Time to abandon the brain sex theory of Transsexualism ?

[joannatsf]

Hmm, One at a time or altogether?  >

OK, one at a time. 

I'm no fan of Anne or Zucker or Blanchard.  But there is very good science that says HRT is a huge part of it.

A more recent study, Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure, 2006 indicates that changes in brain morphology are due to cross-sex hormone treatment.  Subjects in the 2006 study were scanned prior to hormone treatment and showed no differentiation from non-transsexuals of their natal gender.  Dramatic changes in brain morphology were observed in all subjects after hormone therapy regardless of age at time of treatment.

...

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?  To the people that hate us we'll always be just another group of ->-bleeped-<-s.

Where did you read about anything but BSTc, Claire? Did you read anuthing that suggested that HRT didn't affect the brain? I didn't. just that it didn't affect the volume and neuronal prevalence of the BSTc, but that changes tended to occur, contrary to expectation, after adulthood.

So, I think we can mostly attest, if there's a need, that those of us who've gone the HRT route have found changes in things like olfactory sensitivity, textural receptivity and such items that probably indict brain changes.

The question about BSTc is one of sex-differentiation and why someone might feel an incongruence between body and brain at 3-4 etc. The BSTc might naswer that.

As for the difference between ourselves and homosexuals? (I presume that's who you were talking about.) What's the difference between someone with congenital heart deformations and transsexuality? Are there birth anomalies that are not related in any way and may still be birth anomalies? 

1. I read the Zhou study in Nature and an abstract the Chung 1998 study.  I thought the methodology and sampling proceedures were deeply flawed.  There had been previous use of hormones prior to death.  As we all know, some changes from  HRT are irreversable.  Oh, and everyone was dead!

2. Did you read the 2006 EJE article?  HRT made large changes in many brain structures.  Shrinkage in size and volume of gray matter and the size of the hypothalumus.  Isn't te BSTc located in the hypothalamus?

3. "There is nothing in this to suggest the HRT has any effect at all. WE are Freaking BORN this way and the changes occur quite naturally, just as they do with other adult human beings!!"
What you said was absolute, no doubts, irrefutable fact.  That's simply not the case, as evidenced by the 2006 study.

4. I never said anything about homosexuals.  Natal males were what I refered to.

I think many TS don't quite understand science.
They have a much greatest bias than scientist who
in most cases (except for the nutcases at Clarke). are
more interested in advancing their careers than an agenda.
There's no glory in advancing bad theories in
neuropsychology, it will only isolate you.

...


Anyway, my own belief is that since gender is probably not
a binary, brain modifications due to hormonal or DNA influence
may be accross the whole brain organisation and not just
one structure.

These changes would lead to a = predisposition = to being a TS or
an androgyne, dependant on social interactions.

All of this may make finding the TS brain link either difficult or irrelevant.

Not saying you're wrong about TSes not understanding scientists Keira, any more than I would think you'd argue if I said a lot of TSes don't understand syntax and grammar, higher order physics, the ins and outs of statistical theory, how to repair a washing machine, driving etiquette or economics or developing a solar fuel cell. There'a a lot of places where a lot of us have huge educational gaps in our knowledge. Thenb there's those huge gaps in human ability as well.

I do understand that studies like those cited require replicability and that they require larger samples to be able to generalize across populations.

Zhou (!995): N=6, Kruijver(2000): N=8, Chung (2002): N=50. Nope, nothing large enough yet to be generalizable. The studies haven't yet been replicated in other medical forensic labs, at least not that have been reported and peer-reviewed. Yet, the study subject N grows each study. The studies are "suggestive" of certain things that may come through the development of the BSTc in himan beings. Not that the entire locus of anything is there at all. And certainly nothing is proven by 50 dissected brains (the 6 Zhou brains + 2 were used by Kruijver in 2000.) 

My point was not that any of that makes me a "more valid" person, nor does it make anyone less of a person, well, except for maybe Anne Lawrence who seems to have willfully abstracted one sentence from a study to make it sound like the study backed heer theorizing whne the syudy plainly didn't do that at all. Now that transsexual, perhaps, knows little about science?

How's your French, Nicole?

[Keira]

Man, its seems nitpicking is kind of an art around here.

Saying most TS don't understand science is a given
since most humans are not scientists. So, I don't
see how that could be inflamatory in the least.

Yet, in the news, there's way too many studies meant
for scientist consumption bandied around without
explanation for the neophytes leading to much
wrong conclusions. That's how the proponents
of Intelligent Design are able to get so much
mileage out of their crap.

I'm a computer engineer and have done 2.5 years of pure physics
BTW before switching to
computer engineering in 1990. So, I believe I've got
more of a scientific backgound than most americans or Canadians (I hope 


My point is that there could be much more than one specific
brain region involved in gender and thus would explain why
it doesn't seem to be binary.

Also, even if they would find one area involved in gender,
at most I believe they would find correlation and not cause
because of this interaction with hormones, other brain regions
(influenced by DNA and hormones in the womb) and upbriging
within a culture.

In a culture where gender seperations would be slight,
it may be able to express itself in subtle forms while
in cultures where culture is binary (like the middle east),
only those that need to bridge the divide would truly be revealed,
others would be stuck or would not even be able to put a
name on what they're feeling, let alone express it.

Its like Inuits having dozens
of names for snow while a New Guinea forest native has none.

That also colors studies on this since those that are in between,
or slightly dysphoric, may never be seen in a clinical setting. This
leads to a bias in the study subjects themselves and wrong conclusions
(like conclusions about TS seen in the 60's).

The calculated prevalence of TS (and I'd expect all androgynes and TG)
in a society has directly been linked to its cultural acceptability.
Prevalence rates has shot up at least 10 fold in the last 20 years,
don't think brains have changed that much in that time frame.
Countries like the Netherlands have very high prevalence rates.

[NicholeW.]

Serve? You're supposing you managed to get a ball into the court, let alone won a point!   

As for bigotry? Well, you brought that up, not me. See?

The cause is ultimately irrelevant if the issue can be resolved through known treatment and any attempt to deny others treatment that could and would be given at a medical professionals discretion would make someone no better than some of the bigotry i see complained about here.

And this:

1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

is the definition you want to use? OK. So where exactly have you seen me do what you imply, evidently, that I've done? This is no attack, but it rather seems to me that you are more inclined to sophistry rather than sopistication of your argument. But, that's just an impression I have right now and may well change in a few minutes. Since I'm more than willing to be convinced that it's not true. That will be entirely up to you.

Clinical definitions are such a bore in this area though.  Especially seeing as when you mention even the term 'neutrois' to any medical professional you tend to get a O.o look.  Just because it's not a clinical definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Bored" I've found to be, in intellectual-like circles, just another terminology that suggests that one would rather not have to define their terms. So, what do you mean when you use the term "neutrois?"

"Multiple, Multiplicity - Two or more independent people who use the same body; the experience of sharing the body with others. Is included in plurality, but implies more separation and independence of people than being median. May or may not be associated with losing time, hearing voices, having an other world. "

From : http://astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html

As it seems to be sufficiently open to allow for most possibilities.

Astraea's Web? What's that? You see, before I agree a definition I actually need something I can accept. TBH, this sounds very much like "woman trapped in a man's body" in kind. That particular designation from trans-people I find ludicrous. It doesn't match any experience I've ever had and is potentially just plain stupid. People aren't trapped in their bodies. Their bodies may not fulfill their sense of self, or, in my case, it was anomalous with my sex. No "identity" necessary. Simply an incongruent brain and most of the rest of the body it's a part of. Not such a problem anymore.

Personae I can understand. "People" I have a lot harder time with. People, as I think of them, are always in one body. One people, one body. That definition sounds a bit more like someone grappling for meaning when they have two or more distinct personae running along their neural pathways. As I said in my previous post

Cases of a dissociation that actually forms discreet personalities in the same brain is very, very rare. But there does appear to be a personality that tends to organize the others and allows them to function as an individual to all intents and purposes. The human brain is wonderous. It can manage survival from dissociative disorders to catatonia to amnesia simply to protect itself and its systems.

The understandings of DID, very much like GID for most people, are amorphous and indeterminate. A sense that numerous people inhabit the same body being just one of those things. Sybil is very rare. That people dissociate is not rare at all. I have daydreams, that's dissociation.

I did have a client once who tried very hard to convince people he had multiples: never had any trauma in his life other than a few spankings from his father and his father used his hand on the client's bottom. That was it. The only trauma.

The incidences of multiples occurring are uniquely associated with trauma of some sort. Sometimes early childhood sexual abuse, sometimes great and horrific physical trauma, also as a child most often.

But my guy wanted to dress in his mother's clothes. His wife didn't much care for that. So my guy, being god-fearing and all, made a distinct personality he attributed  the wearing of clothes to. *shrug* It was a coping thing. And in that sense could well have been seen as DID. It's just that his organizing personality had totl control of when the other came out. That was not DID.

So, Astraea's is kinda loose for me as you appear to recoignize

As it seems to be sufficiently open to allow for most possibilities.

. Something that allows "most possibilities" defines and incorporates none, or all or whatever number one wishes to insert. I'd rather just be bored and use something else. How 'bout that? Can we close this down a bit and you just specify what you want to include?

I'm pretty agreeable about most things, just not all things.  Tighten it up some, please?

I'm not out to obliterate common language here. I would just like for the language that exists to account for the logical possibilities that can fall under it

Again, lotsa words, not much meaning I can find. Soemthing that incorporates ... well, damn-near anything either of us can come up with. That'll make for a long discussion, but not much understanding, I imagine.

That sounds oddly like an implied attack.

It may sound like that to you. But, no doubt you are nicer than I am when you attack. Trust me, everyone will know when and if I attack you, or anyone else. There'll be no implication, it'll be very plain indeed. So, try to take my word. Rather than attack you, which I honestly see no reason to do, you don't threaten me in any way, I'd just shrug and leave the discussion, allowing you to make whatever you wish of that.

If I do that, I'll have very good reason to do so. I'll simply see no point in going forward. And we are reaching that point. I don't mind, in fact welcome, a discussion that allows me to actually understand my interlocutor. Tekla, for instance, is pretty easy to enjoyably argue with. But tekla is also precise and clear about what sie says.

To me,  it doesn't take much of a leap to bring in the nature vs nurture debate into that one.  Just because it's neurological doesn't mean it's since prior to birth, no?

Nope, "neurological" says nothing about birth, except that there was one or will be one at some point. People get neurological deficits through car-accidents and sports injuries on a very regular basis. They fall off the ledges of building and do that.

"Congenital" seems a generally accepted term for "inherited prior to birth."

Now, would you be willing to define "neutrois?" A few sentences will do. Make your point about "neutrois" and why that term somehow escapes what the Chung article I pasted a page ago has that threatens a "neutrois."

All the best, do you actually play tennis? Just wondering.

Nichole


 

For the last two not a lot.

Actually Claire, you referred to "->-bleeped-<-s." You're right, not homosexuals at all. But then sometimes you do get carried away. I understand that.

No, I haven't read your referred to study yet, perhaps tomorrow. Then I shall see what I see. Like I said, my original point was Anne Lawrence and her own selective quotes.

BSTC is not a part of the hypothalamus, it's an area associated with the hypothalamus and very near it, last I recall reading.

Keira, you damn "social science" as not "science" and then use it to say that "The calculated prevalence of TS (and I'd expect all androgynes and TG) in a society has directly been linked to its cultural acceptability." Am I to presume that was done in a physics lab or a forensic medical lab or a maths workroom?

If you're gonna say something isn't science then perhaps it would make a better impression if you didn't use the thing you denied efficacy to attempt to make a point?

Actually, what you think may well be right. But what Anne Lawrence used to "prove" that HRT contaminated research just wasn't where she said it was. It may be true, as Claire seems to think, but Anne didn't find it. So, once more, ->-bleeped-<- went begging.

Look it, if you two wanna be psychologically pathologized, be my guest. As I've said before I can take your money and not feel at all bad about it. But, I also think, Keira, that your various etiologies would include biological etiologies as well. Or is social science somehow now valid when it wasn't before?

Nichole

[Keira]

Nichole, I wish you would take a softer line in your
responses. I don't think my posts
warrant that much aggressivity. If I really wanted to
push hard, I would, but what would be the point to it.


I've not said anything about social sciences, I was
clearly talking hard science and medical studies would surely
fall in that arena.

I clearly said that its calculated prevalence,
obviously calculated from people seen in clinical settings.
But, that incidence is almost certainly undereported since
only those typically want to transition are seen in
those settings.

Obviously, the "real" prevalence rate if its due to a
physical condition is ALWAYS THE SAME (at least if external
conditions don't change since nutrion or environmental pollutants or medications
could have an impact).

I'm talking about the one we actually seen in a clinical setting
(which has increased incredibly in the last 20 years).

[Jaycie]

Quote from: JC
1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

is the definition you want to use? OK. So where exactly have you seen me do what you imply, evidently, that I've done? This is no attack, but it rather seems to me that you are more inclined to sophistry rather than sopistication of your argument. But, that's just an impression I have right now and may well change in a few minutes. Since I'm more than willing to be convinced that it's not true. That will be entirely up to you.

...

Seriously.

Dot.
Dot.
Dot.

I thought it would be clear that even with a cursory reading it would be obvious i haven't accused any specific person of such,  much less yourself.  You're reading far too much into things that aren't there at all.

Next, sophistry?

"1.   a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.   a false argument; sophism."

I'm not sure which of these you meant to imply but both are rather insulting and unbecoming of anyone, much less a staff member.

"Bored" I've found to be, in intellectual-like circles, just another terminology that suggests that one would rather not have to define their terms.

Well,  seeing as this is a forum on the internet and most places that fall under such category are quite obviously not 'intellectual-like circles',  bored means that the arbitrary limiting of the argument to confines that don't sufficiently explain the situtation would make for an even less than productive discussion than we're having now. 

So, what do you mean when you use the term "neutrois?"

This statement is a bit ambiguous to me.  I'm not sure if you're asking for a definition or an explination of my usage of the example.  Given that,  i'll choose the explination of the example since it's the more relevant of the two to me.

I meant that the term neutrois,  as an identity equal to male or female, is relativley unknown within clinical definitions. That said,  it still exists and those who hold that identity and quite often the associated body image that goes along with it ( google will help if you're not familiar ) still need medical treatment even so. So limiting the terminology to just the clinical would be a flawed stance within this place. I hope that clears it up a bit.

Astraea's Web? What's that? You see, before I agree a definition I actually need something I can accept. TBH, this sounds very much like "woman trapped in a man's body" in kind. That particular designation from trans-people I find ludicrous. It doesn't match any experience I've ever had and is potentially just plain stupid. People aren't trapped in their bodies. Their bodies may not fulfill their sense of self, or, in my case, it was anomalous with my sex. No "identity" necessary. Simply an incongruent brain and most of the rest of the body it's a part of. Not such a problem anymore.

This will sound harsh,  but your acceptance is really neither here nor there to the point at hand. Just because you or i have not had a particular experience doesn't mean that others don't. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss others experiences on the basis that they're so different from your own. 

Personae I can understand. "People" I have a lot harder time with. People, as I think of them, are always in one body. One people, one body. That definition sounds a bit more like someone grappling for meaning when they have two or more distinct personae running along their neural pathways. As I said in my previous post

Having an identity contrary to the body image that you're expected to hold is something that people have a hard time with also.  Again,  just because you're not familiar with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But i think you'll notice this is a bit of a recurring theme.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

Seems there are quite a few different stances on it anyway.  ^_~

The understandings of DID, very much like GID for most people, are amorphous and indeterminate. A sense that numerous people inhabit the same body being just one of those things. Sybil is very rare. That people dissociate is not rare at all. I have daydreams, that's dissociation.

I did have a client once who tried very hard to convince people he had multiples: never had any trauma in his life other than a few spankings from his father and his father used his hand on the client's bottom. That was it. The only trauma.

Please now,  are you going to be telling me next that every transsexual is going to come to their therapist with self mutilated genitals and wearing their wife's underwear? Since of course we all know that when you say the term 'transsexual' it only means MtF within common culture. Just because some are the most visible doesn't mean they're the ONLY incarnation of the existence. You should seriously know better than that.

The incidences of multiples occurring are uniquely associated with trauma of some sort. Sometimes early childhood sexual abuse, sometimes great and horrific physical trauma, also as a child most often.

Again, according to current clinical understanding this statement may be correct.  According to reality though, things can be quite different.  I would use transsexuals who still wish to transtition medically yet don't have life crippling dysphoria that makes them attempt suicide weekly as an example. Should we deny their existance just because they don't fit an outdated medical model?

Something that allows "most possibilities" defines and incorporates none, or all or whatever number one wishes to insert. I'd rather just be bored and use something else. How 'bout that? Can we close this down a bit and you just specify what you want to include?

I'm pretty agreeable about most things, just not all things.  Smiley Tighten it up some, please?

Well, lets use the term 'transsexual' as an example. I've been personally told here that being a 'male to neutrois transsexual' is impossible and doesn't exist. Though,  as i am a partner of one that just had their SRS yesterday it would seem that isn't the case. Part of what needs to be sufficiently open is the defintion of transsexual to allow for ALL who medically transition to a sex other than what they were born with,  no less.  That's an example of sufficiently open. 

It may sound like that to you. But, no doubt you are nicer than I am when you attack. Trust me, everyone will know when and if I attack you, or anyone else. There'll be no implication, it'll be very plain indeed. So, try to take my word. Rather than attack you, which I honestly see no reason to do, you don't threaten me in any way, I'd just shrug and leave the discussion, allowing you to make whatever you wish of that.

If I do that, I'll have very good reason to do so. I'll simply see no point in going forward. And we are reaching that point. I don't mind, in fact welcome, a discussion that allows me to actually understand my interlocutor. Tekla, for instance, is pretty easy to enjoyably argue with. But tekla is also precise and clear about what sie says.

That's nice. Though,  more content next time and less pseudo-threats would be more productive.

Nope, "neurological" says nothing about birth, except that there was one or will be one at some point. People get neurological deficits through car-accidents and sports injuries on a very regular basis. They fall off the ledges of building and do that.

"Congenital" seems a generally accepted term for "inherited prior to birth."

While informative i suppose,   i'm not sure of the relevance?

Now, would you be willing to define "neutrois?" A few sentences will do. Make your point about "neutrois" and why that term somehow escapes what the Chung article I pasted a page ago has that threatens a "neutrois."

"Neutrois means non-gendered class. A Neutrois is someone who identifies as being non-gendered and seeks to lose the major physical signifiers that indicate gender to others (breasts, facial and body hair, crotch bulges, etc)."

from : http://neutrois.0catch.com/defin.htm

While i personally question the direct linking of the identity with the body image in that manner,  that's a different discussion.     I explained my point in bringing it up earlier in this reply. 

All the best, do you actually play tennis? Just wondering.

I have in the past.    ^^

[NicholeW.]

Sorry if that was too aggressive, Keira.

I was under the impression I had read that you thought of social science as vastly different from hard sciences. Clinical settings for trans-people vary. Sometimes a medical clinic for hrt or surgeries, etc and sometimes the offices of therapists. The correlation you stated sounded like a census-report. Was it a census of medical visits?

It really wouldn't matter I would think. Most practitioners of use to transsexuals and other gender-divergent people tend to be higher economically skewed for clientele. So, Jane the street-walker in Kinshasa might not be seen in a setting that would lend itself to her saying she had a gender-divergence. Socially and culturally that might be a way to die instead of a way to get treatment as well.

A biological etiology would, indeed, be pretty much normalized across human populations. My guess is that at one time it was. The modern prevalence of phyto-estrogens and other estrogenic compunds that we have insidiously released into the environment and given to people as medications, before, during and after pregancy, as you said, could all raise the incidence of TS and other gender-dissonance. Prolly has.

But, more information and better communication may simply have raised the tabulated rate a good deal on its own. People who once may have suffered in silence, fearing themselves and their "obsessions," may now be coming-out in more ways than they once did. So, indeed, it could be both biological and sociological as well as a prevalance increase from environmental contamination.

I don't disagree at all with your idea of various etiologies. The Chung research though does appear to point in a direction. It doesn't lock anything down and I still want to read the paper Claire cited to see what it says. But the Chung direction is not the direction that AAL says it pointed in at all.

But, I do think that ->-bleeped-<- as a defining typology is simply a hash of psychological theory based on earlier psychological theory and carried forward with a certain prejudice by people who feel better if they have a totally binary system to work with when it comes to sex and gender. Or, like Anne Lawrence, they relate the theory to their own personal efficacy as an explanation for "why I am the way I am."

Nichole

[joannatsf]

Actually Claire, you referred to "->-bleeped-<-s." You're right, not homosexuals at all. But then sometimes you do get carried away. I understand that.

Clearly, the final paragraph of that that statement is opinion (mine) and not part of the preceeding comment on the EJE study, which you haven't read.  The final sentence where I use the word ->-bleeped-<-s was a legitimate use of hyperbole to illustrate the thinking of bigots.  I was not "carried" anywhere.  I'm not Walter Mondale and you're not Ronald Reagan! 

[Beyond]

For many here,  if not most,  that is the exact point of finding some type of physical proof of causation. There's a large push to take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else.

Umm No.  My only point is that over the last year or two several people have been claiming that the stideies say the opposite of what they clealy do say.

My decision to transition was made way before I knew of any studies and before I was even online.  From the beginning the goal was to lead a more honest life.  That may sound odd to you JC, but other people born TS will know what I'm talking about.  In a nutshell my life had been about trying to be what others wanted, not what I wanted.  I survived by lying to myself (denial) and others.  With transition lies are no longer necessary, I can just be me.  I don't need a laboratory study to prove something I already know.

[NicholeW.]

@JC. Your persistence in finding "threats" seems to be the point. Trust me though, what you saw as a threat isn't. Just a statement of fact.

If the argument has to be strictly on the definitions, or in this case lack of them, that you yourself can lay out, and you cannot actually say, without quoting others, what is in your own mind about how something "looks" and what the parameters of your part of the discussion is going to be, then I see no point in even involving myself.

To do so, becomes, in my own mind, a condition of mental masturbation, that may be invigotating, but doesn't move anything at all forward toward understanding and being able to converse with one another.

Cut and paste do not argumentation make. Something from one's own mind does, or at least might. 

If the idea is to make cute jabs at one another to decide who's best-suited to do so... well, again, ... the effort is more than I am willing to undertake for the result. Perhaps at some point you will risk beginning a thread of your own that states opinion and where you are yourself. I think, though, that for the purposes of this one, I'll just move on to Claire.

Thanks for the try, but for me the cost isn't worth the candle it will make.


@Claire.

Good morning. After downloading the PDF to my desktop last night around 11 and making the posts above, I found I was unable to maintain enough focus to the technical paper to actually read it with any assurance of understanding it. So, you are definitely right that I hadn't read it. Thus, I tried not to make any statements about the article, except that given certain changes in perception that accompanied HRT, I found it very reasonable to expect that the researchers found exactly what you said they found.

Turns out, they list those changes in the abstract as some of the basis for the study. And the conclusion

In conclusion, our data show that in young adult humans, androgen treatment increases the volume of the female brain towards male proportions and anti-androgen + estrogen treatment reduces the size of the male brain towards female proportions. The findings imply plasticity of adult human brain structure towards the opposite sex under the influence of cross-sex hormones.

They certainly do! 

Yet, what is not defined is the "knowing" of cross-sex-ness at young ages and the etiology of that. I don't think I'm unusual in that I have experienced the knowingness of being other than the defining secondary sex-characteristics of my body since I was 3-4. My first recall of talking to Mommie about that was from the time of my brother's first year of life: he was born when I was 2 months short of my first third birthday and I have a picture recall of the car he was brought home in and how fascinating it was to see him and be around him. Did all of that "make" me a girl? I don't know, but I think it was certainly an indication that I was not as I seemed to my parents.

If in volume and neuronal size and frequency I was born with a male-parameter brain, then okay. It's what it is. But within that brain there was that knowledge that I was not who my parents defined me as. I was like the ones they defined as "girl."

That we cannot dissect our way to ourselves surprises me none at all. Finally, the way is the way we can and will take to that end, becoming who we are, not what we are told we must be.

For me that's the hope of the researches of Amsterdam, Utrecht, that they can develop some information that's valid and generalizable toward a better understanding of where and why we come to be as we are. That, I am hopeful, will remove the entire subject from the postulations of both Blanchard, Anne Lawrence and others on one track and  the postulations of Andrea James and Lynn Conway and others on another track. Finally, both tracks are merely playing "mind-games" using the lives of human beings as constructs for a battle of wits and feelings. Our lives, all of our lives, are more valuable than that.

I don't know that the Hulsoff Pol, et. al. finding reverses the Zhou & Kruijver studies at all. But, it does give us a glimpse of insight that wasn't available until 2006. That is for the good. The simple knowledge that one's brain on estrogen or androgen moves that brain-size toward the sex one knows she or he has doesn't suddenly transform the musing of either of those camps mentioned above further toward or further away from being "right." I'm sure that Ms. Lwrence is "right" about her own proclivities and that her explanations of ->-bleeped-<- fit herself quite comfortably. I think the difficulty always arises when what I use to justify my own existence demands that I maintain that all others must have the same existence as I.

My deepest regards, Claire,

Nichole

[Jaycie]

If the argument has to be strictly on the definitions, or in this case lack of them, that you yourself can lay out, and you cannot actually say, without quoting others, what is in your own mind about how something "looks" and what the parameters of your part of the discussion is going to be, then I see no point in even involving myself.

Yet you continue to do so.  Inexplicably even, since you've done little in the past few attempts at addressing the salient points of my postings other than bemoan the fact that you're unhappy with how it's said and presented rather than the content itself.

Cut and paste do not argumentation make. Something from one's own mind does, or at least might.

Bringing together relevant information does also.

If the idea is to make cute jabs at one another to decide who's best-suited to do so... well, again, ... the effort is more than I am willing to undertake for the result. Perhaps at some point you will risk beginning a thread of your own that states opinion and where you are yourself. I think, though, that for the purposes of this one, I'll just move on to Claire.

So far you've been the only one to make jabs that i've seen,  using snips such as 'sophistry' and 'mental-maturbation'.  If you happen to be incapable of responding to the actual content of a post,  simply say so and we can relent with this particular exchange. 

Thanks for the try, but for me the cost isn't worth the candle it will make.

Yet you continue to respond...or will you post yet again to exclaim how little replying is worth to you?   

[Seshatneferw]

JC, Nichole, please calm down. You are both right, and both wrong -- and you are talking about almost the same thing.

JC, the lack of terminology within the medical profession is not altogether a fault. The ICD-10 (or DSM-IV) does not mention neutrois, but that's because being neutrois is not a gender identity disorder any more than being male is. Someone who identifies as neutrois may be diagnosed with transsexualism (F64.0) or other gender identity disorder (F64.8, commonly used for those who do not desire a full transition and SRS); tongue firmly in cheek one could suggest that most people have dual-role transvestism (F64.1) between their birth sex and neutrois. The diagnostic criteria are written as if there were two genders, but it doesn't take too big a mental leap to extrapolate them to cover non-binary genders.

Nichole, the same in reverse. That is, especially when talking about non-binary genders one has to resort to terms not defined in most general dictionaries or medical terminologies. Some of the stuff here is just so rare that it has not come to the attention of lexicographers -- but even so, the terms are used by smaller groups, and they may be useful for us.

All right, so much for my rant. Back to topic.

I have been trained, among other things, as a linguist. In that scholarly tradition introspection is a valid research tool, although when using it one must realise that it has certain limitations and drawbacks that can be quite serious and dangerous. Nevertheless, introspection suggests very strongly that on some level my brain 'expects' to be connected to a body that is not of the sex that it in fact is. That in itself is by no means conclusive, of course. But when the available body of hard evidence, as cited here, is leaning somewhat towards there being neurological differences, my own conclusion is clear: the hypothesis that there is in fact some kind of neurological basis for our condition fits the facts as I see them much better than any of the other hypotheses that have been proposed so far. I may be wrong, but that's just the way science works. No big deal -- I'm not basing any of my decisions on the supposed etiology of my condition. I'm just curious.

  Nfr

[joannatsf]

Nicole,

I probably should have been a lawyer as I love to debate.  A great thing about it is I learn so much in preparing a post.  A bi-product of the BSTc argument is that I've learned a good deal about about prenatal androgen exposure in natal women and MtF transsexuals.  Because of it's transient nature it would be very diffficult to observe in vivo but the 2nd to 4th digit ratio in natal females and transsexuals provides evidence of similar levels of exposure. 

A thing I worry about finding things like BSTc causation is that if it's true, there is probably a genetic marker for it.  That could lead to people opting to terminate pregnancies which brings us one step closer to the Brave New World Huxley wrote about 50 years ago.

[Jaycie]

JC, the lack of terminology within the medical profession is not altogether a fault. The ICD-10 (or DSM-IV) does not mention neutrois, but that's because being neutrois is not a gender identity disorder any more than being male is. Someone who identifies as neutrois may be diagnosed with transsexualism (F64.0) or other gender identity disorder (F64.8, commonly used for those who do not desire a full transition and SRS); tongue firmly in cheek one could suggest that most people have dual-role transvestism (F64.1) between their birth sex and neutrois. The diagnostic criteria are written as if there were two genders, but it doesn't take too big a mental leap to extrapolate them to cover non-binary genders.

Finally,  someone that sees what i was driving at here.  ^^  I would agree that it's not altogether a fault as it does obviously take time for these things to become widely recognized. The point where i begin to have a problem with it is when someone who fits the diagnosis literally using that fact to exclude others who can logically fit into it but don't yet in the literal sense.  Or medical professionals not being able to get their heads out of that constraining box and deny treatment based on slight differences.

While research into the potential causes of transsexualism is a worthy cause.  It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me.  I personally worry that if a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out.  Sorry, no treatment for you!

So to put it shortly,  research = good!   Using preliminary research for political purposes = bad!

[NicholeW.]

I have been trained, among other things, as a linguist. In that scholarly tradition introspection is a valid research tool, although when using it one must realise that it has certain limitations and drawbacks that can be quite serious and dangerous. Nevertheless, introspection suggests very strongly that on some level my brain 'expects' to be connected to a body that is not of the sex that it in fact is. That in itself is by no means conclusive, of course. But when the available body of hard evidence, as cited here, is leaning somewhat towards there being neurological differences, my own conclusion is clear: the hypothesis that there is in fact some kind of neurological basis for our condition fits the facts as I see them much better than any of the other hypotheses that have been proposed so far. I may be wrong, but that's just the way science works. No big deal -- I'm not basing any of my decisions on the supposed etiology of my condition. I'm just curious.

  Nfr

I can't disagree with anything you said, Nfr, especially that. It was an excellent post.

Nichole

Nicole,

I probably should have been a lawyer as I love to debate.  A great thing about it is I learn so much in preparing a post.  A bi-product of the BSTc argument is that I've learned a good deal about about prenatal androgen exposure in natal women and MtF transsexuals.  Because of it's transient nature it would be very diffficult to observe in vivo but the 2nd to 4th digit ratio in natal females and transsexuals provides evidence of similar levels of exposure. 

A thing I worry about finding things like BSTc causation is that if it's true, there is probably a genetic marker for it.  That could lead to people opting to terminate pregnancies which brings us one step closer to the Brave New World Huxley wrote about 50 years ago.

Hi, Claire,

Possibilities being what they are. The fact that we've yet developed a perfected technology that we haven't used means for me that your concerns are serious and should be watched and worked against if that becomes a fact.

The truth is, that already we abort for any number of probable liabilities that the fetus may well experience after natality. This would be one more. I would hope that parents would not do that. People of our kind have added immeasurably to the world and, imo, should continue to do so.

But a fear of what may come, even what probably will I don't think mitigates 100% against the discovery. There is hope that through the lives and actions of ourselves and those like us that that pass shall not arrive. I doubt it, but one hopes.

BTW, re: lawyering, I've been told the same thing, at least in terms of the summation parts of a legal case, and the grilling of witnesses! LOL. The more quotidian aspects of attorneying are perhaps best left to those like Dennis, who I imagine through an attention to detail and agreement actually can do some pretty good work as an attorney!

N~

While research into the potential causes of transsexualism is a worthy cause.  It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me.  I personally worry that if a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out.  Sorry, no treatment for you!

So to put it shortly,  research = good!   Using preliminary research for political purposes = bad!

And, JC,

Research is always used for politics of some sort or another. It's what occurs in a technological world where human beings continue to argue and believe widely-varying things.

That I may be one of that 60% who find an answer to why we are, I don't deny, I find useful.

That you may be that 40% that don't I find that that fact may just require more research and study until there is, or may be, some answer or guide.

To be worried that "It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me." When I decide with no particular evidence that those who take what is given them for their own etiology are worrying, then I shall probably be worried most of the time.

I cannot speak for anyone else. I can for myself. You are worthy of human respect and an ability to live your life and find your way as best you can. I cannot imagine that that causes another any "hurt" of any sort, or that you should be denied the opportunity to reach a treatment stage same as Claire or myself.

To demand that would be despicable and unjust, something to be fought against, and not simply by yourself and those who may be like you, but by us all.

I don't know, but I should think that if I don't decide that you are "against" me without giving you a chance to show me anything else, then you'll always appear to be "against" me. If I always feel the need to "defend" myself against the cissexuals simply because they are cissexual and I am not, then it seems to me that I may well be viewed by them as cantakerous and always trying to fight. Perhaps, I'd be better served to simply not begin a discussion with a cissexual with that pov. Instead I might should be willing to allow the possibility that not every cissexual fits the paradigm I've made for cissexuals through my experiences with some cissexuals. 

The same is true with medical and psychological professionals. I've found that very often reasonable discussion with facts and something they can understand has made many doorways open that were shut. Treatment wasn't denied. I believe that perhaps Andra has found that to be true as well, at least in regard to the surgery that has been completed. I'm happy that sie obtained it. I welcome her new configuration; it adds to the possibility that others may follow and find a sense of completion of that part of their lives anyway.

As for there coming a time when "a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out" then, at that point, there are more battles to fight. My own opinion is, and has been, that because I "get" mine is no reason to withdraw and leave another to make it best as they can.

Not everyone will agree with that, but to be honest, in what regard are any of us ever going to see the day of "everyone agreeing" that?

All the best,

Nichole

[Jaycie]

That I may be one of that 60% who find an answer to why we are, I don't deny, I find useful.

That you may be that 40% that don't I find that that fact may just require more research and study until there is, or may be, some answer or guide.

Heh. While this sounds like an ideal situation,  since when have people waited beyond finding an answer that suits their own needs for a full and complete explination of a situation. There was plenty of uproar here when   "trans" was cut out of ENDA, yet if more people followed your suggestion there they should've been quite happy with a small step forward,  right?

To be worried that "It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me." When I decide with no particular evidence that those who take what is given them for their own etiology are worrying, then I shall probably be worried most of the time.

The worrying part is the lack of definitive proof and the lack of restraint in the "taking". I mean look at the  HBS proponents, some will preach that they have a birth defect and as such should be treated better than  others by that right when we have no...actual...proof.

I've been told more than once here that i can't possibly be trans-anything since i feel differently and see things differently than some others. Can you honestly tell me these people don't also exist in the 'real world'?

I cannot speak for anyone else. I can for myself. You are worthy of human respect and an ability to live your life and find your way as best you can. I cannot imagine that that causes another any "hurt" of any sort, or that you should be denied the opportunity to reach a treatment stage same as Claire or myself.

Congratulations. You can have your "tolerance" stamp now and as such disregard anything i've said directed at those who are intolerant. If you don't do these things then obviously my comments on that couldn't possibly directed at you personally. Correct?

I don't know, but I should think that if I don't decide that you are "against" me without giving you a chance to show me anything else, then you'll always appear to be "against" me. If I always feel the need to "defend" myself against the cissexuals simply because they are cissexual and I am not, then it seems to me that I may well be viewed by them as cantakerous and always trying to fight. Perhaps, I'd be better served to simply not begin a discussion with a cissexual with that pov. Instead I might should be willing to allow the possibility that not every cissexual fits the paradigm I've made for cissexuals through my experiences with some cissexuals.

I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to say here.  It appears on the surface to be some haughty way of imparting some 'lesson' of sorts.  Discussion of opinions doesn't automatically equal direct opposition and i haven't seen anything directly to defend against other than the crude allegations that you've made prior.  Those allegations, i am against. 

I believe that perhaps Andra has found that to be true as well, at least in regard to the surgery that has been completed. I'm happy that sie obtained it. I welcome her new configuration; it adds to the possibility that others may follow and find a sense of completion of that part of their lives anyway.

This is a bit of a nitpick here though i feel that it still needs to be pointed out.  Using her/his etc. when referring to known non-binary individuals can be seen in quite the same light as calling a MtF 'he' or sir. I personally stick to the safer singular 'they' when said persons chosen pronoun is unknown. Though,  I can inform you that Andra has chosen "it" for itself. 

As for there coming a time when "a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out" then, at that point, there are more battles to fight. My own opinion is, and has been, that because I "get" mine is no reason to withdraw and leave another to make it best as they can.

Congratulations again! Have a cookie this time!   

[Keira]

There is a problem with even the a physical thing accounting for that hypothetical
60% of TS.

Say for example they find a some kind of X factor in 60% of TS, and also
in 20% of non TS (and these people are not dysphoric),
which is highly possible since I don't believe that one single factor
is causal, but its due to many different interacting biological and sociological
factors.  Then what?

Back to square one, or not.
Does it make a difference?

The HBS crowd really worry me by their latching on very inconclusive
studies to justify their own existence. I've talked to quite a few
and it is enerving.

BTW, I have just about the most female digit ratio possible
(1.1). Does that validate me? Hey, I'm
just as messed up as any other human/women/man out there 

I believe in removing the political and passion out of research.
For me, the studies are interesting because they reveal
the wonderful complexity of the human mind,
not because they provide
a stamp of approval for my life.

That someone could have a 1.1 digit ratio and NOT be
dysphoric (no doubt that they exist, not sure its been
studied that deeply)
is more interesting to me than the opposite
because it would reveal that other factors are involved
in this whole thing.

[NicholeW.]

That someone could have a 1.1 digit ratio and NOT be
dysphoric (no doubt that they exist, not sure its been
studied that deeply)
is more interesting to me than the opposite
because it would reveal that other factors are involved
in this whole thing.

I fall into the "wanted-by-transsexuals" portion of that digit-ration thingy as well, Keira. I presume it has something or the other to do with pre-natal hormonal washes.

I am just a little curious about because it would reveal that other factors are involved in this whole thing. What do you have in mind that might be implicated as 'other factors?' I'm not trying to argue your point. I simply am unable to see what some of those "other factors" are and would love to have your thoughts on those. I think that could be fascinating.

Nichole

[NomNom]

There's girly boys, and manly girls. Transexuals just represent the extreme on this scale. Noone asks the limp wristed gay guy who cries at the end of every movie "Why are you doing this? Do you have a crush on your inner girl?".

100 years of bull->-bleeped-<- theories about people being toilettrained all wrong hasn't proven anything conclusive about a single mental condition. Although there probably is enviromental triggers, that could've turned that effeminate gay guy into a transexual during different circumstances, the fact remains. Some guys are just very, very effeminate.