Hi....so I may upset some people I don't know, but I had this theory I wanted to discuss. We know that the occurrence of MtF individuals is higher than FtM individuals, so I was thinking of an idea that I don't know if it could explain in theory why. We all develop in the mother's womb, so, we in theory, the MtF, as a male body that got the Y chromosome, would be exposed to the mother's body, which is completely female. I've heard that the hormone timing, and everything is crucial for the baby to develop properly, but since it is a female body the genetically male baby is growing in....something could go wrong and the fetus gets more female hormones that cause the brain to develop in the female direction.
Now, since FtMs seem to be less common, I'm going to guess because the female baby is developing in a female body, it would make logical sense in a way that less would likely go wrong. But something still can go wrong, but the odds are not as high.
I don't know what else to say to further explain it.....which is why I thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss, I hope this doesn't cause any major upsets, I don't intend it too, it's just a theory and something I've been trying to figure out for a while now.
hmm. i think it's more cause a male fetus is like a 'mutation'. everything starts out as female and 'mutates' into male. (i don't mean the word mutation to be offensive. the only word i can think of right now).
another factor could be that many mtfs were DES babies, born during the time that was prescribed to pregnant mothers.
I think a while back someone was telling about a study on FTMs and that there's not necessarily less FTMs than MTFs as there are FTMs that don't know there can be anything done. Don't hold me to that, though, it's only something I heard.
It is true that we all begin at the same point as female. Then something happens to change the fetus to male. What it is, is unclear. Hormones are a possibility, mostly excepted.
The mutation of female to male is caused by the 'Y' chromosome, possibly. Or may be the 'X' chromosome is mutated to 'Y', when the mutation occurs. So lets say the mutation is true and MtF are really mutations of a female fetus to male for the sole purpose of procreation. And some are in tune to the true side of their beginnings. Thus the MtF TS.
But what of our brothers? Using this theory, FtM is a mutation that wasn't completed. They should have been mutated into males, and they know that it should have happened.
But then again I have been call a 'Blond' because of my theories. Ask me about Aliens sometime. ::)
Janet
I have three problems, but I don't think that it's offensive or that it's "bad" to ponder these questions like you are doing. You should just not trust these ponderings too much.
First, the notion that we all "start female" isn't really accurate; it's just the way we construe things, based on society's penis hangup.
Second, this type of thinking, without any experimentation or other investigation to back it up, is a "Just So Story," a myth or hypothesis we invent to explain the world we live in. There's nothing wrong with them in general, but they are often unparsimonious.
Third, I don't believe the premise. We have no good count of the incidence of transsexualism, and it might not be possible, since it likely depends on what severity you decide as a cutoff. I believe that transsexuals are the tail on the end of a distribution of gender variance, and so there's no good society-independent way to make a cut. The numbers reflect the society, and this society allows a lot more variance in gender expression among women without deeming them "transgender" or "transsexual." I think that this, and not biochemistry, dominates the difference in mumbers of trans men and trans women. But I could be competely wrong.
Just more to think about. :)
~Alyssa
Post Merge: February 14, 2009, 06:10:57 PM
Janet -- the Aliens provide us with protection.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.st12.yimg.com%2Fus.st.yimg.com%2FI%2Fbentgatemountaineering_2036_146829578&hash=284a1dc5c05829aaa44fff84783d62a2cb649f2c)
http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/ (http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/)
;)
~Alyssa
Really there is no reliable evidence on the real ratio of ftms vs. mtfs. Maybe there is a biological reason that causes more of one than the other, but I always chocked that up to societal influence. Our society allows far more of a range of gender expression to bio females than it does to bio males. An ftm who isn't familiar with transpeople and/or doesn't have severe dysphoria can find much more wiggle room to be himself while retaining a female social/legal/physical identity, whereas a bio male doesn't have much room to be feminine.
But I think the issue of hormones influencing gender vs. sex is the very thing most people theorize at the moment, isn't it? It seems the most logical answer.
Quote from: Janet Lynn on February 14, 2009, 05:54:05 PMThen something happens to change the fetus to male. What it is, is unclear.
Actually the whole process is quite well understood and documented Any good work (or site) on embryology should explain the process of differentiation.
The causes of "gender" differentiation is much more in debate.
I think many studies have shown that the number of MtFs and FtMs are pretty similar. I think there are several reasons why it is thought that MtFs way outnumber the FtMs. For one, if you see a FtM that is pre HRT, you might would think he was just a butch lesbian. Another is that a far greater number of FtMs pass pretty much flawlessly than MtFs, especially after HRT. Probably the biggest factor however is, that for whatever reason, media types like talk shows have generally not shown as much interest in FtMs so they get far less up front time than MtFs.
Okay, among college age people (18-22) I've noticed FAR more FTM people than MTF people. Maybe its a generational thing but I have a very, very hard time believing that there are more MTF people. Maybe it's because less FTM go through the "full surgical" change, and many pass flawlessly.
Quote from: SisterGirlfriend on February 15, 2009, 03:04:14 PM
Okay, among college age people (18-22) I've noticed FAR more FTM people than MTF people. Maybe its a generational thing but I have a very, very hard time believing that there are more MTF people. Maybe it's because less FTM go through the "full surgical" change, and many pass flawlessly.
yeah, i think the belief there's more mtfs may come from surgery statistics.
Yeah... I don't think there's any truth to the theory that there are supposedly more mtfs because of the female body producing children. Also, I have to disagree that there indeed ARE more mtfs than ftms.
I explained this to someone on chat very recently, actually. MtF transfolk are born male, raised male, and if they don't start T-blockers or hrt prior to puberty, they will always look somewhat male, unless they have extensive surgery to correct everything. This is not me trying to be discriminatory toward mtfs... it's just the way it is, unfortunately, because testosterone is such a powerful hormone. Basically, it's like a spectrum on which estrogen is the beginning, and testosterone the end.
FtMs grow up female, and regardless of how long it takes them to get on testosterone, T ALWAYS works. It takes next to nothing to masculinize a body that has never experienced such amounts of testosterone, and once it's done, it's virtually irreversible. Also, it makes an ftm, after a matter of months, unrecognizeable as anything but a genetic man, as long as he keeps his clothes on. Because of this, ftms are not easily spotted, and many abandon the trans community because they have "normalized."
MtFs, excepting those who choose to and have the money to undergo extensive FFS, breast implants, etc., tend to remain quite visible. I believe this contributes greatly to the misconception that there are more MtFs in the world than FtMs.
SD
MTF is not greater than FTM in quantity. Many FTM folks never seek medical treatment.
Who knows? Since we don't have a firm handle on this, there are many possibilities.
Ultimately, it doesn't help us much to find the core reason..... there will be a combination of reasons. One will stick out more than another for this or that person.
Even though we share something in common, we can't even agree on what that something is!
I say, put out the theories, facts, and guesses. It doesn't hurt to share our thoughts and opinions. You never know who it might help.
Cindi
Quote from: Sebastien on February 15, 2009, 06:57:53 PM
Yeah... I don't think there's any truth to the theory that there are supposedly more mtfs because of the female body producing children. Also, I have to disagree that there indeed ARE more mtfs than ftms.
I explained this to someone on chat very recently, actually. MtF transfolk are born male, raised male, and if they don't start T-blockers or hrt prior to puberty, they will always look somewhat male, unless they have extensive surgery to correct everything. This is not me trying to be discriminatory toward mtfs... it's just the way it is, unfortunately, because testosterone is such a powerful hormone. Basically, it's like a spectrum on which estrogen is the beginning, and testosterone the end.
FtMs grow up female, and regardless of how long it takes them to get on testosterone, T ALWAYS works. It takes next to nothing to masculinize a body that has never experienced such amounts of testosterone, and once it's done, it's virtually irreversible. Also, it makes an ftm, after a matter of months, unrecognizeable as anything but a genetic man, as long as he keeps his clothes on. Because of this, ftms are not easily spotted, and many abandon the trans community because they have "normalized."
MtFs, excepting those who choose to and have the money to undergo extensive FFS, breast implants, etc., tend to remain quite visible. I believe this contributes greatly to the misconception that there are more MtFs in the world than FtMs.
SD
This isn't always fact. There are plenty of us MtFs out there that don't need extensive surgery to pass pretty darn flawlessly.
So I'm going to throw my theory into the mix:
I am of the opinion, and this is only an opinion, that the occurrence of GID is natures way of trying to control the spread of the "human" virus. As humans we have no natural predators and we have developed technology that allows us to combat a multitude of infections and illnesses. We are one of only a few species that will hold back the entire herd for the sake of a sick member that can't keep up. We are the only species that will force a terminally ill member to keep on living even though death is inevitable. We find ways to survive in places and environments that would kill any other species.
On top of that, we breed like rabbits. We don't stop when resources start running low, if anything we increase reproduction for lack of anything else to do. If a couple is not able to get pregnant by natural intercourse oft times instead of adopting they will go through fertility clinics and in many cases end up with two or more offspring.
So nature says, "All right, you wanna play like that.... BAM! have some GID."
I believe that it is simply natures way of trying to maintain balance. If your born gay or with a GID the chances of you reproducing are reduced.
Just my agnostic/atheistic thought on the whole thing.
Quote from: Ashley315 on February 15, 2009, 11:20:51 PM
This isn't always fact. There are plenty of us MtFs out there that don't need extensive surgery to pass pretty darn flawlessly.
I agree. Not everyone gets the same dose of testosterone, and not everyone is on it for very long. But I do get the general gist of his argument.
Quote from: Cami on February 16, 2009, 01:07:47 AM
So I'm going to throw my theory into the mix:
I am of the opinion, and this is only an opinion, that the occurrence of GID is natures way of trying to control the spread of the "human" virus. As humans we have no natural predators and we have developed technology that allows us to combat a multitude of infections and illnesses. We are one of only a few species that will hold back the entire herd for the sake of a sick member that can't keep up. We are the only species that will force a terminally ill member to keep on living even though death is inevitable. We find ways to survive in places and environments that would kill any other species.
On top of that, we breed like rabbits. We don't stop when resources start running low, if anything we increase reproduction for lack of anything else to do. If a couple is not able to get pregnant by natural intercourse oft times instead of adopting they will go through fertility clinics and in many cases end up with two or more offspring.
So nature says, "All right, you wanna play like that.... BAM! have some GID."
I believe that it is simply natures way of trying to maintain balance. If your born gay or with a GID the chances of you reproducing are reduced.
Just my agnostic/atheistic thought on the whole thing.
Nice theory, but one flaw. Transgendered people have been around since the dawn of man. Long before overpopulation and over reproducing was a concern, ;D but at least you are thinking, and that is always a good thing.
Quote from: Ashley315 on February 15, 2009, 11:20:51 PM
This isn't always fact. There are plenty of us MtFs out there that don't need extensive surgery to pass pretty darn flawlessly.
Ashley's comment is correct. Some require more and others less to pass, well, if not flwlessly then at least within the range of female features.
The prevalence of MTFs seems probably tied to the prevalence of MTFs that go to gender-therapists and clinics specializing in surgery.
There are some extraneous factors that could play into this. The cost and less-than good results often available to FTMs as opposed to the rather good results available to MTFs as far as genital surgeries are concerned.
Statistics are always dependent on the count of individuals. So pretty much all of the statistical evidence is based on people presenting and the numbers of therapists and surgeons reporting their patients.
Nichole
Nichole
It all happens with the little spermy. A zygote (fetus) is formed in the female body by introducing a male gamete (sperm) to the female gamete (ovum). The female gametes are all X's and the male gametes are a jumble of both X and Y. Sometimes the gametes are damaged, which causes problems in the fetus and the fetus is more often than not aborted by the mother's body (miscarried). There are other gender varient syndromes in which a child is born with XYY (kleinfelter's syndrome), XXY (unnamed syndrome) or a female is born with a single X chromosome (turners syndrome). These syndromes are mostly caused durring meiosis (cell splitting) before gametes are created. Basically, if there is a problem with the gamete there is a problem with the fetus. It is very possible that transexualism could be caused by a non-disjunction in gametes, and not by hormones at all.
And, my proposal for a possability as to why there may be more MTF individuals vs. FTM's is that males have an X and a Y, so if there is a problem on either chromosome the other can not make up for, or fix it. In females the X chromosome is duplicated so if one chromosome is damaged the other can fix, or make up for the problem. There has always been a higher instance for genetic/chromosomal problems in males, even with autism males are 4 times more likely to contract the disorder.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 14, 2009, 06:07:28 PMThird, I don't believe the premise. We have no good count of the incidence of transsexualism, and it might not be possible, since it likely depends on what severity you decide as a cutoff. I believe that transsexuals are the tail on the end of a distribution of gender variance, and so there's no good society-independent way to make a cut. The numbers reflect the society, and this society allows a lot more variance in gender expression among women without deeming them "transgender" or "transsexual." I think that this, and not biochemistry, dominates the difference in mumbers of trans men and trans women. But I could be competely wrong.
While I'll agree with you and other posters that the majority of population studies has been conducted on the basis of surgery, and thus just aren't reliable, more recent studies from the UK have been done on the basis of the number of people seeking treatment from the NHS - public healthcare. The statistics include everybody and anybody who pitches up with a gender-dysphoria, so I'd say this is probably quite a bit more accurate. I've written a post about it in my blog as well, and for ease of reference, here are the original studies:
The prevalence of gender dysphoria in Scotland: a primary care study (1999) (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rcgp/bjgp/1999/00000049/00000449/art00012?crawler=true)
and
Gender Dysphoria, Transsexualism and ->-bleeped-<-: Incidence, Prevalence and Growth in the UK (2008) (http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/GIRES-Prevalence-Abstract-2.pdf)
It makes sense though, don't you think? Every foetus starts out phenotypically female and undifferentiated. Once hormones start to do their thing more change is happening in a male foetus than a female foetus, deviating more from the starting norm, so there are bound to be more copy-and-paste errors.
Something I've been thinking about in the light of this : Seeing as we all start out phenotypically female, it shouldn't be Adam's rib, now should it? Eve was first. ;D
Mina.
Quote from: Nero on February 14, 2009, 05:20:01 PM
hmm. i think it's more cause a male fetus is like a 'mutation'. everything starts out as female and 'mutates' into male. (i don't mean the word mutation to be offensive. the only word i can think of right now).
Intresting point Nero.
Quote from: Monty on February 14, 2009, 05:41:56 PM
I think a while back someone was telling about a study on FTMs and that there's not necessarily less FTMs than MTFs as there are FTMs that don't know there can be anything done. Don't hold me to that, though, it's only something I heard.
However I do agree with what Monty said about they being equal of both.. just FTM's might be more stealth that the mtfs.
Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=55615.msg348791#msg348791 date=1234938448
While I'll agree with you and other posters that the majority of population studies has been conducted on the basis of surgery, and thus just aren't reliable, more recent studies from the UK have been done on the basis of the number of people seeking treatment from the NHS - public healthcare. The statistics include everybody and anybody who pitches up with a gender-dysphoria, so I'd say this is probably quite a bit more accurate. I've written a post about it in my blog as well, and for ease of reference, here are the original studies:
The prevalence of gender dysphoria in Scotland: a primary care study (1999) (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rcgp/bjgp/1999/00000049/00000449/art00012?crawler=true)
and
Gender Dysphoria, Transsexualism and ->-bleeped-<-: Incidence, Prevalence and Growth in the UK (2008) (http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/GIRES-Prevalence-Abstract-2.pdf)
It makes sense though, don't you think? Every foetus starts out phenotypically female and undifferentiated. Once hormones start to do their thing more change is happening in a male foetus than a female foetus, deviating more from the starting norm, so there are bound to be more copy-and-paste errors.
Something I've been thinking about in the light of this : Seeing as we all start out phenotypically female, it shouldn't be Adam's rib, now should it? Eve was first. ;D
Mina.
even still, MANY ftms don't seek "treatment" of any sort. many live comfortably in a male role with any sort of medical aid.
Quote from: Scratchy Wilson on February 17, 2009, 10:34:34 PM
There are other gender varient syndromes in which a child is born with XYY (kleinfelter's syndrome), XXY (unnamed syndrome) or a female is born with a single X chromosome (turners syndrome).
Just a minor correction, not to be nit picky. If my information is correct XXY is Klienfelter's syndrome and XYY is unnamed. It is debated as to weather XYY should be classified as a syndrome due to the fact that most XYY males appear normal aside from being taller and having higher testosterone levels. Learning difficulties are associated with both XXY and XYY.
I've done some extensive research on both because it was suspected that I was 47XXY. I had many of the symptoms, thin as a youth, enlarged breast, rounded facial features, and learning difficulties. I was fertile but not overly so.
I wish there had been a study conducted on connections between Kilenfelter's and GID but to date I am not aware of any.