Time to abandon the brain sex theory of Transsexualism ?

[ChildOfTheLight]

A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse

"This clearinghouse explores varying viewpoints about The Man Who Would Be Queen and the ideology that informs the work of J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence."

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

"The Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory is an informal name for a controversial behavioral model of male-to-female transsexualism. This taxonomy claims there are two types of males who wish to transition: those who exhibit homosexuality and those who exhibit  ->-bleeped-<-. According to the concept, "Homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to males exclusively, and "autogynephilic transsexuals" exhibit a paraphilia in which they are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Because this concept uses transsexual sexuality as its organizing principle, it conflicts with central tenets of other models of gender variance, especially the concept of gender identity."

Granted, I haven't read the book, but from what I've heard (on the internets, admittedly), it was mostly either based on conversations at 2am in gay bars or simply made up.

The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.  Another thing that makes the theory look silly is the shenanigans on the book's Amazon page (people who give the book five stars, basically regurgitating each others' comments, and never comment on anything else, plus the apparent deletion of a lot of one-star comments from serious people commenting under their real names.)

So I don't put much stock in the very-feminine-gay/ ->-bleeped-<- model.

[Melissa]

The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.

Hey, that sounds like me except I started at 28 and don't really like guns unless their in a video game.  The only reason I passed as male at 21 was because I had very short hair, a mustache (needed that to not look like I was 14), and a somewhat low voice.  So far I have ended up being bi (only as a woman).  According to this theory I'm kind of borderline because of my age/sexuality, but then my physical appearance in more indicative of the homosexual type (as they refer to it).

That's the reason why I wrote this:

I stopped trying to figure this stuff out.  Just being who (or what) I am, I contradict so many theories it just gives me a headache.  I have my own set of theories as well, but that's all they are.

Melissa

[ChildOfTheLight]

The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.

Hey, that sounds like me except I started at 28 and don't really like guns unless their in a video game.  The only reason I passed as male at 21 was because I had very short hair, a mustache (needed that to not look like I was 14), and a somewhat low voice.  So far I have ended up being bi (only as a woman).  According to this theory I'm kind of borderline because of my age/sexuality, but then my physical appearance in more indicative of the homosexual type (as they refer to it).

But that doesn't work, does it?  Because the way he describes it, the homosexual type was always attracted to men and only men, and knew it, because they transitioned to get more men.

So yeah, you just continue to break this theory.

(Of course, on the side he believes all bisexuals (male ones, at least) are lying.  And he would believe you're male...so he'd already say you were lying.)

That's the reason why I wrote this:

I stopped trying to figure this stuff out.  Just being who (or what) I am, I contradict so many theories it just gives me a headache.  I have my own set of theories as well, but that's all they are.

Melissa

You and not a few other people here.   

[rhonda13000]

Interesting reading, Ruth

To say the least.

[seldom]

The very fact they mentioned Blanchard should mean the study should be entirely dismissed.  This is the type of study that was entirely designed to dismiss TS.   

[Attis]

Too many false positives in Blanchard's work, plus no third party research team has attempted to reproduce his results. On top of that, it doesn't have any contingency 'sub-theory' to explain anomalous subjects, so it's really not a robust theory either. And the worst of it is it's not falsifiable. Conclusion: It's your typical Rationalistic/Post-Modernist Philosophy masking itself as science, by definition science is the study of natural phenomena which can be falsified [per Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery] and isolated in its properties [per Rand's ITOE], thus Blanchard's theory can be tossed on out those grounds.

-- Brede

[NicholeW.]

Because the brain-sex theory is a "unitary" theory of transsexualism, it appears to contradict another widely accepted theory, proposed by Blanchard (1989a, 1989b, 2005), that there are two distinctly different subtypes of MtF transsexuals, homosexual and nonhomosexual, with different clinical presentations and different etiologies.

How can data from seven (or perhaps eight) transsexual brains be reconciled with Blanchard's transsexual typology, which is now accepted by most knowledgeable clinicians and researchers?

(added emphasis is mine)

Dr. Lawrence is again trying to manufacture some legitimacy for Blanchard's widely discredited theories by stretching the truth to its elastic limits.  His work and that of Drs. Lawrence and Bailey have been shown to be flawed and steeped in sexual prejudice.  As such, I do not find Dr. Lawrence's supposed "Critique" to be valid.  I simply don't trust her to give us the whole story since it might contradict her pet theory.

I have often lamented that transsexualism is perceived to be so rare that very little funding and research is devoted to it.  That's why Lynn Conway's estimate of the rate of transsexuality should be promoted and tested until there is no doubt.  Maybe then we'll get a little more respect from the research community.

hugs & smiles
helen

There was some interesting discussion on this thread, so, in the interest of Tasha posting this morning Kelley Winter's latest musings and having recently read Anne Lawrence latest theorizing in the Zucker-edited Archives of Sexual Behavior on
"Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism," I thought the discussion might be interesting to continue.

My thoughts are simply this psychiatry & psychology often deal with "mental theorizing." The theorist makes presumptions based on their own beliefs about human beings and their own experiences and/or prejudices and tries to propound a theory that will fit all those things into one nicely wrpped intellectual package. At least, for her intellect.

Lawrence's other essay listed beneath the first one from ASB also seems to conform to her own notion. She's admitted that she is autogynephile and like most of us would prolly like to "justify" her way of doing things.

As Emeleye points out, Lawrence does, indeed, stretch the definition of "which is now accepted by most knowledgeable clinicians and researchers?." And I would imagine that the word "knowledgeable" is where she stretches most. I would imagine that she feels that people who disagree with Blanchard and his "findings" (forget the other B, he found nothing but a ->-bleeped-<--bar or two and his own concerns) and herself are "NOT knowlegable." Afterall, most of this is intellectual in-fighting and is not held to a standard that presumes or requires literal and moral truth.

Psychologists, from Freud to Beck to Gilligan all find, to some or another extent, those things that they can accept as standard. Freud wanted to accept that women/girls were envious of penises. Well, who woudn't be, I'm sure he thought. And even moreso, he wanted to remain accepted by his Viennese colleagues who had started shunning him when he initially reported the widespread existence of sexual abuse of girls by their fathers.

We find explanations for ourselves and others that generally don't violate our notions of self. No one cares for cognitive dissonance; it makes us try to resolve things.

Nichole

[Beyond]

I am NOT oing to review this whole thread, but somebody started a similar thread on another forum recently and basically this is a summary of what I posted.  In regards to the title of this thread: Others have discussed the validity of the report (Dr Lawrence) I agree we can't trust her.  But we really don't need her opinion anyway.  Go back and look at the original studies.  Right on the front page of each, in the abstract, you will find the following:

1997:

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The  possible psychogenic or biological etiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years  [1,2]. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis  (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour [3,4], is larger in men than in women. A femalesized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex  hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female  brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a  result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones [5,6].

2000:

ABSTRACT: Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex. A crucial question resulting from a previous brain study in male-to-female transsexuals was whether the reported difference according to gender identity in the central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was based on a neuronal difference in the BSTc itself or just a reflection of a difference in vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation fromthe amygdala, which was used as a marker. Therefore, we determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P   0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of maleto-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P   0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 2034–2041, 2000)

Both scientific studies (as opposed to Lawrences ideas) already determined that the brain difference were NOT the result of HRT.

Case closed.

[NicholeW.]

It surely seems about to close anyhow, Beyond. The biggest knock now against the Zhou-Gooren studies are the very small numbers of cadavers used lead to a lack of generalizability in the theory of "brain sex."

Of course, the "studies" used by Blanchard rely on Kurt Freund's plesy-mythograph for their reliability, basically electronic sensors attached to a penis to measure blood flow. This is alleged to have recently changed to where they are now trying to attached the plesy-mythograph up to women and show dirty pics to us as well!!

I would imagine that within a few years a much larger study will be done along the lines of the Zhou studies and I would be willing to bet that the original research will be born out.

As for ->-bleeped-<-. I imagine it does exist, like others I have heard chats take place that appear to extol the "sexiness" of having a "female body" -- of course in the past few years those chats have all occurred with other women. The major flaw in the ->-bleeped-<- theory is that its underpinned by a belief that women don't feel themselves to be sexual.

My experiences of conversations about sexuality with other women simply do not bear that out, unless, of course, my friends are simply liars, bragging about things they don't experience but would like to.

And yes, the notion that HRT has "shrunk" the brain capacities or raised them seems also outlandish on it's face, especially when you think about 2.5% as AAL quoted in one of her essays. That seems like a lot of shrinkage or expansion inside a skull that fits the brain into a fairly tight space.

N~

[glendagladwitch]

There have been a lot of transitioners who change sexual orientation after SRS.  I mention it because the Blanchard/Lawrence/Bailey hypothetical categorizations don't seem to take the occasional sexual orientation shift into account.  I suppose they might try to backpedal and say that the MTF who started liking only men and only after transition were completing the "becoming" of the fantasy woman (who likes only men).  An the ones who didn't?  Oh, well, they must have crushes on fantasy lesbians.  It's a ridiculous result of hubritic efforts to pigeonhole all of existence into neatly defined categories.  Such a need is common, but in many it is pathological.  The conclusions these folks jump to merely underscore their illogic.

Posted on: July 03, 2008, 01:54:22 PM

This aspect of sexuality is what needs to be appreciated in  ->-bleeped-<- in order to explain gender dysphoria in biologically heterosexual males; only looking at the most explicit expressions of  ->-bleeped-<- like masturbation while cross dressed, actually misses the bulk of how it's experienced. In a lot of ways, gender dysphoria in biologically male heterosexuals is analogous to a normal heterosexual male with a crush on a girl they're attracted to. The difference is that in these transsexuals, they have a crush on an internal girl that they would like to be, rather then an actual person, precisely as one might expect of a male heterosexuality that was directed at ones self.

I read that and was like... yikes... NAILED me. See my avatar over there? Well gee, think I've personified this whole GID thing a bit much? This description IS what it "feels like" for me, though that doesn't make it a cause or pathology. And it wasn't always this way, not as a child. But over time, that frustration condensed and manifested into an actual, semi-seperate entity I call my "muse." And yes, I'm in love with her in some bizarre way, even though she IS me. But I see it as a RESULT of GID, not a cause.

Result of GID?  No.  Result of being a woman?  Yes.  You felt nailed?  A lot of cisgendered women do the same thing.  Remember about the wife saying she is turned on by a man being attracted to her, and not by the man per se?  It is normal for a woman to be turned on by feeling like a sexy woman, whether that involves putting on sexy attire, visualizing herself, or seeing it reflected in the sexual desire in a man's eyes.

Posted on: July 03, 2008, 02:02:58 PM

I am NOT oing to review this whole thread, but somebody started a similar thread on another forum recently and basically this is a summary of what I posted.  In regards to the title of this thread: Others have discussed the validity of the report (Dr Lawrence) I agree we can't trust her.  But we really don't need her opinion anyway.  Go back and look at the original studies.  Right on the front page of each, in the abstract, you will find the following:

1997:

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The  possible psychogenic or biological etiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years  [1,2]. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis  (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour [3,4], is larger in men than in women. A femalesized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex  hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female  brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a  result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones [5,6].

2000:

ABSTRACT: Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex. A crucial question resulting from a previous brain study in male-to-female transsexuals was whether the reported difference according to gender identity in the central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was based on a neuronal difference in the BSTc itself or just a reflection of a difference in vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation fromthe amygdala, which was used as a marker. Therefore, we determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P   0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of maleto-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P   0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 2034–2041, 2000)

Both scientific studies (as opposed to Lawrences ideas) already determined that the brain difference were NOT the result of HRT.

Case closed.

Here is how AL addressed that:

Zhou et al. (1995) were clearly mistaken when they suggested that 'the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals cannot be explained by adult sex hormone levels' (p. 70), as were Kruijver et al. (2000) when they concluded that 'hormonal changes in adulthood did not show any clear relationship with the BSTc . . . neuron number' (p. 2039). On the contrary, it now seems probable that estrogen treatment was responsible for the low mean BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the six MtF transsexuals studied and that testosterone treatment was responsible for the high BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the one FtM transsexual studied4.
A significant weakness of the Zhou/Kruijver studies was the inclusion of only a few nontranssexual persons with elevated cross-sex hormone levels. This may partly explain why the Zhou/Kruijver investigators underestimated the potent effects of hormone treatment on the adult brain. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Zhou/Kruijver studies did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer) or any nontranssexual women who had been treated with testosterone. They did examine one woman, S1, in whom a virilizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated testosterone levels and one man, S2, in whom a feminizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated estradiol levels. Neither individual had BSTc volumes or neuron numbers that were atypical for their sex, but it is probable that their cross-sex hormone levels, although elevated, had not been high enough and had not lasted long enough5 to be equivalent to the 5-20 years of cross-sex hormone therapy that the transsexuals had received.

A significant weakness of Anne Lawrence's presumptions are that she "did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer) or any nontranssexual women who had been treated with testosterone."  Maybe she should get off her ass and do some real research, instead of reinterpreting other people's studies to signify things that those people specifically disclaimed.  For example, she relies on the Chung et al. study as the primary scientific evidence of her wild conjectures.  But Chung et al.:

conjectured that fetal or neonatal hormone levels could affect gender identity and could also produce changes in BSTc 'synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical content' (p. 1032) that might not affect BSTc volume or neuron number immediately, but might do so during adulthood. Alternatively, they suggested, failure to develop a gender identity consistent with one's somatic sex might affect adult BSTc volume and neuron number by some unspecified mechanism.

But then, how could she resist the temptation to take someone else's hard work and reinterpret it in a manner clearly against their intent in order to promote her own crackpot theories that are so direly in need of any credible scientific evidence at all to support them.

[Natasha]

There was some interesting discussion on this thread, so, in the interest of Tasha posting this morning Kelley Winter's latest musings

ya go ahead, blame me for it! > haha

[NicholeW.]

But Chung et al.:

conjectured that fetal or neonatal hormone levels could affect gender identity and could also produce changes in BSTc 'synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical content' (p. 1032) that might not affect BSTc volume or neuron number immediately, but might do so during adulthood. Alternatively, they suggested, failure to develop a gender identity consistent with one's somatic sex might affect adult BSTc volume and neuron number by some unspecified mechanism.

But then, how could she resist the temptation to take someone else's hard work and reinterpret it in a manner clearly against their intent in order to promote her own crackpot theories that are so direly in need of any credible scientific evidence at all to support them.

Glenda, not only are you right, you are, apparently DARNED right!

Here're the relevant passages from the Chung, et.al. article for anyone interested in reading them. I din't place the entire article here, only the final three columns of the "Discussion" section.

Basically, for those who don't want to read it all (can't blame you, it's long for a BB) are that there is a sex-differentiation in the brain's BSTc between females and males in both neuronal number and volume of the structure that became more marked in adulthood than the work group had expected due to the fact that in rats the BSTc was a finished product before nataiity and due to the fact as Chung clearly points out that the Zhou & Kruijver studies had proven did not occur with the addition of cross-sex hormones in adult males and females in those earlier studies. The earlier studies, also in contradiction to what Lawrence claims did include genetic males and females. (Fact manipulation? Or outright misreading?)

What Chung et al found was that the di-morphism was present after adulthood in both males and females although the relative truth is that in males the structure is larger w/ greater neuron numbers than in females. The BSTc does indeed acoording to Chung and CO (who, btw. are also at Freie Universitaet Amsterdamm, like the earlier researchers) grow in both sexes.

They also conclude that BSTc volume differentials may very likely BE a cause of transsexuals not developing conguent-to-body sex-identities as do other males and females. 

Annie has either misread or out-and-out lied in attributing to Chung and his work group something they didn't say. Now who is wishfully thinking?
The bolded sections below are what Chung and his grouop actually wrote in their article. (I can provide it [pdf] to interested parties if you will PM me.) The italicised comment is the one Anne took totally from its context and used to try to make her point.

Not only is she lazy, but I suspect she takes it that no one reading her article would bother to look at what Chung et al actually wrote!

The late divergence of BSTc volume in males and females may
be a general characteristic of the human BST. The human BSTdspm
seems to become sexually dimorphic at approximately puberty,
as suggested by the developmental time points that were
included in the study by Allen and Gorski (1990). Indeed, the
BST-dspm appeared to be smaller in females than in males from
14 years of age (Allen and Gorski, 1990). Relatively late sexual
differentiation has also been observed in the pig hypothalamus.
The number of cells in the sexually dimorphic vasopressin and
oxytocin-containing nucleus in the pig hypothalamus increases in
(post)adolescent females but not in males (Van Eerdenburg and
Swaab, 1994). Recent studies also showed that several regions in
the adult human and primate brain continuously produce new
neurons and change in gray and white matter volume (Eriksson et
al., 1998; Gould et al., 1999; Gur et al., 1999; Sowell et al., 1999).
Therefore, marked morphological changes in the human brain,
including sexual differentiation, may not be limited to childhood
but may extend into adulthood.
There are several possible explanations for the lack of a sex
difference in the BSTc volume shortly after fetal or neonatal sex
differences in testosterone levels emerge. Organizational effects
of testosterone on sexual differentiation may become clear much
later in life. An example of a long delay in organizational effects
of gonadal steroids is the development of the sexually dimorphic
anteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPv) in the rat brain,
which is larger in females than in males. Although, perinatal sex
differences in testosterone cause this sex difference in AVPv size,
its volume becomes only significantly different at approximately
puberty (Davis et al., 1996). Alternatively, it is possible that sex
differences in peripubertal or adult gonadal steroid levels establish
the sex difference in BSTc volume in adulthood. Although
androgens and estrogens in puberty cause the development of
secondary sexual characteristics in peripheral body structures, as
far as we know, no data exist on similar effects on human brain
structures. However, data from six cases reported in previous
studies suggest that the BSTc volume, as delineated by VIP or
somatostatin immunocytochemical staining, is not affected by
marked increases or decreases in gonadal steroid levels in adulthood.
A normal female-sized BSTc was found in one control
female with increased androgen levels and in two postmenopausal
control females with low gonadal steroid levels. Furthermore, a
normal male-sized BSTc was found in a control male with high
estrogen levels caused by a feminizing adrenal tumor and in two
control males who were orchidectomized as a result of prostate
cancer. The possibility that gonadal steroid-dependent changes in
VIP or somatostatin neuropeptide expression underlie the
changes BSTc volume, such as, in quail preoptic area, rat medial
amygdala and human amygdala (Panzica et al., 1987; Giedd et al.,
1996; Cooke et al., 1999), is also not supported by these six cases
who had marked changes in gonadal steroid levels, although their
the BSTc volume was normal for their gender (Zhou et al., 1995;
Kruijver et al. 2000).
In addition to direct actions of gonadal steroids on the BSTc,
the late emergence of sex differences in BSTc volume may reflect
relatively late sex-dependent changes in brain areas that supply
the BST with its VIP-IR innervation, such as the amygdala
(Eiden et al., 1985), which increases in size at a higher rate in
males than in females between 4 and 18 years of age (Giedd et al.,
1996). Although sex differences in gonadal steroids are the most
likely factor to cause sexual differentiation of the BSTc and the
areas that innervate the BSTc, we cannot exclude gonadal steroidindependent
mechanisms on brain sexual differentiation, such as
local expression of sex chromosomal genes (Reisert and Pilgrim,
1991). A candidate gene for such an effect is the SRY gene, which
was shown to be transcribed in the adult human hypothalamus
and cortex of males but not in females (Mayer et al., 1998).
Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also
affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs volume
and transsexuality. Interestingly, transsexuals receive their
first consultation between the ages of 20 and 45 years, which
coincides with the period of sex-dependent divergence of BSTc
volume found in the present study (Van Kesteren et al., 1996).
However, epidemiological studies show that the awareness of
gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, 67–
78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of
being born in the wrong body from childhood onward (Van
Kesteren et al., 1996), supporting the idea that disturbances in
fetal or neonatal gonadal steroid levels underlie the development
of transsexuality. Moreover, observations that phenobarbital or
diphantoin usage during pregnancy, which affect gonadal steroid
levels, increases the prevalence of transsexuality in the offspring
support this idea (Dessens et al., 1999). Also, girls who had been
exposed to high androgen levels as infants caused by congenital
adrenal hyperplasia show an increased incidence of gender problems,
which supports early developmental programming of this
disorder (Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1996; Zucker et al., 1996). The
lack of marked sexual differentiation of the BSTc volume in our
study before birth and in childhood certainly does not rule out
early gonadal steroid effects on BSTc functions. As suggested by
animal experiments, fetal or neonatal testosterone levels in humans
may first affect synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical
content during early BSTc development (Do¨hler,
1991; Park et al., 1997). Changes in these parameters could affect
the development of gender identity but not immediately result in
overt changes in the volume or neuronal number of the BSTc.
Alternatively, it must also be taken into consideration that
changes in BSTc volume in male-to-female transsexuals may be
the result of a failure to develop a male-like gender identity. In
summary, our finding of a sex difference in BSTc volume only in
adulthood suggests that marked sex-dependent organizational
changes in brain structure are not limited to early development
but may extend into adulthood.

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!! Poor, silly Anne Lawrence!

[joannatsf]

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!! Poor, silly Anne Lawrence!

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.

Reading the study it seemed well designed and executed.  Before and after HRT imaging high resolution MRI with a control group.  I believe the European Journal of Endocrinology is a peer reviewed publication.  Nothing in it seemed biased to me.

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.

[Keira]

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.

Psychology, is not a science at all since almost nothing
can be posited and tested, at least in an ethical way.

My best friend
is writing her doctoral thesis in neuropsychology and language
right now. She uses MRI scan, electroencephalograms.

And what Blanchard and Bailey are doing is not science either,
I don't know what the hell it is!

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.

[Jaycie]

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."?

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.

It's so easy to point at singular things and say that they're the reason for everything. There's just many other things that can't be so easily explained by 'brain sex' and such.  For instance,  what about multiple systems that wish to transition based on a majority of their members wishing to.  ( yes, i'm referring to what most people will erroneously label as MPD/DID )  It would seem very unlikely for there to be a physical cause in that case, no?  Would people here be so quick to dismiss their situation and say that it's nothing but a mental disorder?

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.

[joannatsf]

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.

What you've said there is a psychobiological explanation of behavior.  People are born with potentials that may or may not be realized depending on their environment.  It has been found in post mortem examinations that the deceased has the same brain abnormalities as a person with schizophrenia.  Yet they never presented symptoms of that illness.  They never had a psychotic break.  Recent studies have shown that the social environment is as important as genetic predisposition.  Perhaps the same is true for transsexuality.

[NicholeW.]

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?     

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?

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."?

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.

Now that's an interesting thought. How do you come to know the minds and hearts of other human beings so well, JC? They have confided this to you? Or you've simply tried to extrapolate your own ideas into anothers alledged thoughts? Who are these people who "take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else."?  Or is this just speculation on your part?

It's so easy to point at singular things and say that they're the reason for everything.

Indeed. It is. I see that a lot.

There's just many other things that can't be so easily explained by 'brain sex' and such.  For instance,  what about multiple systems that wish to transition based on a majority of their members wishing to.  ( yes, i'm referring to what most people will erroneously label as MPD/DID )  It would seem very unlikely for there to be a physical cause in that case, no?  Would people here be so quick to dismiss their situation and say that it's nothing but a mental disorder?
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.

Excuse me? MPD? Do you have any idea just how rare that is? It;s really rare, a whole lot more rare than a cursory checking of tv specials that seem to imply it's widespread existence would allow a person to think.

Dissociation is pretty rare. 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. No, I'd say a physical cause might well be imputed to that. A cause that seems to be beyond our power to determine just yet, but it may well be physical. Yes. 

I respect any "multiple system" that manages to make it through the world with a purpose. That's admirable.

However, the imputation of reasons and emotional responses not ones own to another can be rather difficult ground to hold.



Whether the invincible "I" decides things or a BSTC decides things or a deranged personality decides things, I don't think it much matters to me. However when those yahoos outside this board scream and shout that "they all have mental disorders and are deranged because Ray Blanchard, Kenneth Zucker, Paul McHugh, Kurt Freund, Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence and the DSM-IV-TR says they do.

Well, it's just nice to know that in labs in Amsterdam there are scientists at work who seem to be getting closer and closer to finding something that shows that what is labelled "crazy and deranged" actually has a biological etiology. And I bet that's even nice for a multiple system as well, knowing that it's not crazy.


Regards guys,

Nichole

[Jaycie]

Now that's an interesting thought. How do you come to know the minds and hearts of other human beings so well, JC? They have confided this to you? Or you've simply tried to extrapolate your own ideas into anothers alledged thoughts? Who are these people who "take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else."?  Or is this just speculation on your part?

It's called experience and watching such happen here over the last 3 years many times.  I certainly hope you won't ask me to dive for specifics but if it comes down to that...   

Excuse me? MPD? Do you have any idea just how rare that is? It;s really rare, a whole lot more rare than a cursory checking of tv specials that seem to imply it's widespread existence would allow a person to think.

Well,  for one,  the issues intertwining aren't unknown : http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0404.htm

Secondly, as for rarity, possibly not quite as much as you'd think. But then again, i'm not referring solely to MPD/DID either as the only form of mutiplicity possible. Any more than a MtF transsexual is the only form of transgenderedness possible. 

Certainly we aren't going to fall back on solely clinical definitions of these things.   ^^

...labelled "crazy and deranged" actually has a biological etiology.

Rather than banking on a potential biological causation i think i'll let the following snippit and link cover my thoughts on that issue.

"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity

[NicholeW.]

So, let me get this right, JC. We don't want to fall back on "clinical definitions" of clinical terms? While you were in Texas, did ya learn to play poker? What kind of bluff is that?

I think what you're missing, JC, is that for language to be at all meaningful there have to be some common definitions of what people are talking about. Now you can go along making up your own and then accusing people who don't understand them of being bigoted, but that just kinda makes their "bigotry" a foregone conclusion before they ever being to talk.

After all, if you make up the definitions as you go along, anything could be "bigotry" in any moment. Makes it really hard for people to discuss much of anything with you.

So, yeah, I think I'll use clinical definitions for MPD/DID until I find out what definition you intend, or do, use anyhow. Streams of wordage mean nothing without some agreed upon definitions and parameters.

"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

Same thing. What's the meaning?

And, can you talk about this, other than  its being simply a conglomeration of $0.64 words? What do you suppose that wiki entry made by someone, yourself for all I know, means? And why should someone else speak for you? Speak for yourself, John

If the cause is neurological development then it's biological development. Nerves and neural pathways aren't some phlogiston-like substances that are incorporeal.

See, that's why we need agreed definitions and usages. I understand Lawrence. I'm not sure I do understand you, but I'm willing to give it a shot, if you're willing to give us a common grammar.

Nichole

[Jaycie]

So, let me get this right, JC. We don't want to fall back on "clinical definitions" od clinical terms? While you were in Texas, did ya learn to play poker? What kind of bluff is that.

Well, one bit of reasoning of that statement is that this site as a whole doesn't run on purely clinical definitions. If so, the site definitions wouldn't exclude non-binary identities from the transsexual definition as we do have the GID-NOS entry in the DSM that we can weasel into.   

I think what you're missing, JC, is that for language to be at all meaningful there have to be some common definitions of what people are talking about. Now you can go along making up your own and then accusing people who don't understand them of being bigoted, but that just kinda makes their "bigotry" a foregone conclusion before they ever being to talk.

big·ot·ry     Audio Help   /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

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

Now,  with that out of the way. When have i directly accused someone of bigotry?  I have, i believe made a few "If X then Y" type statements but i'm allowed my opinion, yes?  And not understanding isn't bigotry even by definition.

I'm more than happy to post my preferred definitions for any term you've having confusion on and i would welcome you to do the same and we can see in plain text where they do and don't mesh. 

So, yeah, I think I'll use clinical definitions for MPD/DID until I find out what definition you intend, or do, use anyhow. Streams of wordage mean nothing without some agreed upon definitions and parameters.

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.   

Though,  back on to the topic at hand,  i'll use this one for multiplicity for the time being though it probably will need revisions.

"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.

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. 

"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

Same thing. What's the meaning?

Long story short?  Different isn't inherantly bad. That's the main point there.  ^^

And , can you talk about this, other than  its being simply a conglomeration of $0.64 words, what do you suppose that wiki entry made by someone, yourself for all I know, means? And why should someone else speak for you? Speak for yourself, John

That sounds oddly like an implied attack. If i find a method to efficiently explain a point i would like to make i plan to use it.  It's akin to asking someone to write out a calculation instead of using a calculator when the only relevant piece of information is the result.  If you don't know what something means,  google is always a wonderful source which i use quite often.   

If the cause is neurological development then it's biological development. Nerves and neural pathways aren't some phlogiston-like substances that are incorporeal.

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?

See, that's why we need agreed definitions and usages. I understand Lawrence. I'm not sure I do understand you, but I'm willing to give it a shot, if you're willing to give us a common grammar.

Done. Your serve.  ^^