What makes you male or female?

[Rising_Angel]

That's how it is with me in dreams. The question I've been asking for year is are our dream selves our real selves?

Why do we have to be one or the other, Edge?  In science, there is the concept of mutil-dimensional existence.  For instance, if you had put a ball inside a wrapping paper roll, and then looked head on at it, all you would see is the wrapping paper on the roll.  This is basically the width and height of the roll, or 2-dimensional space.  It isn't until you change your perspective (by turning the roll sideways) that you see the ball inside, adding the 3rd dimension, depth, to the image.  Physics already accepts that are additional dimensions that we cannot perceive, and I like to think of dreams as our subconscious mind "turning the roll" for us.  Dreams allow us to see our world in a way our conscious minds cannot, and that to me means our dreams are as real to us as our waking moments, merely a different perspective!

[Julie Wilson]

This...
but it takes a while, and then some, for most to figure out what the devil has gone haywire if the physical mismatches the non-physical/emotional KNOWING.

There are two sorts of 'knowing' - one in an intellectual/academic, and one in an 'inner' sense.

You can read all about how to ride a bicycle and produce a PhD on the subject. If you never sat on one, you will have no 'inner' knowing about it what so ever.

If born with a female brain there'd be a lack of REAL inner knowing of what it is to be a male (or female).
Having to act the part without this inner knowing is VERY stressful, because we actually have to pretend all the time.
It gives a pretty good first indication there is a gender mismatch of sorts – we are something other then what is physically apparent.

Therefore being male or female is some 'inner' knowing, - as opposed to what is physically apparent.

My 2 cents,
Axélle
PS: Nicola, I just read your last post... there is NO NEED to question how one rides a bicycle if you know how to, it just sort of happens. It is why people would not question what makes them male or female either. They just ARE

When I read this I felt like it was something my mother might appreciate reading.  She accepts me but she has never really accepted me.  I thought maybe it might be something that would help her begin to accept me but I think I am entertaining a pipe dream O_o (again).

Incredibly worded though...  You have an incredible way of explaining things ^_^ !

[Jamie D]

Right on Deadboy!!! It is al about a small structure on you brain called the Basal Nucleous of the Stria Terminalis (BNST), it is sort the center that determines your gender identity. So I am female because my BNST is a female BNST; pretty simple eh?

What about those of us, Peky, who believe they embody both male and female attributes; or those who believe they are neither; or those who believe they are something other than one of the binary genders?

For those who fall under the "umbrella" of androgeny, the question posed in this post can be quite disturbing.

Thanks, though for the description of the BNST.

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

To quote Popeye, "I am what I am."  I am female, always have been, even when I wasn't.

[Devlyn]

Genderfluid or genderless Popeye might say "I yam what I yam...right now!" Hugs, Devlyn

[A]

What about those of us, Peky, who believe they embody both male and female attributes; or those who believe they are neither; or those who believe they are something other than one of the binary genders?

That's probably simply an anomaly. Whilst a transsexual happens when the brain develops in the opposite direction, an androgyne (etc.) would happen when it doesn't develop in either of those direction. For example, during its development, it could have for some reason received a surge of both sex hormones, resulting in partial or mixed structure. It started developing as male, and then finished its development as female, or vice versa.

It could also be that the hormone levels were relatively equal, so it simultaneously developed in both directions resulting in an average in the middle. Alternatively, the surge of hormones could have been absent at the time where it should have happened, resulting in the structure developing "blank", leaving the subject with "no gender identity", which pretty much equals an androgynous gender identity.

I'm only talking out of feeling and know little if anything about his, but if you ask me, if transsexuals are an issue difficult to make out, depite the fact that they point in a direction that is already well-known, one of the two biological genders, androgyny and other out-of-boundary gender phenomenons are even harder puzzle to solve. Not only aren't we sure of their origin, but unlike transsexuals, we don't even fully understand their destination, either. And models to compare with are non-existant, as a "cis androgyne" is just plain impossible, as far as I know.

[Edge]

What about those of us, Peky, who believe they embody both male and female attributes; or those who believe they are neither; or those who believe they are something other than one of the binary genders?

For those who fall under the "umbrella" of androgeny, the question posed in this post can be quite disturbing.

Thanks, though for the description of the BNST.

I don't think that the brains of people with other gender identities have been dissected yet or studied to the same extent (if at all). It'll be interesting to see what our brains look like.

[BlueSloth]

What about those of us, Peky, who believe they embody both male and female attributes; or those who believe they are neither; or those who believe they are something other than one of the binary genders?

For those who fall under the "umbrella" of androgeny, the question posed in this post can be quite disturbing.

Well, since the question is taken directly from a TV show, you can't expect much.  I'd just ignore the details of the question and say "What makes me androgyne is..."

And models to compare with are non-existant, as a "cis androgyne" is just plain impossible, as far as I know.

Intersex, maybe?  It wouldn't work for every non-binary gender, though.  A cis genderfluid person would have to be a shapeshifter 

So anyway, what makes me androgyne is...  I just am.  Something about my mind makes me not very manly and not very womanly, and I don't want my body to look manly or womanly.  And I subconsciously picked up on that and didn't feel comfortable living as a man, long before I found out why.

I could say it's because of the number of neurons in my BSTc, or the connectivity of my white matter, or whatever, but my understanding is that scientists have established a correlation, but no causation yet.  And the studies didn't cover androgynes anyway.  So I'd be making some big assumptions.

And consider this:   When the scientists established the correlation, how did they know what the gender of the people was in the first place?  That's a rhetorical question; the point is what really defines gender isn't neurological implementation details, but feelings, identity, behavior, and whatnot.

[A]

Hmm, intersexed people, as I understand it, are the result of an anomaly, too. Either they are genetically one sex but ended up developing differently, either they have a genetic anomaly which isn't normal... Much like transgenders, but on the physical level.

[peky]

I don't think that the brains of people with other gender identities have been dissected yet or studied to the same extent (if at all). It'll be interesting to see what our brains look like.

You are right edge, very few papers if any of: gender fluid, genderless, androgynous, etc. My suspicion is along the lines expressed by A (above), that the "gender identity center(s) in non-binary or genderless people would have their unique configuration. This hypothesis could be extended to the "sexual orientation center" for bisexual, pansexuals, asexual, etc.

I am constantly reading on the subject, so I will report periodically.

Peky

[peky]

And consider this:   When the scientists established the correlation, how did they know what the gender of the people was in the first place?  That's a rhetorical question; the point is what really defines gender isn't neurological implementation details, but feelings, identity, behavior, and whatnot.

You are abosolute right in your conclusion, no argument ! However, unmasking the biological underpinnings of GID is crucial for legal and medical reasons. Establishing the biological origins of GID makes it easy to demand protection under the law, and medical treament under "health care plans."  Living it as "it is all in your head," opens the door to the religious zealots and bigots to say  "it is just a liefe style choice."

[anita]

I am scared whenever they find a scientific way to explain or categorize. Let us be us. No questions asked. I feel any evidence will only be used against me. So I fought with my mom for asking to take some genetic studies. I don't want a magic pill to change either. Why am I a girl, because I said so!

[Pica Pica]

Sorry, can't help getting a goon reference in.

Personally, I don't think the brain tissue can be all. There are loads of things like love, addiction, sociability which factor in the biological, psychological and sociological factors in complicated heap-of-spaghetti ways that I think labelling one bit of the brain is too reductive. I think gender is one of these things.

(However, to make a proper and clear causation would be a way of unpicking one of the spaghetti strands, and so very useful).

[Nicolas]

However, unmasking the biological underpinnings of GID is crucial for legal and medical reasons. Establishing the biological origins of GID makes it easy to demand protection under the law, and medical treament under "health care plans."

You're absolutely right in this being crucial for both legal and medical reasons. Yet I can't shake the apprehension that lurks in the back of my mind when discussing biological evidence of GID (or homosexuality for that matter). We still live in a society that holds such archaic beliefs so dear and near to their heart. Even though the very founder of psychoanalysis (Freud) stated that in his belief all people were innately bisexual, their homosexuality or heterosexuality being formed depending on parental relationships, etc. But my point is that this was something he discussed in the early 1900's. Yet still, homosexuality was considered a pathology and it wasn't until 1973 that it was removed from the DSM as an 'illness'... yet homosexuals continue to be stigmatized. As are those who life with GID - it frightens me to think that if ever there were a biological blueprint found... so many of us wouldn't even make it to full term as fetus' just as so many who test positive from disorders such as down syndrome. Because really, I wouldn't put it past many people to view GID as a form of illness.

Perhaps my view seems a bit, bleak. I do have faith in people and society moving forward. There have been huge strides made since the year of the stonewall riots.. but regrettably it doesn't negate the fact that there is still a long way to go.

[Edge]

Science isn't responsible for people's stupidity. Idiots are no reason to push away the search for knowledge.
The brain is much more complex and fascinating than many people seem to think.

[Nicolas]

Oh I agree. Science isn't responsible for stupidity or idiocy. In a Utopian world science would be embraced by all but we don't live in a Utopian world. We live in the real world, a real world with laws generated by some of those stupid people with idiotic ideas/beliefs/ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stop looking. I would love to finally have scientific proof to something we already know ourselves. But doesn't mean it leaves me feeling safe.

[A]

Well, honestly, transsexualism not being a directly genetic problem (or if it is it hasn't been shown), I think that if there were a prenatal diagnosis of transsexualism, in the event that it actually is related to hormone levels during the development of the brain as it's currently believed to be, merely correcting those levels would prevent the disorder from appearing, creating a normal and happy child.

Some people think that ->-bleeped-<- is a good thing, but I definitely disagree. The most basic concept of being transgendered is to not feel like you belong in your body as it is; in other words, to feel unhappiness. Many argue that the unhappiness of a trans person comes from the reaction of society. This can't possibly be true. If hormones and surgery were free, fast and painfree; if being a transsexual was absolutely no big deal; if everyone was 100 % supportive... would I stop feeling bad about myself; stop wishing that I were born a girl? Of course not.

So if trans = sadness, considering that sadness is an incontestably bad thing, why would we find it to be a good thing? And why would we object to the prevention of it?

Considering the price of hormones and the (I think) relatively short time frame during which the foetus develops its brain's gender, I doubt that such a treatment would be more expensive than abortion. So I don't think people would just flush away transsexuals-to-be.

[Edge]

Sadness isn't a bad thing. It is a normal, healthy emotion.

[A]

Uhm, in my book, chronic sadness is an illness, and that's precisely what transsexualism does.

[GhostTown11]

Well sometime's I get really sad about being a transgirl but I get over it you know? GID is as familiar to me as my face or my arm or my leg so I've adapted. But don't forget, transexualism also causes chronic fabulousness!! ~~corny