The Science of Transgender Understanding the causes of being transgender
By SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY
What causes people to be transgender in the first place? The prevailing theories used to be psychosocial: That early traumas like dysfunctional family dynamics or childhood sexual abuse were responsible. "That is absolutely not true at all," says Dr. Johanna Olson, medical director of the Transgender Clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. "But I still get people in my clinic who are trying to unravel what the traumatic incident was, that caused their kid to be trans."
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-science-of-transgender-20140730 (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-science-of-transgender-20140730)
Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?
Quote from: noah732 on August 01, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?
Perhaps exposure to varying environments across time could cause differences in gene expression between the twins?
Having said that, I'm incredibly sceptical of essentialist explanations of gender and don't believe in the notion that transgender people have a variance of sexual development isolated to the brain. I'm not any form of scientist but the studies I have read are incredibly unconvincing, including the one cited in the article, due to lacking controls, failing to account for alternative explanations, small sample sizes, etc. As with evolutionary psychology, I regard attempts to ascribe gender variance to biology with suspicion because the academics themselves are often clearly unaware of the latent biases driving them to assume our white supremacist ideas of gender are somehow inherently derived from natural inclinations despite all the evidence it's a social construct.
Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.
Nonetheless, I find research into this incredibly interesting.
Lonicera —
In 1965, an infant named Bruce Reimer lost his penis in an accident. His parents chose to raise him as a girl because they thought it was the only way to salvage his sexual and romantic future. Yet, he developed a male gender identity nonetheless and became the equivalent of a transsexual boy. He was turned back into a male at 12.
The Reimer case PROVES that we all have a built-in, internal awareness regarding our gender. I do not at all believe that gender identity is something changeable by social influence. A very, very large majority of transsexuals reveal tendency to behave like the opposite sex as early as age 3. In fact, despite a parent's attempts to alter their child's 'unnatural' gender identity, whether it remains the same or not appears to be numb to upbringing.
The nature vs. nurture debate is barely even valid anymore due to the Reimers' case and others like it. Surely there are factors prior to birth that dictate our gender identities.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 01, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.
I wholeheartedly agree. I've never been a fan of trying to justify it to other people and I don't try to explain it to anyone either. They can accept me as I am or not, their choice.
Quote from: noah732 on August 01, 2014, 04:57:53 PMThe Reimer case PROVES that we all have a built-in, internal awareness regarding our gender.
I'm aware of the case but I'm afraid I disagree with this. For me, a single data point is not, or a few cherry-picked examples are not, definitive proof of an overarching reality. Equally, there have been
many alternative explanations for the outcome in that case due the exceptional circumstances, including outright abuse, imposed on Reimer.
Personally, I prefer to defer to scientific methodology and I believe there is nothing close to a scientific consensus on the origins of gender identity, if indeed that's what it continues to be regarded as in the future given the constantly evolving nature of our understanding. I regard it as deeply damaging when people, not just trans people, seize upon shaky science as truth in their campaigning since it's intellectually disingenuous and risks building activism on a foundation of sand.
Maybe there are biological factors that influence a desire to belong to a given group we're exposed to, including a gender, in the same way it's conceivable that there are biological factors that influence sexual identification too but there's no reliable proof of causation in both cases. If you're interested in further reading on the matter, and haven't already encountered it, then I think Natalie Reed's 'The New Essentialism' is a relatively close match to a lot of my thoughts on the matter and far more detailed than I could achieve in a forum post.
I'd raise issues I have with other points you've mentioned but I have no desire to derail this topic beyond clarifying my position.
Why would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.
re: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be?
Quote from: Northern Jane on August 01, 2014, 06:26:46 PM
Why would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.
Indeed! There are lots of expressions of GD, why not multiple causes?
Quote from: noah732 on August 01, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?
because gene expression and /or protein translation can be modified or modulated by epigenetic factors which may or may not affect both embryos...
Epigenetic factors are local cellular events that are independent of genes.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 01, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.
Nonetheless, I find research into this incredibly interesting.
When you've lived with people who reject you, who tell you that it's your choice and you therefore must change, who have little to no empathy for the inescapable way you have felt your entire life, it becomes hurtful and frustrating. You yourself KNOW that you didn't choose this life but there isn't a way to prove such a thing without visible or presentable evidence like science.
Trying to prove that ->-bleeped-<- isn't a choice isn't a way to justify the existence of transgender people, it is a way of showing something that you already know to be true.
I understand a point you're getting at: Regardless of nature or nurture, a relationship with anyone who doesn't accept who you truly are should be severed. BUT that obviously doesn't make it OKAY for people to reject you. THEY'RE the ones trying to justify THEIR views by claiming ->-bleeped-<- is a product of decision or of upbringing. There's nothing wrong with trying to show that gender identity isn't a choice in hopes that things will get better for trans people!
Additionally, the amount of evidence supporting biological and genetic factors far surpasses that of social or psychological influences, regardless of validity.
I also don't understand why you are willing to accept the possibility of biological factors signaling to us what social groups we belong to, and not that they directly control our gender identities. So we need social exposure in order to develop gender identities? I believe not. We don't need to see a boy or a girl before our brains develop the ability to recognize the gender of faces, nor to we need it to recognize the gender of ourselves.
Ultimately, what is the core motivation behind your perspective? Do YOU believe your gender identity was a choice or a result of nurture?
P.S. Sorry if my opposition to your views comes across as negative. That's not how I intend it. I enjoy pressing these questions and debating the science behind ->-bleeped-<- because I like knowing more information and more theories about it. Thanks.
Quote from: Ducks on August 01, 2014, 07:01:42 PM
re: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be?
So very true.
Quote from: peky on August 01, 2014, 07:58:45 PM
because gene expression and /or protein translation can be modified or modulated by epigenetic factors which may or may not affect both embryos...
Epigenetic factors are local cellular events that are independent of genes.
Aha, epigenetics. Thanks.
Laverne Cox twin brother is not trans himself but if you google him you can see that he is kind of genderqueer.
BTW For me it's the opposite like maybe traumas from my family and surrounding made me thing that being transgender was not acceptable and therefore didn't help me accept myself, etc... u_u besides that it was quite informative.
I think the problem that needs to be tackled is the false dichotomy of biology vs choice. I'd rather try to teach people that a lack of a biological cause doesn't automatically make it a choice or that choices aren't inferior. An example most people can relate to is their sexual or racial identity which is largely socially constructed but seems to feel immutable to the majority of people. Something being socially constructed doesn't make it any less real, important, or capable of feeling engrained.
I understand the urge to appease society and I appreciate that it's comforting to make claims about the origin of gender but I don't accept claims that lack an evidential basis.
QuoteAdditionally, the amount of evidence supporting biological and genetic factors far surpasses that of social or psychological influences, regardless of validity.
I'm afraid I disagree. I believe there's no consensus supporting either at present but, based on my reading as a total layperson, some constructionist theories seem to have more studies and analyses supporting them.
To me, it seems like there are things that trans people understandably cherry-pick in their attempt to placate a hostile cisgender society but reading many of the studies convinced me that they're invalid due to fatal flaws (e.g. infamous 'brain sex' stuff) or that they provide incredibly tentative results that can equally be subject to alternative interpretations.
QuoteI also don't understand why you are willing to accept the possibility of biological factors signaling to us what social groups we belong to, and not that they directly control our gender identities.
Oh dear, I should've been clearer about my baseless speculation. It was just idle thought and nothing serious.
The reason I'm dubious about accepting a learning mechanism
specifically for gender (rather than a
generic learning mechanism) without evidence is because gender has never been shown to be biological. Conversely, there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that it is a socially constructed system. I appreciate it could've been the case that there was some kind of coevolution or something else but I personally fail to see how that's likely when genders vary so greatly across the planet, sometimes to the extent that genders assigned to a given sex at birth in one culture are totally contradictory to those in another or even absent entirely.
In my mind, the onus is firmly on people claiming that gender identification is biologically innate to categorically prove that's the case with consistent studies, not with anecdotes, small studies that can readily be disputed, or studies that can easily be subject to a different interpretation.
QuoteThere's nothing wrong with trying to show that gender identity isn't a choice in hopes that things will get better for trans people!
I agree that there's nothing wrong with trying to convey the way it can feel engrained for some of us, including me, but I don't think it's necessary to rely on hollow appeals to nature for that. It also troubles me that it leaves people behind for whom gender may feel like a choice, I won't do that. I'd personally rather tackle the root problem rather than mollify it but I appreciate the pragmatic focus of others.
QuoteSo we need social exposure in order to develop gender identities? I believe not.
Whereas I believe we do need exposure to an external world since gender is not solely a personal trait but is something that is done to us as well as done by us. For me, gender is a complex semiotic system and I don't think that gender can develop in isolation or prior to internalising knowledge. As people like Judith Butler might put it, we constantly 'perform' or 'do' our gender so I don't see identity as something that can exist in total absence of that.
I think it can feel incredibly fixed and deeply-rooted, as it has done for me since childhood, but I still think it is something that is constantly evolving and developing based on our situational performances of it every day.
As for the facial recognition you mentioned, I'd love to see it if you can recall any details.
QuoteUltimately, what is the core motivation behind your perspective? Do YOU believe your gender identity was a choice or a result of nurture?
I don't think it was a conscious choice but I can't identify any kind of process in the complex history of my life. I can only impose retrospective narratives on to things that I presently remember which isn't particularly useful. In theory, it could be purely biological causes, purely due to learning, or a combination of both. I'd need evidence.
Personally, I have an illogical sense of liking the constructionist theories I've seen more than alternatives because they manage to encompass the full range of gender without becoming too messy and complicated. For instance, the things I've read seem to readily account for gender feeling fixed while also accommodating people that feel theirs is totally fluidic. We each become people that have simply learned, internalised, performed, etc in a way unique to us.
QuoteP.S. Sorry if my opposition to your views comes across as negative. That's not how I intend it. I enjoy pressing these questions and debating the science behind ->-bleeped-<- because I like knowing more information and more theories about it. Thanks.
Oh my word, not at all. I apologise if my formal tone seems callous or such. For some reason, I'm just 'stuck' typing like this despite trying to change it. I also regret that I'm tired and not particularly clever so I can't really offer any comments or insights of use to others.
Quote from: Ducks on August 01, 2014, 07:01:42 PMre: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be?
I don't think that's the only plausible conclusions but may be very wrong. By age three a person has had considerable exposure to gender as a system and has typically learned at least one language to high degree. In my mind, the latter is very important because the complexity of language means it conveys and instils countless ideas without us even really knowing it. I'd suggest we internalise that and accordingly develop in relation to it. Similarly, a child will have absorbed a great deal of knowledge about gender from surrounding society and will have engaged in performance of it on a daily basis themselves to increasing degrees as they age.
Flowing from this, I think I can conceive of a child having acquired a sense of gender identity that causes them to behave in such a way by that point in time or even earlier.
Quote from: Northern Jane on August 01, 2014, 06:26:46 PMWhy would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.
Eap, I apologise if it seemed like I was arguing that I'd only accept a single identifiable cause. I try to appreciate that the reality of things is that they're a composite of many factors. I'm just yet to see any such contributory aspects properly outlined.
Lonicera,
Understandably, it is common for individuals to hold on to information that fits their personal perspective while omitting other evidence. Even researchers have biases when it comes to their work versus the works of others. I have read a few studies out of personal interest and a handful of studies focusing on 'brain sex'. I would be interested in reading any refrences you may have that are critical of mainstream transgender research. Reading different works provides me with a well rounded perspective and a better understanding of what affects me.
Lonicera
This is a really interesting and thought provoking thread. With the caveat that I am not a sociologist, biologist or psychologist, while I certainly see merit in a view of gender as a social construct, I see more merit in the developing and richly researched view of gender as a bio/psycho/social phenomenon as per Prof Allan Schore's work on attachment theory and development at UCLA. While Schore does not dismiss the feminist favoured social construction of gender he does not see any social (primarily maternal) interaction occurring without biological and psychological consequence. The interesting question to ponder is what leads the way in the development of gender identity, and does this really matter?
As a result of my own experience, where I depart from the purely sociological view of gender is in trying to explain my experience of gender dysphoria and it's effective treatment by hrt. Moving from a situation where every day was clouded by intense dysphoria to a situation of zero dysphoria courtesy of low dose hrt suggests hormonal, chemical and biological factors are at work. Hrt does not appear to be just a placebo given this impact, and while Schore's work does provide me with a possible explanation, a purely sociological explanation eludes me. Is there something that I am missing?
Like you I would like to find a single widely accepted theory of gender identity. Perhaps a bio/psycho/social view of gender is the equivalent of looking for a unified field theory for gender - if so this is where I lean and my experience of dysphoria takes me. This is an interesting area for research and I hope to see its resolution during my lifetime.
Having said this I am not sure that seeking to accept the most or least supported view of the cause of gender identity makes a whole lot of difference. My sense is that gender identity rarely changes, it is what it is and understanding your identity, accepting and expressing your identity seems more important to those who are trans* than in agreeing its origin or cause.
Safe travels
Aisla
My drunkle said it was because of the devil and all of that devil music I listen to. >:-)
Damn you, Freddie Mercury!
Quote from: Stochastic on August 02, 2014, 01:31:19 PM
Lonicera,
Understandably, it is common for individuals to hold on to information that fits their personal perspective while omitting other evidence. Even researchers have biases when it comes to their work versus the works of others. I have read a few studies out of personal interest and a handful of studies focusing on 'brain sex'. I would be interested in reading any refrences you may have that are critical of mainstream transgender research. Reading different works provides me with a well rounded perspective and a better understanding of what affects me.
Oh I agree entirely and appreciate that I'm no doubt rendered oblivious to a great deal based on bias and lack of even a teeny tiny specialist knowledge. I just have a few textbooks and use university to access journals due to personal interest, that's all. In the past, I used to cling to the possibility of an innate gender identity but reading the studies often cited as proof made me dubious over time.
As for sources to explore, I'm actually unsure of anyone to recommend since my tentative lay-person conclusions are based on directly reading studies that I expect you've encountered before, like the work by Zhou JN et al that seems to be commonly relied on as proof of innate gender identity or Hulshoff Pol et al that focuses on the impact of hormone therapy.
From what I recall, my own personal issues were that the studies were typically undermined by minuscule sample sizes that meant the result could be due to chance, by failure to include proper controls, by absence of replication, by complete absence of any proposed relationship to gender, and by the fact almost all (except for one or maybe two) assumed observed neurological differences were causative of gender identity rather than gender development leading to the observed differences.
In the case of the Hare et al study into androgen receptors, the only reason I don't yet accept it is definitive proof of a contributory factor is due the fact I haven't seen any replication and my personal discomfort with drawing a firm conclusion based on the variation in frequency of CAG repeats in the androgen receptor between the cis men and trans women.
Quote from: Aisla on August 02, 2014, 02:48:40 PMThe interesting question to ponder is what leads the way in the development of gender identity, and does this really matter?
Thank you for sharing that post. I totally agree with asking whether it matters at all, agree that self-understanding and exploration are paramount, and agree with everything included in your post. I should phrase myself better in future and apologise if it seemed like I was claiming gender is
entirely socially constructed. I am entirely happy to accept any combination of factors but would just like very reliable evidence for them. Given I'm utterly unqualified in any relevant specialist fields and generally quite dim, it's very likely that the reliable evidence exists everywhere but I simply haven't encountered it due to ineptitude. I have searched for overarching expert analysis in the past so I can defer to it but have never succeeded in finding such things. As a result, I just bumble about in clueless exploration.
Also, I tend to sometimes use 'gender' for what others, I later realise, would call 'gender identity' in the context which doesn't help at all in conveying what I mean. I need to remember to separate the various aspects when typing. Oopsie.
Lonicera
You are certainly not dim and your willingness to share your perspective and reading is impressive and very welcome. On Susans and in the broader trans* community we are fellow travellers who, while wishing to know why we are as we are, really want to accept and to be accepted.
Safe travels
Aisla
Using "transgender" in this instance is not accurate, such it's such a wide-ranging and vague term. They should've said "transsexualism", which is a medical condition.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 02:37:26 AM
I don't think that's the only plausible conclusions but may be very wrong. By age three a person has had considerable exposure to gender as a system and has typically learned at least one language to high degree. In my mind, the latter is very important because the complexity of language means it conveys and instils countless ideas without us even really knowing it. I'd suggest we internalise that and accordingly develop in relation to it. Similarly, a child will have absorbed a great deal of knowledge about gender from surrounding society and will have engaged in performance of it on a daily basis themselves to increasing degrees as they age.
Flowing from this, I think I can conceive of a child having acquired a sense of gender identity that causes them to behave in such a way by that point in time or even earlier.
pardon my lack of precision... my point was not to imply all TG comes from that 3 year old's perspective, only that when you are faced with a 3 year old child who has no concept yet of how genitals and gender compare who hates the genitals they are born with and who identifies as the opposite gender normally associated with that particular genital, it must be something they are born facing. There is no reasonable assumption that a 3 year old would be sophisticated enough to pick up the level of socialization on this topic that they become convinced of it in their baby brain with only 200 words to call upon. It just stretches my disbelief a bit too far to assume a socialization cause for these kids.
SF
I agree with the subject addressed by the OP and by the author in that it is the condition of being transgender which is being examined The article posits that transgender is increasingly being seen as biological in nature. It does not deal with the reasons why transgendered folk may or may not be transsexual. A further study focused purely on the causes of transsexualism should be consistent with this article.
Aisla
Quote from: Aisla on August 02, 2014, 05:27:33 PM
SF
I agree with the subject addressed by the OP and by the author in that it is the condition of being transgender which causes someone to be transsexual. The article posits that transgender is increasingly being seen as biological in nature. It does not deal with the reasons why transgendered folk may or may not be transsexual. A further study focused purely on the causes of transsexualism should be consistent with this article.
Aisla
->-bleeped-<- isn't the cause of being transsexual. Whatever happened in the womb is the cause of being transsexual. Transgender is an umbrella term that covers a dizzying array of identities and behaviors. Transsexualism is the medical term for the condition of having gender dysphoria. Transgender was never a medical term. It's a one-size-fits-all term much like the LGBT acronym is.
SF
I should have said that the condition of being transgender is common to transsexualism rather than its cause. However the article, as written and as titled, was appropriate and useful. I also made the point that transsexuals are also transgendered so I expected that the findings in any article looking at the causes of transsexualism would both point, at least in part, to a biological explanation. What happens in the womb is finding increasing support as an explanation of both ->-bleeped-<- and transsexualism.
The most common definition of ->-bleeped-<- is someone who has gender dysphoria, ie someone who is uncomfortable with, and who does not identify as their birth gender. The most common definition of transsexualism is someone who transitions because of their dysphoria, usually via medical, surgical, hormonal and other means, to align themselves with their gender identity. Transgendered folk may become transexual, but they may not.
Aisla
Quote from: Aisla on August 02, 2014, 06:07:28 PM
SF
I should have said that the condition of being transgender is common to transsexualism rather than its cause. However the article, as written and as titled, was appropriate and useful. I also made the point that transsexuals are also transgendered so I expected that the findings in any article looking at the causes of transsexualism would both point, at least in part, to a biological explanation. What happens in the womb is finding increasing support as an explanation of both ->-bleeped-<- and transsexualism.
The most common definition of ->-bleeped-<- is someone who has gender dysphoria, ie someone who is uncomfortable with, and who does not identify as their birth gender. The most common definition of transsexualism is someone who transitions because of their dysphoria, usually via medical, surgical, hormonal and other means, to align themselves with their gender identity. Transgendered folk may become transexual, but they may not.
Aisla
I see what you mean. It really depends on how you define the words. I see transgender as an umbrella term for identities and behaviors that fall outside the expected norm for one's physical sex and so would include cross dressers, genderqueer, genderf**king, third gender, androgyny, etc. So some transsexuals have issues with being lumped into that definition of the term because they define transsexualism as a medical condition. I have the same issues with it, honestly. But it depends on how you define it.
SJ
I also see where you are coming from and appreciate the opportunity to correct my rather sloppy language. I enjoy your thoughtful posts. We are on the same page and have much in common. Definitions, semantics can sometime be unhelpful.
Safe travels
Aisla
Quote from: Ducks on August 02, 2014, 05:22:33 PMpardon my lack of precision... my point was not to imply all TG comes from that 3 year old's perspective, only that when you are faced with a 3 year old child who has no concept yet of how genitals and gender compare who hates the genitals they are born with and who identifies as the opposite gender normally associated with that particular genital, it must be something they are born facing. There is no reasonable assumption that a 3 year old would be sophisticated enough to pick up the level of socialization on this topic that they become convinced of it in their baby brain with only 200 words to call upon. It just stretches my disbelief a bit too far to assume a socialization cause for these kids.
Eap, I just realised that I should've made it clear that I wasn't arguing that it's definitely not biologically innate, only that I could try to conceive of a purely hypothetical scenario where that's the case. I have no reliable evidence of either. Admittedly, the hypothetical is also an
incredible stretch to me and would require a truly exceptional child. I appreciate that other people may see it as grossly overestimating a child's capacity for absorbing, interpreting, and acting on information but what I've seen in my rather limited reading, particularly in language acquisition, caused me to wonder if a rudimentary gender identity could develop that results in such behaviour and isn't totally outside the realm of possibility.
Out of curiosity, may I ask if the child in question is hypothetical or exists? I apologise if that's intrusive and you'd prefer not to answer.
With regard to the difference between transsexual status and transgender status discussed above, I'd like to agree that it's important to emphasise that existent studies have largely used post-hormone treatment trans women and trans men in their samples so that the extent of obvious direct applicability is limited. If I recall correctly, samples have sometimes included very small numbers of people that are non-binary and/or have never had hormone treatment too.
Having said that, I expect any hypothetical factors influencing gender for transsexual people could also possibly be present for a lot of transgender people too, at least the ones where 'identifies with a gender other than the one designated or assigned at birth' applies.
As for seeing transsexuality as a medical condition, I entirely support the right to self-define, the right to organise, and the right to approach things from a perspective that promotes personal growth or benefit but personally try to step cautiously around pathologisation given the hierarchies and problems it can generate. I often see it as a necessary illusion in order to ensure we get continued health funding rather than an accurate view of reality. I understand if the medicalised description does match the life experience of other transsexual people though.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 07:02:20 PM
With regard to the difference between transsexual status and transgender status discussed above, I'd like to agree that it's important to emphasise that existent studies have largely used post-hormone treatment trans women and trans men in their samples so that the extent of obvious direct applicability is limited. If I recall correctly, samples have sometimes included very small numbers of people that are non-binary and/or have never had hormone treatment too.
Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. The full article is available. It addresses some of the shortcomings of other studies you had described (they use pre-HRT individuals, use specific criteria for trans). The sample size for this study is very small in that the trans individuals studied may not be representative of the broader trans population. I'm afraid this will as always be an issue with trans research. I could be wrong but would think that small sample size would allow for outliers to degrade statistical significance which is not the case here.
I will be out this week for a work training, so I may not be able to log in for a while. I would be interested in your thoughts on the study, and can't wait to read more from my friends here. Take care all - Julia
Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE
Quote from: Stochastic on August 02, 2014, 08:12:31 PM
Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. The full article is available. It addresses some of the shortcomings of other studies you had described (they use pre-HRT individuals, use specific criteria for trans). The sample size for this study is very small in that the trans individuals studied may not be representative of the broader trans population. I'm afraid this will as always be an issue with trans research. I could be wrong but would think that small sample size would allow for outliers to degrade statistical significance which is not the case here.
I will be out this week for a work training, so I may not be able to log in for a while. I would be interested in your thoughts on the study, and can't wait to read more from my friends here. Take care all - Julia
Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE
Ooo, just wanted to say thank you very much for taking the time to post the link and apologies for not encountering it before. It's proving incredibly fascinating thus far. Wishing you the best and hope your training goes incredibly smoothly for you!
Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 07:02:20 PM
Eap, I just realised that I should've made it clear that I wasn't arguing that it's definitely not biologically innate, only that I could try to conceive of a purely hypothetical scenario where that's the case. I have no reliable evidence of either. Admittedly, the hypothetical is also an incredible stretch to me and would require a truly exceptional child. I appreciate that other people may see it as grossly overestimating a child's capacity for absorbing, interpreting, and acting on information but what I've seen in my rather limited reading, particularly in language acquisition, caused me to wonder if a rudimentary gender identity could develop that results in such behaviour and isn't totally outside the realm of possibility.
Out of curiosity, may I ask if the child in question is hypothetical or exists? I apologise if that's intrusive and you'd prefer not to answer.
I am that 3 year old, but I have heard several others since finding this site that indicate early onset of GD around that age. I think you will find it isn't uncommon.
As for seeing transsexuality as a medical condition, I entirely support the right to self-define, the right to organise, and the right to approach things from a perspective that promotes personal growth or benefit but personally try to step cautiously around pathologisation given the hierarchies and problems it can generate. I often see it as a necessary illusion in order to ensure we get continued health funding rather than an accurate view of reality. I understand if the medicalised description does match the life experience of other transsexual people though.
Illusion? Please explain how transsexuality is a necessary illusion?
It may be you are getting tripped up by the language and the over broad term 'transgender'? I would hate to think anyone who is themselves transgender is defending the idea that it is an imaginary condition or somehow not 'medical' in nature. Perhaps you're confusing late (in life) transition with a change in the environment that could cause the onset of transsexual feelings? If so, remember that transitioning comes when life makes it possible, there are many reasons for someone to realize early on they are transsexual but won't transition or out themselves until they are unable to contain themselves another minute. It may also be that you are finding the non-binary nature of some who are also transgender but not necessarily trying to match body and mind surgically.
There are many theories, most carry a hidden agenda at their heart.
QuoteIllusion? Please explain how transsexuality is a necessary illusion?
I believe I didn't say that transsexuality and transgender identities are themselves an illusion. I apologise for not being clear but I aimed to say the
pathologisation of those things is something I regard as a largely necessary illusion in order to secure physical transition since an overwhelmingly cis-dominated society would conceivably rapidly remove funding if we didn't have the authoritative voice of medicine backing us.
Personally, I don't necessarily see transsexual and transgender identity
themselves as a medical condition. I ascribe many problems to assigning gender in the first place, with enforcing that gender, and with treating sex designation like an indisputable category that is our destiny. I think describing our existence as a medical condition assumes the legitimacy of such a system and the present framework by presenting us as some kind of error that deviates from a natural or logical order. I believe this shift in position is reflected in the latest WPATH Standards of Care, and somewhat accepted in the new DSM due to the removal of GID, wherein the fundamental identity isn't seen as 'disordered' or a mental illness but that the depression, dysphoria, and other things resulting from the identity or social stigma are seen as warranting treatment due to the pain they cause.
It's largely a pointless semantic thing related to political ramifications that I happen to care about really.
QuoteI am that 3 year old, but I have heard several others since finding this site that indicate early onset of GD around that age. I think you will find it isn't uncommon.
Thank you very much for sharing your personal experience and I hope it isn't patronising to say that I'm sorry you had to endure such fundamental pain from so early. I should have realised you were probably explaining your own experiences and not treated the experience like a theoretical toy to play with. I'm very deeply sorry for that.
I would never dare equate since I never ever experienced anything so debilitating but I seem to have assumed I would be a girl (or even was a girl in many cases) and a woman when I 'grew up' from very early based on memories so I want to categorically state that I am
not dismissing biology. I have no evidence to justify that. My rather cold and callous point was that I still personally can conceive of a possible valid framework that doesn't rely on biological contributions as a counterpoint and prefer to wait for rigorously tested evidence.
QuotePerhaps you're confusing late (in life) transition with a change in the environment that could cause the onset of transsexual feelings? If so, remember that transitioning comes when life makes it possible, there are many reasons for someone to realize early on they are transsexual but won't transition or out themselves until they are unable to contain themselves another minute.
Thank you again for sharing that, I definitely try to appreciate that many people deny or avoid their identity for a long time, or are alternatively aware but simply unable to transition or attempt to escape it as an option for innumerable personal reasons.
I would hopefully never ever seek to invalidate self-identity in the present or assume that lack of experience on my part means other people must be mistaken about theirs since that's an arrogant mind projection fallacy to me. Having said that, I do think it can be helpful to question the dominance of certain narratives in the LGBT community, or many other communities, and at least consider whether they're potentially damaging.
For instance, I don't see an issue if cumulative changes in personal performance of gender or sexuality over time do cause people to shift how they identify at different points in life. If they then say that they've always been the sexuality or gender they are now as a result then I respect that since they know themselves best. However, I fail to appreciate why people will often only accept a narrative that insists we have always been what we are now as legitimate. I think this is my root motivation behind trying to express that biological origins aren't a proven certainty. What's wrong with life simply evolving us to be something new in the present? Why must it be portrayed as denial and not just difference? What would be wrong with cumulative changes causing a person to shift from straight to bi/pan/gay/lesbian/asexual (or vice versa)? What would be wrong with first becoming trans after a given number of decades of being cis (or vice versa)? I worry the dominance of 'always known' in LGBT discourse has harmed a lot of people that simply didn't and don't feel that's true of their past. I also don't like how the dominance of that narrative paints retransitioners as people that made a mistake and are unlike us rather than simply people whose gender changed with time. Maybe it's why I tend to be unacceptably biased towards explaining things in terms of on-going social construction.
It's a personal question I tend to ask a lot because I am an example of the stereotypical 'child that simply knew' narrative. I started feeling considerable distress when very young, said I needed to be a girl from 7/8 onwards, and began researching transition at 11/12. If I look across my life then my gender identity feels deeply-rooted and immutable from very early. What I, and many people I know or know of, wonder is whether that's because we absorbed the 'always known' narrative or other crushing cis-dominant expectations then retrospectively applied that as a lens without knowing to make sense of life in the now. In short, how
accurate is my self-perception of past events and my identity of the past? If it matters at all that is. I like to ask whether in my case it might be that gender performance may have been very varied at given points in the past and I'm unwittingly cherrypicking memories since I'm 'doing' gender in the present in a way that creates such a perception of gender. Importantly, the ultimate nature of it doesn't change the validity of my self-understanding now, doesn't make identity less valid, doesn't make anything less real, and doesn't mean it's illusory or is likely to change in the present but it's interesting to consider the potential origins of present identity to me.
Anyhoo, I'm getting very off track now, I just thought I'd offer a personal explanation. Wishing you the best.
Lonicera, Ducks,Stochastic, SF et al
This is one of the most compelling, balanced and informed threads that I have read. I appreciate the care, effort and thought that has gone into your posts. Working through opinion and papers by oneself is a lengthy and often difficult process. I now have a much better understanding of the different perspectives which are often tabled as opinion or fact in similar but less balanced articles. Thank you for this, I am learning a lot, far more quickly than would have otherwise have been the case.
Safe travels
Aisla
Thanks Alisa, glad it helped you. For me, getting mansplained and patronized by someone who hasn't lived the life, isn't particularly rewarding. Like the article says, there is growing evidence it is biological, but nobody knows for sure... yet. For most of my life, people assumed it was mental and a disease. I hope we never go back to those days, I would not like to be threatened with electroshock therapy again. I'm too old and too busy living my 'necessary illusion' to put up with that nonsense.
Quote from: Ducks on August 04, 2014, 10:36:49 AM
For me, getting mansplained and patronized by someone who hasn't lived the life, isn't particularly rewarding. Like the article says, there is growing evidence it is biological, but nobody knows for sure... yet
Is this aimed at me? If not, then I deeply apologise for misunderstanding and what follows this. If it is then I can only ask if you think a disagreement about the potential origins of identity, which doesn't
ever ever ever imply the identity itself is a choice or less legitimate in nature, warrants implicit misgendering via the use of 'mansplained'?
I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt because I know I'm quite formal but my gender marker isn't at all hard to miss. I really do apologise for hurting you and regret it but I'd encourage you not to resort to things like this because it's damaging and often petty or cruel. As I'm sure you're aware, this trope is used by bigots constantly when they insist any error, any oversight, any personality fault like arrogance, any assertiveness, and any preference for being un-emotive in writing is inherently male in nature and proves identity invalid. It's misogynistic nonsense too because it implies women can't ever be those things.
I try to assume the highest of people I'm talking to since I'd rather show my appreciation for them than patronise them but I failed in that if you felt patronised. I'm very sorry for that and will try to improve, if you have any specific complaint about my manner then please feel free to offer it.
However, with the greatest respect possible, you have no idea what life I have lived as part of dealing with being trans or in general. I have no doubt it doesn't compare to whatever you endured but to dismiss it entirely and make assumptions is hurtful. While I appreciate people volunteering details of life, I shouldn't
have to tell you about intimate details of my life history or coping mechanisms to justify my position.
If identity being greatly influenced by initial biology matters to you so much, for whatever reason, then I respect that belief but I don't think it entitles you to intentionally attack me on an emotional level for offering alternative perspectives unless they're within the realm of obvious bigotry and malice.
QuoteI'm too old and too busy living my 'necessary illusion' to put up with that nonsense.
Either I'm writing poorly, which is very likely, or I think you're being disingenuous because I never said your life or identity were a 'necessary illusion'. I would never ever say that of any trans person. I said the pathologisation of the raw identity, not medical needs related to it, are a necessary illusion in my personal view. In my mind, my position advocates the
exact opposite of seeing trans identity as a disease or mental illness, that's point of de-pathologising it.
Quote from: Stochastic on August 02, 2014, 08:12:31 PM
Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. ...
Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE
I have an issue with the sample selection for this study. The transgender people were specifically chosen for homosexuality. The control group was not. This, with the low frequency relative to population of homosexuality, means that any difference found can't be reliably attributed to being transgender rather than homosexual. Honestly, I was too lazy, having found that, to bother checking the validity of their statistical tool choices.
Quote from: Lonicera on August 04, 2014, 11:24:46 AM
Is this aimed at me? If not, then I deeply apologise for misunderstanding and what follows this. If it is then I can only ask if you think a disagreement about the potential origins of identity, which doesn't ever ever ever imply the identity itself is a choice or less legitimate in nature, warrants implicit misgendering via the use of 'mansplained'?
Yes, this was a response to you, and was not a comment on your gender, but on your debating style and the structure of your arguments. I am not disarmed by your continual apologies for the things you say and how you say them, you obviously pick your words carefully. I am further not disarmed by your attempt to reverse this on me.
I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt because I know I'm quite formal but my gender marker isn't at all hard to miss. I really do apologise for hurting you and regret it but I'd encourage you not to resort to things like this because it's damaging and often petty or cruel. As I'm sure you're aware, this trope is used by bigots constantly when they insist any error, any oversight, any personality fault like arrogance, any assertiveness, and any preference for being un-emotive in writing is inherently male in nature and proves identity invalid. It's misogynistic nonsense too because it implies women can't ever be those things.
Oh, now I'm a bigot? A misogynist? Pretty thinly veiled, don't you think? FWIW, Men and women communicate differently, I just can't hear any femaleness in your comments, and it has nothing to do with your assertiveness or arrogance, it is purely a gut reaction on my part.
I try to assume the highest of people I'm talking to since I'd rather show my appreciation for them than patronise them but I failed in that if you felt patronised. I'm very sorry for that and will try to improve, if you have any specific complaint about my manner then please feel free to offer it.
That was my starting point too - assume the best, try to help - not so much anymore.
However, with the greatest respect possible, you have no idea what life I have lived as part of dealing with being trans or in general. I have no doubt it doesn't compare to whatever you endured but to dismiss it entirely and make assumptions is hurtful. While I appreciate people volunteering details of life, I shouldn't have to tell you about intimate details of my life history or coping mechanisms to justify my position.
I read your introduction and all of your posts before I wrote my reply... you don't add up to me. I do my homework. (With the greatest respect possible)
If identity being greatly influenced by initial biology matters to you so much, for whatever reason, then I respect that belief but I don't think it entitles you to intentionally attack me on an emotional level for offering alternative perspectives unless they're within the realm of obvious bigotry and malice.
It left me feeling like everything you wrote in response to my posts was deliberately an attack on my experience, point by point, you made it clear that my truths were not valid. I felt like you were saying "I'm sure it was hard for you, and it is OK for you to feel that way, but it is wrong... and here's how it REALLY is."
Either I'm writing poorly, which is very likely, or I think you're being disingenuous because I never said your life or identity were a 'necessary illusion'. I would never ever say that of any trans person. I said the pathologisation of the raw identity, not medical needs related to it, are a necessary illusion in my personal view. In my mind, my position advocates the exact opposite of seeing trans identity as a disease or mental illness, that's point of de-pathologising it.
Written poorly, or cleverly, your words did not match up to any discussion I've had or read, with anyone who has actually experienced transsexualism first hand. Your last statement is a distinction without a difference.
Eve, I would love to support your journey but I just don't find it in me to take being talked to like this. I have no need of trans-lessons from someone less than half my age and who hasn't even been alive as long as I've lived as a woman. Get some time in situ and we can talk again when you have finished your transition and had a couple of years of being whole. You will be surprised at how much balance you can achieve by living beyond the persecution and confusion that this has caused you since 7-8 years old. You only have half the story - the hard half to be true, but only half.
give it some thought, try putting yourself in the opposite position, gain some empathy.
QuoteYes, this was a response to you, and was not a comment on your gender, but on your debating style and the structure of your arguments.
I think referring to it as 'mansplained' is inherently a comment on my gender. You could have called it cold, callous, manipulative, condescending, or any other number of things if you wanted to but you
chose to use a word that portrays my gender as that of a man and my position in this conversation as that of a man despite not having a clue about my personal history beyond the little I've shared here.
QuoteI am not disarmed by your continual apologies for the things you say and how you say them, you obviously pick your words carefully.
Yes, I do try to craft things carefully and mess up a lot. I try to ensure I always include lots of 'in my view,' 'for me,' 'in my mind,' 'in my opinion,' etc so I don't ever appear to be making a claim on behalf of anyone else because it's wrong to do that in my view. I also try to use lots of first person pronouns in my sentences rather than just have statements so it's clear that it's from my perspective and not a generalised claim since that would be arrogant. I like to use conditional terms like 'might,' 'could,' 'maybe,' 'perhaps,' and 'can' so claims don't seem truly definitive since I want to convey my lack of certainty. I say 'I try' because I know that I fail a lot.
However, if you think I choose my words to the extent that I'm somehow crafting passive-aggressive attacks into things while appearing polite on the surface then I can only say that I think that's projecting unfair motivations on to me and that if it's happening then it's a purely unwitting thing that I loathe.
As for my 'continual apologies,' that's because I appreciate that I could be making a lot of hurtful errors that I'm simply oblivious to in the present. I don't want to harm people so often pre-emptively apologise to try to mitigate harm before or as it's done. I come from a family that constantly says 'sorry' when things totally unrelated to us happen because we feel inexplicable guilt for it.
QuoteFWIW, Men and women communicate differently, I just can't hear any femaleness in your comments, and it has nothing to do with your assertiveness or arrogance, it is purely a gut reaction on my part.
I've tried to study language to a relatively small degree and focused on the differences between speech of men and women. If I recall correctly, I believe research often shows women use more co-operative features, tag questions, general questions, hedging, indirect requests, etc whereas men are more declarative, certain, and commanding. I used to employ a lot of uncertainty due to anxiety anyway but after studying that I realised that features are often to do with
submissiveness and expunged a lot of them from usage because it resulted in me being dismissed or ignored easily.
Equally, the way I write is quite a lot different to my speech patterns. I haven't been able to change that because it's more spontaneous so the submissiveness and shyness and lack of certainty seem to remain.
Because I tend to struggle with anxiety, I overcompensate by writing in a very, very, very formal way. I've tried to stop but I can't because I tend to end up shaking, crying, and having anxiety attacks at the slightest issue or confrontation if I don't use this register. It's a shield to keep situations controllable and detached for me, nothing more.
I also understand that it may be emotions clouding my interpretation but the way you've written that quote sounds like you're effectively saying if I don't somehow convey a mystical sense of femaleness then I'm not legitimate. I happen to know, or know of, lots of trans women and cis women that write in a similar fashion to me. I'm also of the opinion that designating language use as either male or female is quite harmful because it risks perpetuating subordination.
QuoteI am further not disarmed by your attempt to reverse this on me.
I think saying I'm trying to 'reverse this on' you makes it seem like you're under the impression it's some kind of calculated tactic. It's not but I understand if you think it is given that I do write in a cold manner a lot and I've obviously inexcusably hurt you by, as I said earlier, unthinkingly treating things like a toy to play with. I was just expressing my personal hurt at my interpretation of your comments, encouraging you not to do it, and trying to explain myself.
QuoteOh, now I'm a bigot? A misogynist? Pretty thinly veiled, don't you think?
I didn't say you're a bigot, I said that it reinforces and relies on tropes used by bigots so should be avoided and I stand by that. I also didn't say you're a misogynist, I said I felt you're relying on an idea that can be seen as misogynistic. In my view, there's a difference since the latter says the view is rooted in misogyny but not that the person themselves is a misogynist. I think we're all unwittingly guilty of relying on such views sometimes.
QuoteThat was my starting point too - assume the best, try to help - not so much anymore.
I'm sorry that our exchange has deteriorated to that point. I might disagree that your help is needed or wanted but I also don't like the idea of causing strain or disappointment for you.
QuoteI read your introduction and all of your posts before I wrote my reply... you don't add up to me. I do my homework. (With the greatest respect possible)
I try to appreciate the need for people to ensure their security and to understand potential threats to them as much as they can but this assessment strikes me as unreasonably fearful. I don't like insinuations that I'm a liar or somehow invalid.
However, if it'll help with your concerns at all or help you to 'add' me up then please feel free to PM any questions you have.
QuoteIt left me feeling like everything you wrote in response to my posts was deliberately an attack on my experience, point by point, you made it clear that my truths were not valid. I felt like you were saying "I'm sure it was hard for you, and it is OK for you to feel that way, but it is wrong... and here's how it REALLY is."
I am truly, deeply, and utterly very, very, very sorry for giving you that impression and making you feel I'm questioning your personal experience. Intent is not magic but I didn't ever intend to say that your experiences aren't valid. I tried to convey that I don't even
know what the origin of gender identity is, whether it's largely biological or largely social construction or somewhere in-between. I can't claim 'how it really is' or somebody else is clearly 'wrong' if I don't know. My goal was to stress that my personal position is that the science supporting the assertion that gender identity is primarily determined by initial biology is flawed at present and that it is still possible to invent hypothetical alternatives that allow for the same experiences. That position doesn't question a person's experience of identity as deeply important and critical.
However, I do question people taking their personal experience and making categorical truth claims about the reality and the
general nature of gender identity without sufficient evidence to justify it. Subjective experience of feeling that something is biological doesn't make it firm truth. If you think me discussing and seeking out rigorous evidence in that area is saying you're wrong then so be it.
QuoteWritten poorly, or cleverly, your words did not match up to any discussion I've had or read, with anyone who has actually experienced transsexualism first hand.
I can't explain the difference in our experiences because these are common topics for people in my age group and chosen social circle. In my experience, we often reject gender essentialism, biological essentialism, and question narratives that have been dominant for a long time in the hope that we can explore knowledge and ourselves more fully. I linked an example of somebody fairly prominent that I think does that earlier in the topic.
QuoteEve, I would love to support your journey but I just don't find it in me to take being talked to like this.
You do what you must do for your own happiness, I would never expect anything else.
QuoteI have no need of trans-lessons from someone less than half my age and who hasn't even been alive as long as I've lived as a woman. Get some time in situ and we can talk again when you have finished your transition and had a couple of years of being whole. You will be surprised at how much balance you can achieve by living beyond the persecution and confusion that this has caused you since 7-8 years old. You only have half the story - the hard half to be true, but only half.
I do value you expressing how much difference experience makes and understand a lot will change but I regard all of this as irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is presently scientifically justified to assert that gender identity is definitely heavily influenced by initial biology or whether there are hypothetical alternatives as I have been trying to explore. I'm sorry if you cherish the idea that it is heavily biological based on personal experience or anecdotes for any reasons but that's not scientific fact yet to me, which is what I've focused on. I doubt transition will shift my focus away from trying to find truth.
I was going to comment on this thread, but it would be pointless.. Too many fixed ideas..
I didn't have a dysfunctional family and I was never sexually abused. I think it could happen for many reason, one possibly being genetic predisposition. I do have a female digit ratio with my pointer fingers being much longer than my ring fingers. Apparently that means I wasn't exposed to as much testosterone while in the womb and my brain may not have adequately masculinized. Also, despite my male skeleton and height, I do have pretty delicate features. I have no idea though.
Another question: If the absence or presence of testosterone determine gender identity, then what about the case of the trans guy with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome?
Though his cells couldn't respond to testosterone and he therefore developed female body parts, he still had a male gender identity that had been noticed since age 3.
Quote from: noah732 on August 07, 2014, 11:24:47 AM
Another question: If the absence or presence of testosterone determine gender identity, then what about the case of the trans guy with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome?
Though his cells couldn't respond to testosterone and he therefore developed female body parts, he still had a male gender identity that had been noticed since age 3.
Not familiar with the case, Noah. Can you provide enough details to find the case?
Quote from: noah732 on August 01, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?
I can answer this!
Because Identical twins aren't perfectly identical genetically. It sounds strange at first, but here's why. People are influenced on a genetic level by what they are exposed to in their environment. So, if in the womb one twin is exposed to a different hormone from the other, their genetic code they're born with may alter slightly in one which would allow one to be transgender. Another example would be one twin develops a psychological disorder while the other doesn't, because one was exposed to something (An experience, a chemical, etc) and the other wasn't. Some twins raised in separate families are even different heights because of different nutritional and family situations.
Ergo, if being transgender (or the potential to be transgender) is shown to possibly have a genetic component, it's still possible for identical twins to not both be transgender.
Amy
Love Susans, there is always someone who contributes to our understanding. For a complex question, a simple explanation which I was able to understand.
Many thanks
Aisla
Quote from: Dee Walker on August 07, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
Not familiar with the case, Noah. Can you provide enough details to find the case?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9624-1
Quote from: noah732 on August 07, 2014, 11:21:32 PM
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9624-1
That is really interesting. Such a confluence of rare issues. There probably aren't 5 people like him in the entire world. I could only read the first page, so I missed a lot of details. I have no clue how that could happen, not even a speculation. I got the impression that the doctors who wrote the study are simularly clueless for the time being.
Actually, I do have one. If he's a mosaic chimera with most of one twin's tissue in the brain and that twin didn't have CAIS it's just possible that the brain could develop male even though CAIS would cause the body to be otherwise female. Note the description of his genitals as not completely formed internally. I hope he leaves his body to science.
We should take this as proof that even the wildest stories from our brothers and sisters are possible.
Dee
Just when I thought that there was a simple answer, I need to find out what a mosaic chimera is!
Appreciate you sharing your knowledge and for noting that almost anything may be possible. Does this suggest that the current paradigms or theory are incomplete and need to be enhanced or even replaced?
Aisla
Quote from: Lonicera on August 03, 2014, 06:24:43 AM
Ooo, just wanted to say thank you very much for taking the time to post the link and apologies for not encountering it before. It's proving incredibly fascinating thus far. Wishing you the best and hope your training goes incredibly smoothly for you!
You are welcome. Training was great, but it is good to be home with family.
Quote from: Aisla on August 03, 2014, 04:35:33 PM
Lonicera, Ducks,Stochastic, SF et al
This is one of the most compelling, balanced and informed threads that I have read. I appreciate the care, effort and thought that has gone into your posts. Working through opinion and papers by oneself is a lengthy and often difficult process. I now have a much better understanding of the different perspectives which are often tabled as opinion or fact in similar but less balanced articles. Thank you for this, I am learning a lot, far more quickly than would have otherwise have been the case.
Safe travels
Aisla
And thank you for all of your contributions on this forum. Your perspective here has helped me in many ways to come to my personal acceptance. I hope to see you around for a long time.
Quote from: Dee Walker on August 04, 2014, 12:35:11 PM
I have an issue with the sample selection for this study. The transgender people were specifically chosen for homosexuality. The control group was not. This, with the low frequency relative to population of homosexuality, means that any difference found can't be reliably attributed to being transgender rather than homosexual. Honestly, I was too lazy, having found that, to bother checking the validity of their statistical tool choices.
Good point. It could be a limitation of the study. However, there is a trade-off when using a large number of categories. The categories has the potential improve our understanding within these categories, or multiple categories could degrade results because small sample sizes would become smaller. Not the last we will see on this topic. Subsequent studies should improve on these limitations.
Quote from: Aisla on August 08, 2014, 06:17:42 PM
Dee
Just when I thought that there was a simple answer, I need to find out what a mosaic chimera is!
Appreciate you sharing your knowledge and for noting that almost anything may be possible. Does this suggest that the current paradigms or theory are incomplete and need to be enhanced or even replaced?
Aisla
A mosaic chimera is when two embrios fuse into one. Like conjoined twins but more so. This may happen more often than we think. If the embrios are fraternal twins different portions of the resulting entity may have different genetics even to some cells being XY and others XX. Expression, male or female, is still controlled by exposure to testosterone and/or estrogen.
This isn't news to biologists, but it's more detail than laymen are typically exposed to. I'm not a biologist, but my interests are far reaching.
Dee
Again - sincere thanks. I will go easy on further questions :)
Safe travels
Aisla
Many religious groups are hypocrites themselves Christians Catholics with Church staff and volunteers that abused children etc. it should not matter what we are or are not just be nice to each other for the religious folks they should not be picking on people that are different disabled etc. that's why I think 99% of religion and religious folks are hypocrites if you force your views on the other people aren't you being a bully
Sorry for spelling grammar hard to type due to medical issues rely on dictation
Keep in mind that even if this were true it wouldn't account for "in between" gender identities or gender identities outside the gender binary. The moment you recognize the existence and validity of a spectrum of gender this attempt to find some explanation that defines people as man or woman biologically becomes irrelevant.