Time to abandon the brain sex theory of Transsexualism ?

[RuthChambers]

New article by Ann Lawrence http://www.annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html

The simplest and most plausible explanation of the Zhou/Kruijver findings is that they are attributable, completely or predominantly, to the effects of cross-sex hormone therapy administered during adulthood. There is no longer any reason to postulate anything more complicated.

Hulshoff Pol et al. wrote:

The findings suggest that treatment of MFs with estrogens and antiandrogens decreases the male brain size toward female proportions, whereas treatment of FMs with androgens (not substantially affecting circulating estrogen levels) increases the female brain size toward male proportions. The magnitude of this change (i.e., 31 ml over a 4-month period) is striking, since it signifies a decrease in brain volume, which is at least ten times the average decrease of about 2.5 ml a year in healthy adults. . . The total brain volume changes are at least in part due to changes in medial brain structures surrounding [the] ventricles (including, but not limited to, the hypothalamus . . .). (pp. S110-S111)

Interesting reading, Ruth

[cindianna_jones]

I'm sad to see this study abandoned with only looking at such a small sample. I believe that conclusions were drawn long before they should be in the three studies.  We need more data to be sure. Bummer

Cindi

[tinkerbell]

Thank you Ruth for posting this.  I thought it was very interesting reading as well.  But....yes, there is always a BUT...I have to disagree with Blanchard views here:

According to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

Homosexual?  I believe it should be heterosexual considering that a MTF person has a female gender identification.

Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

Again, the same error.  But to call transsexualism a paraphilia goes beyond stupidity.  But again, let's not forget that this is only Blanchard's theory, and you all know what I think about Blanchard based on other threads here, don't you? >


tink

[Julie Marie]

It's too bad that people write their theories and other people take them as gospel.  How many studies have been done and theories written that end up being disproved? 

The problem isn't brain size or gender identity or anything like that.  The problem is society's rules that have us believing the problem is something else.  Change these rules and all of the sudden these studies and theories vanish.  What these people should be doing is questioning the society that created all these "problems". 

The real problem is people think too much.  We should be living instead.

Julie

[HelenW]

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

[cindianna_jones]

Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID.  But after participating in the forum here, that question has been has been resolved with a resounding "No".

Cindi

[Steph]

I have to agree with Helen.  Years ago I used to have a lot of respect for Dr Lawrence until she sided and supported the theories of Blanchard.  I turned to her site for much information back then, now I would never recommend her, or anyone associated with her.

Steph

[Kate]

Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I HATE Blanchard's theory... because much of it rings true for me. Not everything, not the specifics, but the overall theme scares the heck out of me. It's *probably* his confusing a description of how this evolves for an actual *cause* of that evolution, but STILL.

There's an interesting article on the "transkids" site called, "The Gender Identity Fallacy: How an Irrational Concept Prevents a Rational Understanding of Transsexuality," By Alex Parkinson. When I read:

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.

The essay made a LOT of sense when I read it, so when I'm done it's like, "wow, so much for gender identity!" But it's kinda like when you watch a movie - it makes SO much sense when you're IN it, experiencing it within it's own context. But then there's a commercial break, and the spell is broken.

What it's taught me though is I don't think ANY of the narratives or theories fully explain all this. It's kinda like the particle/wave thing: pick the theory you need in order to manifest the phenomena you want to study... don't assume the phenomena you observe dictates a singular Explanation Of Everything.

Hey! I gotta write that one down. "Pick the..." Got it. Cool.

I've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID.

One of my reasons for starting HRT - will my feelings change once the sex urge of testosterone is gone? I figured in my case, that urge must be manifesting SOMEHOW, since it wasn't showing up as an actual urge for physical sex.

Yea, lol, everything became 100x more clarified and WORSE.

Kate

[Sandy]

When I hear claptrap like this, with little scientific study behind it just the statistically unreliable results used to draw a preset conclusion really gets my knickers in a twist.

If any one of those "experts" walked a mile in my heels, they'd know that no matter how you dance around it, the feelings are authentic and the condition is real and fatal unless treated.

Spend a decade or two in depression and see how you feel!  Then have an expert tell you it's like have a *crush* on a girl?  Or it's just an excuse for masturbation??  Sorry, that toy broke a while ago.  I don't regret it and don't want it back.  And what is all this confusion of gender identity and sexual orientation?  I denied my transsexuality for decades because I made that same confusion.

If I go on I'll just end up raising my blood pressure.

I've just started to truly find myself, I don't need an "experts" guidance to help me find my way!

-Sandy (getting off that pony now...)

[Kimberly]

Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

^{*snickers quietly to herself*}

I was going to comment but ^*shrug* Let them live in their delusion.

[Kate]

If any one of those "experts" walked a mile in my heels, they'd know that no matter how you dance around it, the feelings are authentic and the condition is real and fatal unless treated.

To be fair, ->-bleeped-<- theory doesn't say the feelings aren't real - just that they aren't caused by any sense of "gender identity," but rather by an inward-directed sexual orientation where non-gay TSs are attracted to the image or idea of themselves as women... and the only way to satisfy that desire is to BECOME her. It's not necessary a sexual attraction, but often more like a romantic crush, wanting to be with her, as her, like her.

It's interesting, as it kinda describes why I've never been literally sexually attracted to women. Oh sure, I'm utterly fascinated with them, but I've never really fantasized about having sex with them. I look at my relationship with my wife, why we've never been able to be intimate - and it's ALWAYS been as if there's this other woman I'm in love with, the one in my head, my muse whom I have this platonic, yet obsessive crush on. How could she possibly compete with that? Heck, without knowing a thing about ->-bleeped-<- theory, my wife *accused* me one day of being in love with her (my muse)... and I started to cry, realizing the truth of her words.

Whatever though... in the end, it doesn't matter one bit. The pain AND solution remain the same, however you explain it. I'm getting too old now to worry much about explanations... I just want this torture to STOP.

Kate

[rhonda13000]

Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID. But after participating in the forum here, that question has been has been resolved with a resounding "No".

Cindi

While the benefit and relief was substantial and it did save my life, the procedure did not solve my GID.

Thank you Ruth for posting this.  I thought it was very interesting reading as well.  But....yes, there is always a BUT...I have to disagree with Blanchard views here:

According to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

Homosexual?  I believe it should be heterosexual considering that a MTF person has a female gender identification.

Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

Again, the same error.  But to call transsexualism a paraphilia goes beyond stupidity.  But again, let's not forget that this is only Blanchard's theory, and you all know what I think about Blanchard based on other threads here, don't you? >


tink

There were some real 'verbal firestorms' precipitated over Blanchard's effluence in another forum that I once was a member of (Melissa will recall these) and I have read questionable things about Anne Lawrence.

I think very little about the ->-bleeped-<- notion.

Your post is 'right on', Tink.

[Thundra]

According to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

So where does Anne herself fall into this scheme of things then?

As I recall, isn't she "married" to a guy? If she supports his theory, does she identify as a
"homosexual M2F transsexual?"

Or is she an "autogynephallic heterosexual male?"

Where do they get this stuff?

[Melissa-kitty]

Sigh. I've had a lot of exposure to speculative psychology. Often interesting, too frequently used aggressively or to pathologize unnecessarily. ->-bleeped-<- does not impress me, and I don't see a lot of usefulness in it. That seems to be the acid test for a clinical hypothesis, does it lead to progress in understanding and lead to a lessening of suffering. The brain research is interesting, as is the neuropsychological test differences. But still not very impressive. I've spent a fair amount of time delving into neuroanatomy and neurochemistry (28 years!). So, results mentioned do not seem persuasive.. let's say, suggestive and interesting.. but nowhere near enough to do more than throw hints.
Blessings, Tara

[rhonda13000]

Sigh. I've had a lot of exposure to speculative psychology. Often interesting, too frequently used aggressively or to pathologize unnecessarily. ->-bleeped-<- does not impress me, and I don't see a lot of usefulness in it. That seems to be the acid test for a clinical hypothesis, does it lead to progress in understanding and lead to a lessening of suffering. The brain research is interesting, as is the neuropsychological test differences. But still not very impressive. I've spent a fair amount of time delving into neuroanatomy and neurochemistry (28 years!). So, results mentioned do not seem persuasive.. let's say, suggestive and interesting.. but nowhere near enough to do more than throw hints.
Blessings, Tara

But do you know what Tara? I get so sick of reading such intellectual tripe rife with irrational conjectures, non sequiturs and incongruities..

I mean, give me a break!!.

A posited 'theory' is egregiously flawed and patently absurd, yet the adherents to the same cling with a 'death grip' to them, notwithstanding.

Speaking rhetorically and generally,

"If you posit or formulate a theory and I discern so much as one logical or rational flaw therein, your theory is summarily discarded, like so much refuse."

Bailey's proposals are just that: patently ludicrous and Anne Lawrence is..."confused".

Give a girl a break! 

[Brianna]

This study seems very consistent with what we know about transsexualism scientifically.

I have noticed that many transsexuals reject theories that don't go with what they think or wish is true. I have to overcome this tendancy as well, but science is science.

I will be doing my own research in this field while I am in grad school this year. This research seems to prove my hypothysis about sexual orientation and age in relation to behavior and passing ability. Thanks for posting it!

Bri

[Kate]

A posited 'theory' is egregiously flawed and patently absurd, yet the adherents to the same cling with a 'death grip' to them, notwithstanding.

As do the believers in GID theory, even though it's also "patently absurd" logically.

Bailey's proposals are just that: patently ludicrous...

His conclusions certainly are flawed, but I find the phenomena he describes fascinating. He found many of the missing pieces of our puzzle, but he cut and mutilated them to make them fit into the picture he wanted to portray.

Kate

[rhonda13000]

As do the believers in GID theory, even though it's also "patently absurd" logically.

Are you referring to the DSM IV?

[umop ap!sdn]

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.

I used to be afraid that a similar description applied to me too, but actually for me it's is mostly feeling good about being what a lot of people consider attractive, rather than an affinity for my own core identity. Can be difficult to resolve that distinction. Even still, isn't it logical that someone who is attracted to their own gender would *like* their own image (be it internal or external)? I don't know how common it is but I've heard at least one (cisgendered) person express something to that effect.

---------------------

And on the subject of orientation, there's something I've heard from the gay community, not from a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, but still I think it's valid. The majority of cisgendered heterosexuals grow up preferring friendships with others of their own gender, only to have something suddenly switch during puberty when they start to have feelings for the opposite gender. What I've heard expressed is that in homosexuals the "switch" doesn't happen, so the person develops feelings for others of their own gender.

So in that context, how can an MtF who is only attracted to women be called straight? No "switch" took place because the person was tuned into femaleness all along, and the feelings of attraction that developed are directed towards the same, not the "other".

[tinkerbell]

According to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

So where does Anne herself fall into this scheme of things then?

As I recall, isn't she "married" to a guy? If she supports his theory, does she identify as a
"homosexual M2F transsexual?"

Or is she an "autogynephallic heterosexual male?"

Where do they get this stuff?

Yes, I have read this too, and it is so absurd that I'd rather not comment (just to prevent my liver from getting a little upset )

Wow, and I thought I was heterosexual, silly me!  I was just trying to validate my womanhood! *giggles sarcastically*  Oh, the truth of the matter is that the supporters of this nonsense don't actually know how much I love and like men!

tink