By Sunil Wimalawansa –

Prof Sunil J. Wimalawansa

The fundamental difference between males and females is that males typically have XY chromosomes. In contrast, females have XX chromosomes, which are biologically different and specifically identifiable. The X and Y chromosomes determine womanliness (femineity) and manhood (masculinity). Atypical chromosomal abnormalities like 47-XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) or rare 47-XYY (Jacobs syndrome) syndrome result from errors in chromosomal splicing, adding extra sex chromosomes (trisomies).

Fundamental differences between males and females

The primary distinction between males and females is their chromosomal composition—Males possess XY chromosomes, while females have XX chromosomes. The genes on the X and Y chromosomes govern whether a person is a male or a female, their development, and the synthesis of sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.

While gene-directed biology determines gender, sex hormones maintain physiological functions, physical appearances, as well as capabilities in males and females. Sex steroid hormones also influence and regulate the activity of the adrenal glands and associated physiology.

Genetic differences and gonadal development

The presence or absence of the Sex-Determining Region Y (SRY) gene is critical in determining whether an embryo develops into male or female physical characteristics. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome defines the male gender. Without the SRY gene (as in XX females), gonadal tissue develops into ovaries, producing estrogen and progesterone.

The SRY gene initiates the process of male gonadal development—which triggers the development of testes from the undifferentiated gonadal tissue in the embryo. This leads to the production of testosterone, which signals the development of male reproductive organs and secondary sexual characteristics.

Fundamental aspects of sexual development

The synthesis of sex hormones and associated second messenger signaling drives biological development, including internal glandular structures and external physical traits. These biological aspects cannot be altered fundamentally through surgical or chemical means. Therefore, functionally changing a male into a female or vice versa is unfeasible; only superficial characteristics can be modified by transgender interventions. However, such interventions often have significant risks and lasting adverse effects, including serious mental health challenges.

The processes involved in synthesizing and releasing sex hormones and their receptor-mediated effects on cellular function underscore their vital role in developing internal glandular structures and urogenital formation during the embryonic stages. In addition, secondary sex characteristics during /puberty and growth.

It is impossible to alter intrinsic anatomical structures and biological functions through sex change processes—via surgery or chemicals. These interventions only focus on external modifications. Nevertheless, they are associated with substantial, often irreversible harm, particularly adverse physical and psychological outcomes, and impair long-term well-being. These emphasize the complex biological role of genes and sex hormones and the limitations of altering fundamental sex-specific functions through medical interventions.

Differences in the sexual development of males and females

Males and females exhibit distinct physiological differences, behavior characteristics, and physical capabilities. Biologically, sex hormones direct embryonic genitalia development and maintain physiological function and distinctions between males and females.

Biological sex determination occurs through X and Y chromosomes, not by a person’s name, clothing, or hormonal treatments. Robust scientific evidence underscores the biological distinctions between sexes, as well as the physiological and mental health impacts of cross-sex hormone treatments.

Confusion around sex and gender arises partly due to efforts to separate the two concepts. Gender dysphoria, classified as a mental health condition, can often be managed effectively through empathy, understanding, and psychotherapy. Gender transition should not be the primary approach, as many individuals express the desire to revert to their original gender post-transition.

Administering sex hormones does not change biological characteristics

Administering male sex hormones (e.g., testosterone) to females or female sex hormones(e.g., estrogen)  to males does not change the fundamental structures or biological determinants of sex or physiological capabilities. Despite changes in external appearances, the capabilities of masculinity remain intact in males after transgender interventions. Therefore, allowing males to compete in female sports is not only unethical, unfair, discriminatory, and pointless but also ridiculous.

Transgender-related medical interventions notably influence brain functions, leading to mental health issues such as depression, aggression, and suicide tendencies. These underscore the biological role of sex-specific genes and hormones and the potential adverse effects of cross-sex hormone administration.

What determines sexual attraction to same-sex individuals

Sexual development is primarily regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, with the hypothalamus and pituitary gland directing most endocrine glands, including those responsible for sex hormone production. However, environmental factors, such as stress, exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (e.g., bisphenol A), diet, and medications, have been shown to influence these brain centers and may disrupt normal hormonal synthesis. Nevertheless, these changes are often reversible upon removal of the influencing factor.

Contrary to popularized narratives, there is no “gay gene” or specific chromosome determining “sexual attraction” or familial tendency, and claims regarding genetic determinants lack substantial scientific merit. Studies that propose otherwise often suffer from faulty conjectures, study designs, other methodological weaknesses, and conflicts of interest. Flawed conclusions from such studies cannot conclude genetic causality.

Some historical scripts, as in Greece, have mentioned homosexuality. However, circumstances that attract the same sexes for sexual purposes have nothing to do with genetics. Large-scale studies on genetics and sexual orientation, including genome-wide association studies or other scientific data, indicate that no single or combination of genes drives sexual attraction.

Instead, sexual attractions are influenced by a person’s mentality—social, environmental (peer-influences), drug use, and behavioral factors that are congregated through childhood upbringings and exposure, but not genetics. Interest groups use these myths for political advantage, and pharmaceutical companies leverage such misconceptions to market products for profit. They target impressionable and vulnerable populations, like adolescents and young adults.

Transgenderism

The transgender medical sector is highly profitable and is growing. The demand for gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies carries significant health risks, particularly in younger generations. This industry already generates billions of dollars in revenue with high-profit margins for the pharma and health sectors. Consequently, they seek expansion through aggressive lobbying, partnerships with government bodies, and spreading misinformation to capture customers.

High-profit margin incentivized promotional strategies that target vulnerable groups, particularly children and adolescents, through media and educational settings. Lobbying efforts within this sector advocate for policies that mandate insurance coverage for gender-affirming procedures, including surgeries and lifelong hormone therapy, despite the controversial efficacy, costing thousands of dollars annually per person, despite miseries created for families, considerable harm.

Who bears the transgender costs?

Such policies, if enacted, will lead insurance companies (or health departments)  to absorb the high costs associated with these treatments, which are passed down to consumers. Additionally, instances have emerged where some healthcare professionals alleged to prioritize such treatments despite ethical concerns, contravening the Hippocratic principle of “first, do no harm.” The financial motives, ethical concerns, and impacts on families and healthcare costs associated with the transgender industry on the public are not trivial.

The purported influence of educators who may promote gender dysphoria ideas on youth and related interventions is done under pressure from industry incentives, creating a loop of reinforcement that shapes young people’s beliefs and decisions. Critics argue that these are part of a larger effort to distance individuals from traditional family structures and religious institutions, which may indirectly benefit certain political parties by creating more malleable social structures.

These interventions, which encompass medications, surgeries, and hospitalizations for their complications, ultimately shift financial burdens to taxpayers, contributing to rising healthcare expenses for everyone. Studies have highlighted that gender dysphoria is a mental illness accentuated by the environment in which he or she lives. So, unsurprisingly, medical interventions infrequently provide the desired relief but instead result in poorer long-term physical and mental health outcomes. The above underscores and offers insights into the impacts of educator influence on the vulnerable, creating broader socio-political implications and the financial incentives and mental health outcomes associated with gender dysphoria interventions.

Summary

A small group is attempting to introduce the concepts of legalizing prostitution, gender dysphoria, and transgender in Sri Lanka. Western perspectives and interests largely influence this. Those proponents, doing so often without comprehensive understanding or consideration of the social and cultural implications. These trends and risks challenge traditional cultural and religious values. At the same time, it provides financial benefits primarily to healthcare entities but imposes substantial harm and financial burden on society. Besides, introducing any legislation could open doors to an entirely unnecessary and harmful chapter in Sri Lanka, potentially leading to irreversible societal damage (could be as bad as banning inorganic fertilizer in 2019).

The financial influence held by a select group, including pharmaceutical companies and their affiliates, has increasingly strained societal structures. Critics argue that these entities often prioritize profits and political objectives over the well-being of families and communities. This influence mirrors the actions of global organizations like the World Economic Forum, which have been criticized for advancing agendas that, some claim, favor elite interests at the expense of public welfare.

Another prominent example is the rapid promotion of COVID-19 vaccines, often described as experimental gene therapy. Pharmaceutical companies reported record-breaking profits—exceeding $200 billion—throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, despite ongoing debates surrounding vaccine safety and significant short- and long-term adverse health effects reported worldwide, with limited demonstrated benefit. This situation highlights broader concerns over the impact of pharmaceutical interests, potential conflicts within leading health authorities, and the effects of restrictive public policies on individual freedom, societal health, and overall well-being.