Genes determine transsexuality

[GinaDouglas]

Have to admit, Gina, I'm rather puzzled by your belief that "science" has determined that MTF transsexuals are "only" those who are attracted exclusively to males.

I want to be clear to anyone reading this thread, that the HBIGDA Standards of Care USED TO disqualify anyone who was not interested in having sex with men from being considered to be, or obtaining treatment as, an MtF transsexual.  This is no longer the case.  That is what I was referring to, the historical situation that applied in the 70's and 80's.

[NicholeW.]

I want to be clear to anyone reading this thread, that the HBIGDA Standards of Care USED TO disqualify anyone who was not interested in having sex with men from being considered to be, or obtaining treatment as, an MtF transsexual.  This is no longer the case.  That is what I was referring to, the historical situation that applied in the 70's and 80's.

Yes, I am more than aware of that. I've seen now, I think twice, your seemingly indicating that that was 1) science and 2) still the standard -- or at least your wording seems to have read that way.

Thanks for clarifying.

N~

[Lisbeth]

I'm quite familiar with this, but I do not see how my rephrasing of Janet's question implies a correlation vs causation problem.

EDIT: My question was independent of the study findings - I just found Janet's question interesting and took it the next step.

I do not believe that there will ever be a reliable test for transsexuality.

[Annwyn]

I too used my heterosexual nature as proof that I wasn't a transsexual.  I liked girls not boys (then) and so how could I be a girl on the inside?  It drove my denial for a very long time.

I did that too until all the girls I was dating turned out to be lesbians. or went lesbian after they got done dating me.

[ZoeB]

Coming back to transsexualism: finding one gene involved in sex steroid receptors might be only the tip of a VERY big iceberg.  Mutations in the one gene can be perpetuated in a single population (google or wikipedia Founder Mutations for more info on this) but may not exist in other groups of people.  In other words, your negative test just means that's not the cause of your transsexualism, it doesn't mean you aren't trans.  If you have all the other symptoms for being trans, then guess what, you're trans.  All the genetic testing in the world doesn't have much to do with it.  There are genetic and environmental components to several things we don't understand well (such as autism).

+1 Insightful.

But wait, you're a geneticist, so of course you'd know this stuff, and in far more detail than I do.

The genetic anomalies in those two articles just show an association: not everyone who's trans has them, and not everyone who has them is trans. Having them makes it more likely you'll be trans, not having them less likely, that's all.

Kids exposed to DES in the womb have a 1 in 5 chance of having some form of gender anomaly. But 4 in 5 do not. Kids exposed to Thalidomide in the womb have about a 1 in 5 chance of phocomelia or other anomaly, but 4 in 5 did not. Thalidomide victims with phocomelia have a slightly increased chance of having children with phocomelia, not because of genetic damage from Thalidomide (as was first feared when this was found out) , but because they have genes that make phocomelia more likely regardless, and almost certain if exposed to Thalidomide. I conjecture the same is true for trans people exposed to DES, and this would be a fruitful topic for research.

It looks like there may be multiple genetic anomalies that may make environmental factors in the womb more or less likely to cause gender anomalies to various degrees. But sometimes it will "just happen", with no obvious pre-disposing factor.

The important thing about these results is that they show that for some cases of transsexuality, there is a definite congenital cause. That suggests (by Occam's razor) that transsexuality is congenital unless proven otherwise.
Post Merge: May 15, 2009, 11:13:03 PM

I do not believe that there will ever be a reliable test for transsexuality.

Depends upon what you men by "reliable". I think it quite likely that self-reporting plus fMRI and MRI imaging will give results reliable enough in future for the vast majority of cases.

However, as transsexuality is something with degrees, not a binary, there will always be a minority of cases where only a holistic, multifactorial approach to diagnosis will work adequately. By "multifactorial" I mean no single test is definitive, you have to look at multiple tests.

Right now, self-reporting alone, while unsatisfactory, is the single most reliable diagnostic test. The Dutch clinics have tests that give no false positives, now we need to refine those to minimise false negatives in the less obvious cases.

[Lisbeth]

Depends upon what you men by "reliable". I think it quite likely that self-reporting plus fMRI and MRI imaging will give results reliable enough in future for the vast majority of cases.

However, as transsexuality is something with degrees, not a binary, there will always be a minority of cases where only a holistic, multifactorial approach to diagnosis will work adequately. By "multifactorial" I mean no single test is definitive, you have to look at multiple tests.

Right now, self-reporting alone, while unsatisfactory, is the single most reliable diagnostic test. The Dutch clinics have tests that give no false positives, now we need to refine those to minimise false negatives in the less obvious cases.

I guess in the technical, scientific sense, I really mean "valid," but most people don't know what that term really means. What I meant by my statement is that no test will always be right in determining whether a person is transsexual. There are a number of reasons for that. You pointed out that transsexuality comes in varying degrees. You also pointed out that it has multiple causality. I would also note that the category of "transsexual" continues to change. For these reasons, tests will fail on borderline people, and people who don't fall into the "major" types of transsexuality. And the test that works today won't work when the word is redefined tomorrow.

[Wendy]

You pointed out that transsexuality comes in varying degrees. You also pointed out that it has multiple causality. I would also note that the category of "transsexual" continues to change. For these reasons, tests will fail on borderline people, and people who don't fall into the "major" types of transsexuality. And the test that works today won't work when the word is redefined tomorrow.

Agree Lizbeth.  Certain tests might work for certain people.  However even though we may experience similar feelings we each have our own individual life. Therefore our decision to find an optimal solution may vary simply because we each have different circumstances.  The bottomline is that a test to validate our feelings would be comforting but our feelings are still valid to each of us regardless of a test.

[Hazumu]

Two years ago I donated spit to Dr. Eric Vilain (who, I found out later, is associated with our 'friend' Dr. J. Michael Bailey).

I wonder what became of that study?

=K

[Ms Jessica]

But wait, you're a geneticist, so of course you'd know this stuff, and in far more detail than I do.

awww shucks. 
*blushes*

The genetic anomalies in those two articles just show an association: not everyone who's trans has them, and not everyone who has them is trans. Having them makes it more likely you'll be trans, not having them less likely, that's all.

Exactly.  Very well put. 



I think, Lisbeth, the best word for you to describe the test that would work for everyone is 'definitive'. 
A test can still be valid even if it doesn't work for everyone.  The PCD example in my first post is a valid test, but far from definitive.  Reliable is almost a better word than valid, because a valid test may not be a reliable indicator of a particular disease, especially something that has both genetic and environmental components. 

I don't believe there will ever be a single definitive test for transsexuality, because we already know there are a couple of factors at work.  The best you might get is a definitive suite of tests.  The interpretation of those tests, and what it means to be trans, is, as you noted, a malleable thing.  That only makes a test that works for everyone that much more difficult to work up.  Something with degrees (like autism spectrum disorders) are really only easy to identify at the extreme ends.  The middle always gets muddled up.  I'm trans-ness will end up exactly the same way. 

[Julie Marie]

I wonder how many studies there have been on boys who choose to join the chess team rather than the baseball team?  Or what about those people who like black clothes rather than bright colorful clothes?  Where are those studies?

Oh, that's right, they are "normal" so we're not concerned with how to fix them.

In an article posted on SF Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/worldviews/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=32120) Juliet Richters, an associate professor in sexual health at the University of New South Wales said, "much of the distress felt by transsexuals was caused by cruel treatment from others. 'A little more tolerance toward everyone who doesn't conform to gender norms would be a good thing."

We'd sure save a lot of time and money if we just learned how to be tolerant and accepting.

Julie

[NicholeW.]

We'd sure save a lot of time and money if we just learned how to be tolerant and accepting.

There's a lot of truth in that.

However, one wonders about the possibility when MTFs, particularly, are so spectacularly intolerant of each other and how we approach, carry out and live post-transition. We're even intolerant of the ways we speak to out lives. *sigh*

N~

[Sandy]

There's a lot of truth in that.

However, one wonders about the possibility when MTFs, particularly, are so spectacularly intolerant of each other and how we approach, carry out and live post-transition. We're even intolerant of the ways we speak to out lives. *sigh*

N~

Tom Lehrer had a song in the late sixties called "National Brotherhood Week"

How about a
"National Transsexual week"?

"Oh, the pre-ops hate the post-ops,
And the post-ops hate the pre-ops.
To hate all but the right -ops
Is an old established rule.

But during National Transsexual Week, National Transsexual Week,
RuPaul and Lyn Conway are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em break the rules."

It does get ridiculous sometimes, doesn't it?

-Sandy (I hate intolerant people!)

[Natasha]

Genes determine transsexuality

heh! tell me something i don't know.

[Lori]

very interesting (especially since I'm a geneticist). 

I'll see if I can't get pdfs of the articles.  (the FTM one sounds interesting too)

WRT to Interalia's and Janet's discussion of "does a negative result change your mind about transition" I'd like to put it in perspective of a heritable disease: primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD).  It's a multisystemic disease that affects, among other things, cilia in the respiratory system.  There are currently only two genes for which one can be tested to check for causative mutations.  However, mutations in the two implicated genes only account for something like 30 or 40% of all cases of PCD.  What about the other 60 to 70% of individuals with PCD but no mutations in the two known genes?  There are about 8 other genes (IIRC, it might be more) involved in the structure and function of cilia, so the current testing methodology is far from exhaustive.  As more is known about additional genes, then testing can improve.  The way it stands now, you can still be diagnosed with PCD even if you're mutation free in the two testable genes. 
Coming back to transsexualism: finding one gene involved in sex steroid receptors might be only the tip of a VERY big iceberg.  Mutations in the one gene can be perpetuated in a single population (google or wikipedia Founder Mutations for more info on this) but may not exist in other groups of people.  In other words, your negative test just means that's not the cause of your transsexualism, it doesn't mean you aren't trans.  If you have all the other symptoms for being trans, then guess what, you're trans.  All the genetic testing in the world doesn't have much to do with it.  There are genetic and environmental components to several things we don't understand well (such as autism). 

The nice thing about this study is that it's actual work looking at transsexuals.  Improving understanding of transsexualism and possible etiologies for being trans can go a long way to legitimizing us in the eyes of a non-tolerant society.  Although, as someone else said above, it might just also lead to more abortions.  I'll try to be optimistic though.  It is Friday, after all. 

Post Merge: May 15, 2009, 10:13:23 AM
I was able to download pdf's of both the Bentz et al and Hare et al articles.  If you're interested in getting them by email, send me a PM.

I'd be more interested in sending you a blood sample to be tested.


Post Merge: May 18, 2009, 03:56:06 PM

The question comes to mind, would you take the testing if offered?  What if you tested negative, would you stop your transition?  Or would you believe in your own feelings?

And can science offer real proof GID exist to the fact that the rest of the world would accept it or us?

I would like to know myself, but it would not change a thing for me.

Janet

On the flip side, what if you were "proven to be TS" yet were mentally on the fence about it and transitioned anyhow because of scientific fact? Would it make things bad for a person not really sure?

For me it would give me more confidence if I was proven. It wouldn't really change things if it came out negative though. I love being on E too much and the effective changes its having on my body.

[Shana A]

We'd sure save a lot of time and money if we just learned how to be tolerant and accepting.

Julie[/color][/font]

That's for sure Julie!

Tom Lehrer had a song in the late sixties called "National Brotherhood Week"

How about a
"National Transsexual week"?

I love Tom Lehrer, and your song rocks too Sandy!

Z

[Ms Jessica]

I'd be more interested in sending you a blood sample to be tested.

LOLZ.  If my company ever develops tests off of any of the genes for ts, I'll post here, along with our receiving address for blood samples. 

[dottkham]

For the question, "if the best scientific evidence said a person is NOT a transsexual, should that person change concerning transition?"

No, that person shouldn't... because the best scientific evidence today is NOT the best scientific evidence tomorrow. In 2007, semi-identical chimera twins were born, both having XY and XX cells. How many chimeras are among us? What if the "best scientific evidence" tested one set of cells. It took two years of testing for one woman to realize she was a chimera.

[NicholeW.]

At this point, I just need, I think, to be bluntly honest.

I could give a rat's ass about whether or not there are ever any tests that "prove" much of anything at all. Most of us rely on belief to make our definitions anyhow. And, ethically-speaking what will be the result of a valid test? If it's a test that can be done with an amnio would that mean many parents would opt to abort the child out of sheer fear for themselves and quite naturally for the child who would tend to have such an "impairment?"

At the current time, the current learning developed over the past ten years appears to have been co-opted in many ways by "trannies with an agenda" and honestly the "agenda" appears to be ways of saying "I am better than thou." I mean, I've always found it pretty easy to do that w/o a scientifc test to show that "I am better than thou." I just say it. It requires no "proof" at all, except the "proof" afforded by my own damned opinion.

Zobie, the work and effort you make in getting out scientific and rational studies is just wonderful and I have tremendous respect for your dedication and effort. It's been immensely helpful to me through the past few years. But, in the end all I do is, if I use it at all, is use it to further arguments with those I find benighted and self-loathing to the point of wishing to be able somehow to decide for themselves who is and is not to be included in "the club." I think similarities are readily found with work done in the past two centuries with IQ-testing, brain-measuring, racial definition and grading and numerous other scientific research that outran the capacities of people to develop their own hearts and sense that humans are somehow intimately connected to one another.

I suppose the work should be done, altho I am not completely convinced as I have severe doubts about the uses it is already being put toward and the continuing inability of human beings to rise above our Pleistocene/Miocene wiring that makes us see "stranger" in the minutest ways and see "kin" hardly at all.

Call me hopeful but sceptical.

N~



 

[annajasmine]

Absolute hogwash.  It's like saying your religion is determined by your genes.  There's a lot more at play than genes.

I really hate my own field of study...

There a study about that too.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html

Anna