Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Genes determine transsexuality

http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/099200905141151.htm (http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/099200905141151.htm)

Sydney (IANS): The largest ever genetic study of transsexuals has established a link between gender identity and a gene involved in modifying the action of sex hormone testosterone.

From an early age people develop an inner sense of being male or female. Transsexuals however, identify with a physical sex opposite to their biological sex.

DNA samples were collected from 112 male to female transsexuals and researchers compared genetic differences with non transsexuals.

They discovered that male to female transsexuals were more likely to have a longer version of a gene which is known to modify the action of testosterone.

Profoundly interesting.  I cannot wait to read the actual journal article (once the Biological Psychiatry website comes back up).

There was a good bit of pub about this study when it was announced last year. I believe if your interested enough, Inter, you can order a copy through Prince Henry Institute or UCLA, perhaps, if the Biological Psychiatry site is down for long.

I'll keep an eye out for the site to come back up for now, but if not, I'll look into taking your advice.

I think this is a fascinating study, and would love to see more follow-up on it.

There are always other ethical implications, though.  If they found a link, could it lead to treatment where those with GID are "cured"?  Could it lead to selective abortions?  And on and on it goes.  Still I would love to see more work done.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I'm not sure if "adaptive DNA" is the right term for it, but there are some elements of DNA that turns on and shuts off and different times.  I can't remember the exact term for it, this kind of if/then DNA; but it's the reason why there is such a huge variety of size and characteristics amongst dogs.  I'm thinking the term is something like "transitive DNA", but Googling that showed it's not the term.

Anyway, when science fully understands the role of this kind of DNA in humans, I am sure we will find many different genetic basises for transsexualism and ->-bleeped-<-.

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

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

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

Janet

Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 14, 2009, 11:32:50 PM
The question comes to mind, would you take the testing if offered?  What if you tested negative, would you stop your transition?  Or would you believe in your own feelings?

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

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

Janet

This is an interesting question - the idea that, if the best scientific evidence said you were NOT a transsexual, would that change your mind concerning your own transition? 

I think it would depend strongly on how far one has gone, or more particularly, what one has already given up in order to become what one perceives to be oneself.  I imagine, the more one has given up, the less likely they will be convinced, under any circumstance, that they might not be what they believe themselves to be. 

cognitive dissonance > scientific evidence

After all, we aren't Vulcans. ;) *shameless Star Trek reference*
[/quote]

Quote from: interalia on May 14, 2009, 11:54:58 PM
This is an interesting question - the idea that, if the best scientific evidence said you were NOT a transsexual, would that change your mind concerning your own transition? 

I recommend you study the term "statistical correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation)." Correlation is not determination.

Quote from: Zythyra on May 14, 2009, 10:04:58 PM
They discovered that male to female transsexuals were more likely to have a longer version of a gene which is known to modify the action of testosterone.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 14, 2009, 11:32:50 PM
What if you tested negative, would you stop your transition?  Or would you believe in your own feelings?
Janet

It's not a hypothetical question for me.  When I first entered college, in 1978; and when I first entered grad school in 1989; I exhaustively researched transsexualism.  It was crystal clear, that scientifically I could not be considered to be transsexual, because I was sexually attracted exclusively to females.  At those times, I had more faith in science than I had in my own judgment; so I resolved to do my best to be the straight man that science told me I was.

Now, with regards to this test, I'd like to take it.  However, if the test was negative, I would think there was simply another test, as yet undiscovered, which would someday prove that I am in fact what I know myself to be.  You know, fool me once, fool me twice...

Quote from: Lisbeth on May 15, 2009, 12:47:49 AM
I recommend you study the term "statistical correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation)." Correlation is not determination.

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

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

A study of 112 M2F's is the largest genetic study to date.

Well the conclusion of that article is correct,


Let the further studies and ethical debates begin.

Notice the "other populations" and "Hindu...," was this an Indian study or Australian one?

Also is the variance in the size of the T-receptor gene the result of the gene itself, or a result of an in utereo condition?

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

I really hate my own field of study...

A polymorphism of the CYP17 gene related to sex steroid metabolism is associated with female-to-male but not male-to-female transsexualism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765230?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed) Bentz E, Hefler L, Kaufmann U, Huber J, Kolbus A, Tempfer C Fertility and Sterility , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , Pages 56 - 59

QuoteOBJECTIVE: To assess the association between transsexualism and allele and genotype frequencies of the common cytochrome P450 (CYP) 17 -34 T>C single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Academic research institution. PATIENT(S): 102 male-to-female (MtF) and 49 female-to-male (FtM) transsexuals, 756 male controls, and 915 female controls.
    ...
    The MtF transsexuals had an allele distribution equivalent to male controls, whereas FtM transsexuals did not follow the gender-specific allele distribution of female controls but rather had an allele distribution equivalent to MtF transsexuals and male controls. CONCLUSION(S): These data support CYP17 as a candidate gene of FtM transsexualism and indicate that loss of a female-specific CYP17 T -34C allele distribution pattern is associated with FtM transsexualism.

Androgen Receptor Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-Female Transsexualism (http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/S0006-3223(08)01087-1/abstract) by Hare at al Biological Psychiatry Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 93-96 (1 January 2009)

QuoteBackground

There is a likely genetic component to transsexualism, and genes involved in sex steroidogenesis are good candidates. We explored the specific hypothesis that male-to-female transsexualism is associated with gene variants responsible for undermasculinization and/or feminization. Specifically, we assessed the role of disease-associated repeat length polymorphisms in the androgen receptor (AR), estrogen receptor β (ERβ), and aromatase (CYP19) genes.
Methods

Subject-control analysis included 112 male-to-female transsexuals and 258 non-transsexual males. Associations and interactions were investigated between CAG repeat length in the AR gene, CA repeat length in the ERβ gene, and TTTA repeat length in the CYP19 gene and male-to-female transsexualism.
Results

A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects (p = .04). No associations for transsexualism were evident in repeat lengths for CYP19 or ERβ genes. Individuals were then classified as short or long for each gene polymorphism on the basis of control median polymorphism lengths in order to further elucidate possible combined effects. No interaction associations between the three genes and transsexualism were identified.
Conclusions

This study provides evidence that male gender identity might be partly mediated through the androgen receptor.

I would take the test.

In fact I would take almost any test to have some clinical proof to be able to hold in my hand to tell me why I feel the way I do.  Would it change my plans?  Probably not.  I know how I feel.

I'd love to take the test, but seeing as this is a study in MtF transsexualism, I don't think it'd do any good.

I think it's obvious that some of this is genetically founded and I don't quite approve of my deep seeded personal identity being compared with "religion" which more often than not requires just taking scripture's (any religious scripture, not just the bible) word for it. Allthough, every religious text is originally written by man, a physical being, and affected by that man and his physical surroundings so there is a scientific basis for religion and understanding it might make scripture make more and better sense, and be something you'd better be able to trust....
But I'm getting WAY off topic here.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 15, 2009, 12:52:13 AM
It's not a hypothetical question for me.  When I first entered college, in 1978; and when I first entered grad school in 1989; I exhaustively researched transsexualism.  It was crystal clear, that scientifically I could not be considered to be transsexual, because I was sexually attracted exclusively to females.  At those times, I had more faith in science than I had in my own judgment; so I resolved to do my best to be the straight man that science told me I was.

Have to admit, Gina, I'm rather puzzled by your belief that "science" has determined that MTF transsexuals are "only" those who are attracted exclusively to males. Even some of the more rabid-supporters of a particularly rabid group of "classic transsexuals" admit attraction to women. And many of us are both intellectually bisexual and have had and continue to have not only attractions to both males and females but sexual relations with both as well.

There's a statistical correlation between bisexuality and females, at least a much greater occurrence of bisexuality among females than among males (some of that sould be admitting, sorta like the guys who believe that if they are dating or married to a woman and only have "stealth" sex with males that they remain "heterosexual".) Greater numbers of women tend to exemplfy a characteristic whereby they find that sexual attraction goes with the attraction to a particular partner. Thus, they will sometimes be "lesbian" and sometimes be "straight." (Which sounds to me a lot like bisexual.)

I am continuing not to see any correlation between "who I love or am attracted toward" and my sex. So I am puzzled by this constant refrain that "sexuality" somehow plays into a discussion of sex. Feel free to enlighten me, if you will, through PMs so as not to break the rhythm of the thread any more than this post has already done.

Thanks.

Nichole 

Quote from: Nichole on May 15, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Have to admit, Gina, I'm rather puzzled by your belief that "science" has determined that MTF transsexuals are "only" those who are attracted exclusively to males. Even some of the more rabid-supporters of a particularly rabid group of "classic transsexuals" admit attraction to women. And many of us are both intellectually bisexual and have had and continue to have not only attractions to both males and females but sexual relations with both as well.

There's a statistical correlation between bisexuality and females, at least a much greater occurrence of bisexuality among females than among males (some of that sould be admitting, sorta like the guys who believe that if they are dating or married to a woman and only have "stealth" sex with males that they remain "heterosexual".) Greater numbers of women tend to exemplfy a characteristic whereby they find that sexual attraction goes with the attraction to a particular partner. Thus, they will sometimes be "lesbian" and sometimes be "straight." (Which sounds to me a lot like bisexual.)

I am continuing not to see any correlation between "who I love or am attracted toward" and my sex. So I am puzzled by this constant refrain that "sexuality" somehow plays into a discussion of sex. Feel free to enlighten me, if you will, through PMs so as not to break the rhythm of the thread any more than this post has already done.

Thanks.

Nichole

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

Back then, at least from what I knew from the main stream press and stories I could get my hands on, gender identity and sexual orientation *were* linked and many considered them identical.  I think that is one of the reasons given for John Hopkins closing their gender clinic.  The so-called doctor that took over (I forgot is name) deemed transsexuality a mode of homosexuality and should be treated as such.  It broke my heart when I read that.  It meant that I was truly a pervert and not a "real" transsexual because the experts at JH said that no such thing existed.

Time/people/science moves on.  Things change.  That was then, this is now.

-Sandy (Thank Goddess!)

Quote from: Sandy on May 15, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I too used my heterosexual nature as proof that I wasn't a transsexual.

This is exactly my case. 

I have never been attracted to a man, but I think that is possible that in the future I could be.

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

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

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

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

---

Post Merge: May 15, 2009, 01:13:23 PM

---

I was able to download pdf's of both the Bentz et al and Hare et al articles.  If you're interested in getting them by email, send me a PM.

Quote from: Nichole on May 15, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Have to admit, Gina, I'm rather puzzled by your belief that "science" has determined that MTF transsexuals are "only" those who are attracted exclusively to males.

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

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 15, 2009, 02:25:30 PM
I want to be clear to anyone reading this thread, that the HBIGDA Standards of Care USED TO disqualify anyone who was not interested in having sex with men from being considered to be, or obtaining treatment as, an MtF transsexual.  This is no longer the case.  That is what I was referring to, the historical situation that applied in the 70's and 80's.

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

Thanks for clarifying.

N~

Quote from: interalia on May 15, 2009, 12:57:52 AM
I'm quite familiar with this, but I do not see how my rephrasing of Janet's question implies a correlation vs causation problem.

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

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

Quote from: Sandy on May 15, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I too used my heterosexual nature as proof that I wasn't a transsexual.  I liked girls not boys (then) and so how could I be a girl on the inside?  It drove my denial for a very long time.

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

Quote from: Jessica L. on May 15, 2009, 01:00:51 PMComing back to transsexualism: finding one gene involved in sex steroid receptors might be only the tip of a VERY big iceberg.  Mutations in the one gene can be perpetuated in a single population (google or wikipedia Founder Mutations for more info on this) but may not exist in other groups of people.  In other words, your negative test just means that's not the cause of your transsexualism, it doesn't mean you aren't trans.  If you have all the other symptoms for being trans, then guess what, you're trans.  All the genetic testing in the world doesn't have much to do with it.  There are genetic and environmental components to several things we don't understand well (such as autism).

+1 Insightful.

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

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

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

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

The important thing about these results is that they show that for some cases of transsexuality, there is a definite congenital cause. That suggests (by Occam's razor) that transsexuality is congenital unless proven otherwise.

---

Post Merge: May 15, 2009, 11:13:03 PM

---

Quote from: Lisbeth on May 15, 2009, 02:52:49 PMI do not believe that there will ever be a reliable test for transsexuality.

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

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

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

Quote from: ZoeB on May 15, 2009, 10:59:51 PM
Depends upon what you men by "reliable". I think it quite likely that self-reporting plus fMRI and MRI imaging will give results reliable enough in future for the vast majority of cases.

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

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

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

Quote from: Lisbeth on May 15, 2009, 11:24:27 PM
You pointed out that transsexuality comes in varying degrees. You also pointed out that it has multiple causality. I would also note that the category of "transsexual" continues to change. For these reasons, tests will fail on borderline people, and people who don't fall into the "major" types of transsexuality. And the test that works today won't work when the word is redefined tomorrow.

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

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

I wonder what became of that study?

=K

Quote from: ZoeB on May 15, 2009, 10:59:51 PM
But wait, you're a geneticist, so of course you'd know this stuff, and in far more detail than I do.

awww shucks. 
*blushes*

Quote from: ZoeB on May 15, 2009, 10:59:51 PM
The genetic anomalies in those two articles just show an association: not everyone who's trans has them, and not everyone who has them is trans. Having them makes it more likely you'll be trans, not having them less likely, that's all.

Exactly.  Very well put. 



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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie

Quote from: Julie Marie on May 18, 2009, 02:25:03 PM


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

There's a lot of truth in that.

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

N~

Quote from: Nichole on May 18, 2009, 02:53:12 PM
There's a lot of truth in that.

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

N~

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

How about a
"National Transsexual week"?

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

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

It does get ridiculous sometimes, doesn't it?

-Sandy (I hate intolerant people!)

QuoteGenes determine transsexuality

heh! tell me something i don't know.

Quote from: Jessica L. on May 15, 2009, 01:00:51 PM
very interesting (especially since I'm a geneticist). 

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

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

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

---

Post Merge: May 15, 2009, 10:13:23 AM

---

I was able to download pdf's of both the Bentz et al and Hare et al articles.  If you're interested in getting them by email, send me a PM.

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

---

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

---

Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 14, 2009, 11:32:50 PM
The question comes to mind, would you take the testing if offered?  What if you tested negative, would you stop your transition?  Or would you believe in your own feelings?

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

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

Janet

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

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

Quote from: Julie Marie on May 18, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
We'd sure save a lot of time and money if we just learned how to be tolerant and accepting.

Julie[/color][/font]

That's for sure Julie!

Quote from: Sandy on May 18, 2009, 03:21:38 PM
Tom Lehrer had a song in the late sixties called "National Brotherhood Week"

How about a
"National Transsexual week"?

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

Z

Quote from: Lori on May 18, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
I'd be more interested in sending you a blood sample to be tested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call me hopeful but sceptical. :)

N~



 

Quote from: Annwyn on May 15, 2009, 02:36:33 AM
Absolute hogwash.  It's like saying your religion is determined by your genes.  There's a lot more at play than genes.

I really hate my own field of study...

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

Anna