Hormones and gender/sexuality

[jackedup77]

I'd like for someone to confirm or correct my theory.

The way I see it.  An embryo is initially genderless.  In about 6 weeks, the body has produced germs cells that can turn into sperm or eggs. The body has everything it needs to be either male or female.  This is why men have nipples and women have a clitoris.
The genes start giving instructions to the gonads.  If you have a Y chromosome, the SRY gene will turn on and tell your body to produce a lot of androgens.  These androgens act on your gonads, degenerating the ducts that would create the uterus and growing the ducts that will create the testes.
If you have an x chromosome, your body will create female genitalia because there are not enough androgens to promote male genitalia.
So in actuality, the only function of genetics is to tell your body what hormones to promote and when.

If you have a y chromosome and something blocks the process (not enough androgens are produced or they are not produced at the right time), you will develop female genitalia.
If you have a x chromosome and somehow androgens are introduced into your body (maybe from your mother), you will develop male genitalia.  Both of these situations are more likely to cause intersex conditions.

So taking hormones actually does a lot to reverse the process from MTF or FTM. I've heard that the traditional male and female thought patterns (motor skills and emotional response) change when people are on hormones. 

The reason we don't completely turn into the opposite sex is because of timing.  Sexual development in utero is timed pretty precisely.   I also think hormone balance before and during puberty is key to sexual development.

This leads me to believe that male and female are two extremes at the ends of a broad spectrum or continuum. It's why no two vaginas are alike and not all penises are the same size.  Everyone doesn't identify with the genitalia they were born with and Everyone isn't exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.

Hormones are the primary controller of biological sex.   I think it's a lot more than we realize.  I think they determine anything that has to do with gender and sexuality.

I guess my half-ass conclusion is that gender and sexuality aren't as concrete as some might think.  Hormones are the key to all the sexual/gender variations we see in life.

I'm open to all feedback.  Professional feedback would be awesome.

[mickiejr1815]

very interesting read, but i can't confirm or correct this theory as i'm no doctor or scientist, but i'm sure Keira(hope i spelled it right) will be along to just that for all of us. she's one extremely smart lady!!!! i only wish i knew half the stuff she did...lol.



hoping you get the answers you're looking for,
Mickie
The New Warrior Princess

[Just Mandy]

Hormones are the key to all the sexual/gender variations we see in life.

I'm not a professional here either but I agree 100% with that statement. I think it all happens
shortly after conception, the mother needs to produce the proper level of hormones at
the proper times. If anything goes wrong with that either through external stimulus (taking
hormones like DES) or the mothers body does not correctly produce the proper hormones then
MTF or FTM TS'ism happens. Just my personal theory.

I think it also affects body development. In my case things like elbow angle, ring to index
finger ratio, small ankles and wrists, small jaw, small build, etc all were affected by the wrong level of
hormones at the wrong times. Too bad it does not affect nose size lol

Amanda

[Tanya1]

I can confirm what she said is 100% CORRECT! Your Chromosome simply instruct what hormones to produce and the HORMONES (not the chromosomes) then develop your parts, brain and body. Sometimes the brain is left underdeveloped by hormones and GID presents itself.

[JENNIFER]

Oh dear, where do I start with this one?

I am still new on this domain and that means you will not know my background.

Briefly, my history.  I was born late, almost 10 months gestation and less than 6 pounds weight.  I had a troubled early development, in hospital a lot etc., from my very earliest memories I felt like me, a girl.  My friends were girls and boys ignored me.  I grew up quickly though not in stature but in mental maturity. Puberty starts and I start to develop breasts which would be normal for a girl but because I was legally a boy, the parents went hostile and used all methods to suppress this. Move forward to late teens and beyond, my genitals, though looking normal for a male, never functioned in the usual way such as erections, they simply housed an extended Urethra. Add to this the fact I have very small hands typical of females, small feet also typical of females, a natural affinity to the mosty lovely of female fashions, Flowers, Chocolates, the arts, I cry a lot over the most stupid things, heck all the things girls identify with then so do I.

I do not claim to know the intricacies of hormones and their effects on pregnant women but I do know that if women drink, smoke, do drugs etc or even take too much fat or salt in their food, then the unborn child will be affected during that stage of pregnancy that decides gender.  i say gender and not sex here because I feel that it is gender that matters in this situation.

Now then, I have since dabbled with self medication of oestrogens. During that time, my emotions were amplified greatly, and it was such a lovely feeling.  Genetic females take it for granted but if they realised what they had..........

[JENNIFER]

@ Quote......And also, not to be too much of a spoil-sport, but I dunno if you can call it a theory as opposed to a hypothesis because there are a few unstated premises and undefined gaps in your argument...Unquote.


A timely reminder to do my essays before time runs out........

[Keira]

Well,
We don't know for sure.
Actually, if it was that simple,
they'd already could link conclusively gender and sexuality
to those hormone levels, which does not seem to be the case,
there only seem to be correlation, a higher probability
between the hormone levels and what happens next.

So, there seems to be other mechanisms implicated,
there are possibly dozens of interacting genes
that are linked to sex and gender.

That would explain how gender seems to
express itself on a spectrum where most
fall at both extremity, while some are
in between. A hormonal explanation
would not explain this unless there
is an interaction with other
systems in the brain.

Gene expression is rather complex
and they've only scratched the surface.

I shy away from simplistic solutions to complex issues.
They're easier to understand but almost always wrong.

That's why the whole Harry Benjamin Syndrome proponents
kinds of makes me uncomfortable. Pushing an
agenda based on inconclusive science is never good.

[jackedup77]

redfish the metaphysician
I am saying that biological sex is determined by the presence of hormones and thus, hormones govern what biological sex is. Furthermore, hormones govern the full scope of our gender and sexuality.

And yes, It's more of a hypothesis than a theory.



Keira
I don't think my idea is so simple.  I don't think they can successfully link hormones with gender and sexuality because they don't have the timing down nor the proper level of exposure.  Though, they actually have linked hormones with gender and sexuality in animals.

Side note:
They say that humans are different (more complex) but I really don't believe this is true.  I think the moral system imposed on humans make it hard to do proper research.  We can't test humans with the same "disregard" we do animals.  We do things to animals we wouldn't dare do to humans.  The mad scientist in me says that if we had that leeway we would find that humans aren't much more biologically complex than other species.  Of course, that would be wrong.

Back on point:
I think gene expression is very complex.  It is amazing that a gene would turn on, turning on other genes and give instructions that tell your body how much hormones to produce and when. 
My idea is that genetic control could be overridden by artificial introduction of hormones. 

Chemistry is not an exact science.  There is great variation in chemical reactions.  I believe if you mix to substances, the product is never exactly the same mixture.  This may be true of hormones.  Timing and "dosage" are crucial.  Any variation of either would explain spectrum between two extremes.

I do think there are definite interactions with hormones and other systems in the brain. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030133346.htm
I will concede that there are links to articles on that page that say that there are a number of genetic differences between males and females before hormones are introduced.  I would say those genes are needed to regulate the amount of hormones the brain receives.  Those genes may be the reason why hormones have such an impact on brain function.

I could have sworn that the general consensus of biological science was that hormones are credited for brain development.
Bringing up the notion that science doesn't have to be inconclusive to push a crap agenda. The idea that there are inherent differences between the male and female brain is not popular; because, some schmucks try to link that to intelligence, equality, and gender role, and other places it didn't need to go.  Though the idea is flawed because they do not emphasis the great continuum between male and female.
Hell, we only need to look to our advanced weaponry to see how agendas and science don't always benefit us.

[jackedup77]

I have yet more questions, if you will pardon my persistence.

What do you mean by gender, and what do you mean by sexuality?

gender as in what you are and sexuality as in what you want.

I do tend to use the term "biological gender" instead of sex. Maybe i should stop.
So I meant gender as the makeup of your reproductive organs and psychosocial development. 
I mean sexuality: the preference of partner and level of desire to copulate ('cause I don't get to use that word much)

I'll throw in that I think there is great human variation in biology, psychology, and sexuality (no two humans are alike)
Each person on a separate point on the continuum.  With the extremes being, a penis and testes in working order to a vagina with uterus and ovaries in working order (haven't decided if I want to admit that I think size is a part of that spectrum).
On the sexuality side, the extremes are desire for the opposite sex only to desire for the same sex only.
Of course, there's the matter of sex drive.

[jackedup77]

Why is the gender continuum set up with a penis and testes  as one extreme and a vagina with uterus and ovaries as the opposite extreme? Why does the sexuality continuum function with opposite sex desire as one extreme and same-sex desire as another extreme?

And, furthermore, why is sexuality defined in strictly object-choice terms in this example? Why not sexuality in terms of preference for frequent sexual activity versus infrequent sexual activity, preference for sexual fantasy versus sexual realism, or preferences for masturbation alone versus group sex?

Those two extremes are based on hormones.  Higher levels of androgens develop penis and testes; and in the midst of the lowest levels of androgens, ovaries and uterus develop.


My definitions do seem to exclude auto-sexuality and fantasy based sexuality.  This is an odd over-share; but, It is quite ironic that I left that out because that does describe my sexuality.  I'd rather pleasure myself than be with someone else and I am more turned on by the idea of sex than the actual action.  My therapist and I have figured out that this is because I have not been exposed to healthy relationships throughout my life.  Rather than cycle through bad relationships, I tend to withdraw from any form of intimacy with another person.  The word "avoidant" came up.  Now, I would be projecting if I said this was the case for everyone who was "auto-sexual". 


Concerning the same-sex/opposite sex extreme (and the auto-sexuality deal), I'm not ready to go against evolutionary biology that says humans (and any other life form) must reproduce.  I don't have any data against the notion that the function of our body's reproductive system is to reproduce.  And for whatever ridiculous reason, mammals have to copulate in order to reproduce.

Since studies show that about 80-90% want to reproduce without artificial measures (i.e. they're attracted to the same sex).  Infertility is said to arise at about 10-15% among couples. This includes infertility due to lifestyle habits. Only 20% of women 40-44 have never had children.   Homosexuality doesn't even eradicate the want to reproduce. 
I think our perspective is a bit clouded by technology.  Now people can have children without reproducing.  But, back in the day, if you wanted a kid, you were going to have to find someone of the opposite sex to have it with.

Let's look at the bonobos.  Homosexuality is prevalent in the species; but, when they feel like mating, they find an opposite sex partner to do the deed; then bond with their same sex partner.

Now, i don't think sexual attraction is synonymous with sexual activity.  Even though it sounds like that.  I know people often have sex with someone for other reasons besides sexual attraction.  I think sex is a tool for social bonding and is used for other social "negotiations".

I will say that sexual arousal is necessary to reproductive function; because, if you're not aroused, it's damned hard to make a baby.
Therefore the person must be aroused by the person they are with in order to successfully reproduce.

Until I find some data that says the reproductive organ's primary function is not to reproduce, I will put same sex attraction at one extreme and opposite sex attraction at the other.
Or I can just come out and say that the human body/mind is equipped for opposite sex interaction; and strict same sex attraction is a biological variation ( I didn't use the word "defect" for a reason.  It's not a defect.  Defect is a moral based word.  Biology is amoral). 

The only other idea that I can come up with is based on the idea that same sex attraction is a biological variation.  That this variation is mimicking something  in our genetic past.  Maybe taking us back to our asexual ancestors.

I've also wondered why women don't just lay eggs and men can come along and fertilize them outside the body.  Maybe we have done that in our past.  We are already creating embryos outside of the body.  Maybe we can advance our science to be able to find an adequate external replacement for the uterus or placenta.   

Researchers are looking into creating sperm from stem cells taken from female bone marrow. 

OR, this could go along with the idea that the y chromosome is disappearing.  Apparently, the Y chromosome lacks the mechanism to get rid of damaged DNA.  So since the Y chromosome showed up, it has gradually lost genes due to mutations that render them useless.  Another researcher (David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass) found that the chromosome has a mechanism that can repair half of it's genes.  So, over about 300 million years, the Y chromosome is getting smaller.  But what if the SRY gene was the next to go?  Or any other sex determining genes?  Some say that other chromosomes will just take over that function.  Would we then be like crickets?

ANYWAY, I think all this is a testament to our evolving body.

Wow, This is what happens when a nerd starts to ramble.

[Just Mandy]

I posted this in another topic but it relates to this one as well so I thought
it was worth duplicating here.

Anonymouse posted this link to a study about ring to index finger ratios:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TBX-4H16P9S-1/2/ae91dff18b1b99385054e3bf971d47f9

Here are a few excerpts from the study done in Munich, Germany 2005:

"We present novel data that strongly supports a role for biological factors in the etiology of male transsexualism
insofar that MTF display female-typical sexually dimorphic features that have been previously proposed to be
influenced by prenatal androgen exposure."

"If we assume that prenatal androgen exposure has a partial influence on the 2D:4D ratio our data
suggests that males experiencing lower than normal levels of androgen during prenatal developemnt
are more likely to develop transsexuality contrasting with the higher-than-normal prenatal testostorne
levels that have been found in some studies of male homosexuality.

"In summary our study lends support to the view that there is a biological basis for male to female
transsexuality and hints at a causal role for prenatal androgen levels."

The study does say the right hand for right handed MTF's the ratio is more toward the female range than
for left handed MTF. And the difference is really small. The control group female was .97 and
males .953 with MTF's being almost the same as the control females for the right hand.

Amanda

[Keira]

I've seen the research on digit ratio a while back.

"More likely" is the KEY WORDS,

so, there is likely other mechanisms also involved in being a TS
and everywhere in between.

Why would some with "female" digit ratio not be TS?
Why some end up being gender variant?

The interaction of multiple factors seem probable.

[Nikki]

( I didn't use the word "defect" for a reason.  It's not a defect.  Defect is a moral based word.  Biology is amoral)

What is moral about "defect"? We talk about defects in machines and manufactured parts all the time. A human is nothing more than an organic machine. And looking at how this machine is functioning I'd say I'm defective somehow. Either I'm a woman and i have a defective body(my preference) or I'm a man and i have a defective mind. Either way I am unable to properly fulfill the biological function of a human machine either because of a hardware defect or a software defect. And just like we discard defective machines I'll eventually be discarded from the biological assembly line when I fail to reproduce before dying.

[jackedup77]

( I didn't use the word "defect" for a reason.  It's not a defect.  Defect is a moral based word.  Biology is amoral)

What is moral about "defect"? We talk about defects in machines and manufactured parts all the time. A human is nothing more than an organic machine. And looking at how this machine is functioning I'd say I'm defective somehow. Either I'm a woman and i have a defective body(my preference) or I'm a man and i have a defective mind. Either way I am unable to properly fulfill the biological function of a human machine either because of a hardware defect or a software defect. And just like we discard defective machines I'll eventually be discarded from the biological assembly line when I fail to reproduce before dying.

Your comment illustrates the reason why I call defect a moral based word.  Defect puts a negative value on an object.  Do you honestly feel you will be discarded because you will not reproduce?
I don't call it a defect because the nature of life.    A machine or a manufactured part have specifications they must meet.  People must make modifications and improvements to the machines.  Machines don't improve on their own.  Humans and other life forms have a built in improvement system.  Life forms are constantly modifying themselves.  Life is constantly evolving.  So if something doesn't work the way you think it should, it doesn't necessarily mean it's defective. 

Technically, if you do not reproduce then your genetic line will cease to exist.  That's not the same as discarding a defective machine.  The reproductive system is designed to reproduce.  Every human can contribute greatly to society without reproducing.  Reproducing is one of the many things one can do to move the species along.  It's not the only thing.  Because you are not able to properly fulfill A biological function doesn't mean you should be discarded.  I said our technology clouds our perception because it aids us.   You are a woman who still has the means to pass on your genes.  Unless you are completely, irreversibly infertile, you can pass on your genes.

[lostandconfused]

I'd like for someone to confirm or correct my theory.

The way I see it.  An embryo is initially genderless.  In about 6 weeks, the body has produced germs cells that can turn into sperm or eggs. The body has everything it needs to be either male or female.  This is why men have nipples and women have a clitoris.
The genes start giving instructions to the gonads.  If you have a Y chromosome, the SRY gene will turn on and tell your body to produce a lot of androgens.  These androgens act on your gonads, degenerating the ducts that would create the uterus and growing the ducts that will create the testes.
If you have an x chromosome, your body will create female genitalia because there are not enough androgens to promote male genitalia.
So in actuality, the only function of genetics is to tell your body what hormones to promote and when.

If you have a y chromosome and something blocks the process (not enough androgens are produced or they are not produced at the right time), you will develop female genitalia.
If you have a x chromosome and somehow androgens are introduced into your body (maybe from your mother), you will develop male genitalia.  Both of these situations are more likely to cause intersex conditions.

So taking hormones actually does a lot to reverse the process from MTF or FTM. I've heard that the traditional male and female thought patterns (motor skills and emotional response) change when people are on hormones. 

The reason we don't completely turn into the opposite sex is because of timing.  Sexual development in utero is timed pretty precisely.   I also think hormone balance before and during puberty is key to sexual development.

This leads me to believe that male and female are two extremes at the ends of a broad spectrum or continuum. It's why no two vaginas are alike and not all penises are the same size.  Everyone doesn't identify with the genitalia they were born with and Everyone isn't exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.

Hormones are the primary controller of biological sex.   I think it's a lot more than we realize.  I think they determine anything that has to do with gender and sexuality.

I guess my half-ass conclusion is that gender and sexuality aren't as concrete as some might think.  Hormones are the key to all the sexual/gender variations we see in life.

I'm open to all feedback.  Professional feedback would be awesome.

I'm no professional, but I am a science nerd. DNA is nothing but a "recipe" for proteins. Once the embryo is manufacturing enough androgens, various parts of the body changes. The most interesting part would be when it reaches your brain. Not enough hormones, or lack of reaction (or vice versa) causes the brain to be unaffected (or overaffected) (hence transgender people). The androgens also proberly have evolved to increase survivability in fight. As a caveman or earlier species, you likely would want to have a fast reaction time so you wouldn't be dead after trying to hunt for food. As a cave-woman, you would proberly spend more time in safer places to keep your young alive, with a brain that's more gentle and less aggressive. Call me sexist, but if you have a really slow caveman and a cave-woman willing to allow their young to run in front of an animal who will eat them or will abuse their children in rage, that pair will be unlikely to pass on their genes. That's why binary genders seem to conform to some stereotypes.

[/darwin point of view]

[pebbles]

I'm a studying first year biology student at university. Oddly enough I was speaking to two guys who were quite hostile to the idea of ->-bleeped-<-. I didn't say anything they know nothing about my suspicions about myself.

They said to me
"I simply don't get how anyone could do that to themselves, its unnatural, They won't ever have real girl parts. Hey X(In reference to me) Your a biologist Is there any physical reason why somone who behave so psychotically and want to cut off there own member? "

So I will say to you what I said to them cryptically.
"What do you want science to say?"

Studying biology allows you to understand the machinery of life and will allow you to define things, But human machinery of sex and gender is a complicated machine and so much so that you can select easily one aspect of it and paint it with your own morality, Scientists don't judge like that. But social groups will paint on there own confirmation bias, TG communities, Social conservatives. Whatever, They are all bucking for science to cover there backs, Just looking for an excuse.

If you really want to know in terms of "sex" you are either Male... Female... Hermaphrodite... Neuter. Your sex refers solely to your ability to produce gametes
People who have undergone SRS, oophorectomy, Or orchiectomy are Neuter by all technical definitions Technology is not present to physically toggle ones sex. Prior to that you are whatever your birth sex is... Ignoring the rare exception you are a Hermaphrodite and actually possess both functioning Testis and Ovaries.
Hurrah for the conservatives? Current surgery doesn't even try to make facsimiles of sex... It's just impossible at this time.

But we do not practically judge people like that of course on the basis of there ability to produce sperms and eggs. A point intentionally ignored by them for convenience.

Conversely I see you here now and those subsequent posters all direly trying to justify themselves with quantifiable levels of hormones in there system or crudest most simple measures "Ring index finger ratio's" and so fourth.

Your sex is bound as solidly and robustly to the above described measure, But as I said we don't judge people by sex the statement, Science may define you but what a scientist says is only a classification, Moreover it's an esoteric one that you don't refer to in casual conversation.
"An infertile man"
Only makes sense because we as communities and societies judge by gender, and expectations of said gender. The foundations and roots of this are sociological found both in the opinions of others and in yourself.

What Gender is... And is not... is another issue I hold my own opinions on but I am not a so called "Expert upon" It's beyond the scope of my post here and the scope of currently falsifiable biology for the most part.

What you've painted on is the largely superficial part of gender. Trying to add parameters to try and make sense of yourself. Do it yourself and don't lie about the fact it's you who's defining what's male and female.
Biology won't do it for you... Chances are if it gave you an answer you didn't like or fell in opposition to your GID feelings you'd ignore it anyway.

Urr Yeah your smart enough to know this... I'm a biologist but just because of that don't do something I tell you to do or conversely not do... Live your own life. I have my own problems.