Genes provide a range of potential, not a fixed outcome. Your genes might make you more or less likely to stutter, but whether you actually do depends on how those genes interact with brain development, environment, learning, and even chance events during neural wiring. The walking analogy is flawed. Walking is a biologically prepared behavior. Humans are genetically primed for it. Babies don’t just stand up and walk because their genes say so; they do it after months of sensory feedback, muscle coordination, and trial and error. Similarly, speech is biologically prepared, but fluency is a learned motor skill. There’s a genetic predisposition for how the speech-motor system develops, but that doesn’t mean disfluency is “hard-coded.” It’s a product of motor learning, timing, and feedback, all of which can be modified (as fluency therapy proves). We see this in identical twins: they share 100% of their genes, yet one can stutter while the other does not. Concordance rates for stuttering among identical twins hover around 60–70%, not 100%. That gap is the influence of environment and development, not a lack of genes. If everything were genetic, speech therapy wouldn’t work. Yet thousands of people reduce or eliminate stuttering. As to "stuttering isn't taken seriously?" That's an interesting take. And one I don't share. What makes you believe it isn't taken seriously?