Fact check: Can feelings of gender be considered a subjective experience or is there a biological basis?

1. What claimants actually say — the core assertions pulled from the material

The assembled analyses articulate two primary claims: first, that gender identity is fundamentally a subjective, normative, phenomenological phenomenon constituted by feelings of “fit” and self-understanding ^{[1] [4]}. Second, that gender identity also has biological contributors—including heritable genetic components, prenatal hormonal influences, and neuroanatomic differences—making it a multifactorial trait with measurable correlates at the population level ^[3]. The dataset additionally contains a recent empirical finding that transgender individuals show distinct psychological profiles—notably a stronger perceived mind–body separation—linked to their gender identity and transition history, which complicates tidy subjectivist accounts by pointing to systematic psychological and possibly neurobiological patterns ^[5]. These claims are not mutually exclusive in the literature; many authors present them as complementary explanations for different aspects of identity formation and lived experience ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The subjective-experience case — why many scholars emphasize phenomenology

Philosophical and psychological work foregrounds that gender identity is experienced first-personally: studies propose accounts such as the “subjective fit” model where identity consists in normative experiences and self-ascriptions that merit respect, highlighting how individuals interpret and make sense of their bodily and social experiences ^{[1] [4]}. This research emphasizes that subjective reports of feeling male, female, nonbinary, or another identity are central data, shaping behavior, wellbeing, and social recognition. The 2024–2023 analyses frame gender as underdetermined by external features alone, arguing that lived experience and interpretive judgments are constitutive elements of identity rather than epiphenomena. The subjective literature warns against reducing identity solely to biomarkers because doing so would erase the normative and personal dimensions that determine when and why a self-ascription is meaningful ^{[4] [1]}.

3. The biological case — what genetics, neurobiology, and reviews actually show

Recent reviews and empirical studies present converging evidence that biological factors contribute to patterns of gender identity at population levels while stopping short of deterministic claims. A 2025 clinical review concludes that gender identity appears multifactorial with heritable elements, yet explicitly notes that genetic variants and neuroanatomic measures cannot identify or predict an individual’s gender identity ^[2]. Earlier genetic literature framed gender identity as likely polygenic and influenced by prenatal biology, and newer syntheses continue to report neurobiological disparities in some groups, including findings of brain features and psychological patterns associated with gender dysphoria and transgender experiences ^{[3] [6]}. A March 2025 study adds psychological differences tied to mind–body incongruence among transgender people, suggesting systematic, biologically relevant correlates but not a simple causal pathway ^[5].

4. How to reconcile the two sides — a pluralistic, evidence-based model

The most defensible position across these sources is a pluralistic model: subjective feelings of gender are real, identity-constituting phenomena, and biology helps shape propensities and experiences without serving as an exclusive determinant. Reviews argue for a multifactorial etiology combining genes, prenatal environment, neurodevelopment, and lived social-psychological processes, with the important caveat that current biomarkers lack predictive power for individuals ^{[2] [3]}. Philosophical accounts underscore the normative significance of first-person reports; biological accounts underscore population-level correlates and mechanisms. Both sides flag research limits—small samples, heterogeneity, and potential confounds from social experience and medical transition—so claims that overreach either toward strict biological determinism or total subjectivism are inconsistent with the weight of evidence ^{[1] [5]}.

5. What this means for policy, medicine, and future research

The combined literature implies pragmatic conclusions: respect and clinical decision-making should center self-reported identity, while research should continue to probe genetic, hormonal, and neural contributors to improve care and reduce disparities. Reviews recommend cautious interpretation of biological findings to avoid misuse in prediction or policing of identity, noting that biological diversity supports human-rights protections for gender minorities rather than pathologizing them ^[3]. Future studies must expand sample sizes, diversify populations, and disentangle effects of social environment and medical transition to clarify mechanisms; importantly, the absence of a singular diagnostic biomarker means clinical and social recognition will rely on subjective testimony alongside objective health metrics.