What are the main neurobiological studies investigating the origins of gender identity and what limitations do researchers identify?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Neurobiological research into the origins of gender identity clusters into brain-structure/function imaging, prenatal hormone and clinical-condition studies, genetic and family analyses, and critical philosophical reviews; together they suggest correlations between brain features, early hormone exposure, and gender identity but stop short of causal unanimity [1] [2] [3]. Researchers uniformly call for larger, longitudinal, better-controlled and ethically framed studies because existing data are heterogeneous, often underpowered, and limited by noninvasive methods and confounds such as puberty and treatment effects [4] [5] [2].
1. Neuroimaging cohorts: focused case-series and longitudinal youth studies
Targeted neuroimaging work—including series from the Amsterdam cohort—aims to test the “atypical sexual differentiation” hypothesis by comparing brain structure and function in children and adolescents experiencing gender incongruence to expected sex-typical patterns, and asking whether differences predate puberty or arise later [5] [6]. These studies use structural and functional MRI to probe whether sex differences in the brain reflect early organizational hormone effects or pubertal influences, and explicitly flag the need to study impacts of delaying puberty on neurodevelopment via larger longitudinal cohorts [5].
2. Large-scale, multi-site mega-analyses: seeking robust patterns
To overcome small-sample variability, the ENIGMA Transgender Persons Working Group aggregated MRI data from over 800 pre-hormone-treatment participants and reported that transgender people do not simply shift toward the opposite-sex brain but may present with unique neuroanatomical phenotypes that vary by measure and region—findings presented as a normative framework for future clinical work [4] [7]. Authors of mega-analyses also acknowledge caveats: pooling data across groups can obscure methodological differences between contributing studies and control variables [8].
3. Prenatal hormone and clinical-condition evidence
A parallel stream links prenatal androgen exposure to later sex-typical behaviors and, by extension, to components of sexual identity and orientation: animal models, studies of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and androgen-insensitivity conditions show shifts toward increased male-typical or reduced male-typical outcomes respectively, supporting a role for early hormones though not a deterministic one [1] [3] [9]. Reviews caution that these clinical findings are suggestive rather than definitive and that sexual identity and orientation likely arise from multifactorial influences [9].
4. Systematic reviews and the limits of current imaging
Systematic reviews of structural, functional, and metabolic neuroimaging literature conclude that while patterns of sex-atypical brain features appear in some studies, interpreting noninvasive imaging is difficult because measures are coarse, findings are inconsistent across studies, and subtle contributors could remain below detection thresholds of current techniques [2]. The pediatric literature echoes this uncertainty, noting that atypical sexual differentiation cannot fully explain gender diversity and that regions involved in self- and body-awareness may also be relevant [10].
5. Methodological and conceptual criticisms researchers identify
Critiques emphasize multiple limitations: small and non-representative samples, heterogeneity in recruitment and measurement, confounding effects of prior social experiences or medical treatments, difficulty inferring causation from correlational imaging, and potential bias in framing research as “etiology” rather than focusing on care and stigma [8] [2] [11]. Philosophical analyses further warn against reifying a single “trans brain” explanation and urge inclusion of alternative models that stress self-referential processing or body perception without presuming a universal neurobiological signature [12].
6. Ethical framing and next steps researchers recommend
Across reviews and special issues, scholars call for studies that are longitudinal, diverse, transparent about limitations, and conducted with community engagement so that science serves rather than stigmatizes transgender and gender-diverse people; proposed priorities include better controls for developmental stage and hormone exposure, richer psychosocial data, and ethical safeguards for vulnerable participants [13] [11] [5]. Where current work points to associations—brain phenotype variance, prenatal hormone correlations—researchers stop short of single-cause claims and stress that understanding origins requires integrating biology, development, and social context [2] [10].