “biological truths”, which cannot be altered. Dr. Arriane Shahvisi, a Senior Lecturer in Medical Ethics at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School, calls this “an overstepping of biology”, further adding that “while biology is an inherent part of our lives and explains most things, there is a point where biology cannot explain everything”.
An extension of biological determinism, biological essentialism focuses on finding specific biological characteristics to define a group of people. According to Dr. Shahvisi, the definition of a community can potentially change depending on the context in which the community is being discussed. She added that “reducing them (people) to biological traits is not helpful in any situation.”
While both the idea of biological determinism and essentialism are united by the belief that “biology is destiny, and the answer to all of human condition”, there has been a recent shift in the way different groups of people interpret this particular statement, especially with regards to gender identity. Staunch believers of biological determinism often tend to be more politically right-wing,insisting on reinforcing regressive gender roles. On the contrary, while some biological essentialists might initially appear to be more liberal in their politics, they often seek to define a criterion for “being a woman or being a man”, in an attempt to undermine Trans, non-binary and intersex (TNBI) identities.
Regardless of where either group stands, it is important to understand that both views are harmful and enable the systemic oppression and mistreatment of the marginalised communities.
Impact of biological essentialism can be evidently seen in recent policy changes such as, the Labour government’s decision to extend the “emergency ban” on puberty blockers imposed by the former Tory government, following the recommendations of The Cass Review, published by Dr. Hilary Cass on 10th April, 2024. Despite concerns regarding long term effects of puberty blockers, there is no legitimate proof that puberty blockers pose any form of health risk. Furthermore, they are still accessible to under-18s not diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
TransActual, a UK based activist group, that previously challenged the initial ban, publicly stated that “they (the government) know that banning puberty blockers will not stop trans young people from accessing puberty blockers, but instead lead them to access them through the grey and black market without access to blood testing or appropriate medical supervision. A ban on puberty blockers increases the risk of harm to trans young people.”
Limiting proper healthcare access to marginalised communities and penalising them for trying to receive said healthcare is a blatant violation of human rights. It is a crude attempt to systematically suppress individuals’ “undesirable” identities and ostracise them. Using pseudo-scientific proofs to undermine human rights and calling it biology not only reinforces social inequalities, it denies people their autonomy and dehumanises them.