I think the truth is nobody knows but it doesn't matter. Same for cispeople.

Most of us here live in a culture that believes in biological determinism, which has manifested over the history of the US as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and all kinds of other problems. The tendency to want to bolster a position with an appeal to biological determinism makes sense, but I don't see it serving the whole trans community very well. And frankly I think it's an error.

In the first place 'nurture' /= 'elective.' We tend to see anything genetic as more 'pure' and this seeking of purity is itself very damaging to our society.

The more rich transpeople with privilege step into the spotlight to claim that male and female brains exist, etc, the more I have to wonder whether they aren't selling out nonbinary, genderfluid, and other genderqueer people to obtain a piece of double edged and restrictive legitimacy. What of people who are already worried they aren't trans enough? Will they stay closeted because they don't feel like they fit the deterministic model of masculinity or femininity? Or will they contort themselves into normative behaviors that are oppressive to themselves and others?

Anyway. Like I said, nobody knows for sure. The important thing is that it's not relevant to whether who we are is legitimate, and it's a sign of oppression that only transpeople have to think about this.

Quote from: CaptainAFAB on July 09, 2015, 10:22:34 AM
I think the truth is nobody knows but it doesn't matter. Same for cispeople.

Most of us here live in a culture that believes in biological determinism, which has manifested over the history of the US as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and all kinds of other problems. The tendency to want to bolster a position with an appeal to biological determinism makes sense, but I don't see it serving the whole trans community very well. And frankly I think it's an error.

In the first place 'nurture' /= 'elective.' We tend to see anything genetic as more 'pure' and this seeking of purity is itself very damaging to our society.

The more rich transpeople with privilege step into the spotlight to claim that male and female brains exist, etc, the more I have to wonder whether they aren't selling out nonbinary, genderfluid, and other genderqueer people to obtain a piece of double edged and restrictive legitimacy. What of people who are already worried they aren't trans enough? Will they stay closeted because they don't feel like they fit the deterministic model of masculinity or femininity? Or will they contort themselves into normative behaviors that are oppressive to themselves and others?

Anyway. Like I said, nobody knows for sure. The important thing is that it's not relevant to whether who we are is legitimate, and it's a sign of oppression that only transpeople have to think about this.

Wow... that was probably the most reasonable, non-biased, comprehensive answer I've ever gotten about my problems. You, my friend, are awesome. I don't even know what to say, because your answer makes so much sense. Thank you, and thanks to everyone else for replying. I was almost too nervous to look at this thread because I thought I would get backlash, but I'm really glad that I did.

Quote from: CaptainAFAB on July 09, 2015, 10:22:34 AM
I think the truth is nobody knows but it doesn't matter. Same for cispeople.

Most of us here live in a culture that believes in biological determinism, which has manifested over the history of the US as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and all kinds of other problems. The tendency to want to bolster a position with an appeal to biological determinism makes sense, but I don't see it serving the whole trans community very well. And frankly I think it's an error.

In the first place 'nurture' /= 'elective.' We tend to see anything genetic as more 'pure' and this seeking of purity is itself very damaging to our society.

The more rich transpeople with privilege step into the spotlight to claim that male and female brains exist, etc, the more I have to wonder whether they aren't selling out nonbinary, genderfluid, and other genderqueer people to obtain a piece of double edged and restrictive legitimacy. What of people who are already worried they aren't trans enough? Will they stay closeted because they don't feel like they fit the deterministic model of masculinity or femininity? Or will they contort themselves into normative behaviors that are oppressive to themselves and others?

Anyway. Like I said, nobody knows for sure. The important thing is that it's not relevant to whether who we are is legitimate, and it's a sign of oppression that only transpeople have to think about this.

Well in my opinion it is biological.
There are clear signs showing that
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,186458.msg1664590.html#msg1664590
there are brain scans with active centers showing a match to the gender people identify with...
there are results from autopsies showing the same...

and imo its an explanation making a lot of sense because transgender people have been around in all cultures and times.

Concerning nonbinary people etc... well the brain is not binary. Its analogue, and there is a spectrum from male to female. Depending on development a spectrum from for example crossdressing to transsexual people is possible.

Imo the biological explanation shows:
-its probably not a phase
-its nobodys fault, neither the tg persons, nor the parents upbringing, nor the internet or whatever...
-imo its socially better acceptable than people choosing...

hugs

Quote from: CaptainAFAB on July 09, 2015, 10:22:34 AM
I think the truth is nobody knows but it doesn't matter. Same for cispeople.

Most of us here live in a culture that believes in biological determinism, which has manifested over the history of the US as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and all kinds of other problems. The tendency to want to bolster a position with an appeal to biological determinism makes sense, but I don't see it serving the whole trans community very well. And frankly I think it's an error.

In the first place 'nurture' /= 'elective.' We tend to see anything genetic as more 'pure' and this seeking of purity is itself very damaging to our society.

The more rich transpeople with privilege step into the spotlight to claim that male and female brains exist, etc, the more I have to wonder whether they aren't selling out nonbinary, genderfluid, and other genderqueer people to obtain a piece of double edged and restrictive legitimacy. What of people who are already worried they aren't trans enough? Will they stay closeted because they don't feel like they fit the deterministic model of masculinity or femininity? Or will they contort themselves into normative behaviors that are oppressive to themselves and others?

Anyway. Like I said, nobody knows for sure. The important thing is that it's not relevant to whether who we are is legitimate, and it's a sign of oppression that only transpeople have to think about this.

Thanks this is perfect. Just because trans identities may or may not be biological doesn't mean that they are les valid and less worthy of respect. It also doesn't mean we chose to be trans. I don't like the purely biological explanation of the trans experience, I also don't like the purely sociological explanation.

I wish that our existence didn't require an explanation. Why can't we exist as we are with out having to explain our selves to the world.

Quote from: StrykerXIII on July 09, 2015, 08:55:46 AM
I'm MtF and my only sibling is FtM. If that's not proof that it's genetic, IDK what is.

Unfortunately, it's not. The odds that you and your brother had the same environment is very high, so environmental reasons are just as possible. Mind you, that could be anything from in vitro to psychological environmental factors. I tend to think it's biological, that something or things made physical changes, but we have to remember, it's not an on/off switch. Any hard and fast dichotomy in any situation is almost certainly just a convenient short hand.

After all, we routinely do things that 2000 years ago would be considered raising the dead.

There's a lot of references to the biological status of being transgender (or cis). But the whole nature-nurture, choice versus biological status, in their either-or guise, are faulty arguments. I would ask, biological compared to what? Choice? But where do these "choices" come from -- are they not also biological?

In any case, there's little point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-. No more so than trying to prove being a cis male/female in the same way. The brain is a highly complex and dynamic model-making machine, which has a plasticity capable of responding and changing to environmental influences. In numerous recent studies, the brain has been shown respond ('rewire') to environmental influences very rapidly. We don't know why nature pumps out so many diverse creatures, and for all we know, this diversity is what's keeping us all going (there are some interesting hypotheses related to this latter subject).

That said, I think a strong case can be made for nurturing influences playing a role (as part of a symbiotic nature-nurture process). To this end, I suspect that people are not necessarily born transgendered (though some may be), but are rather born with a capacity to respond to external pressures that then leads to ->-bleeped-<- (to varying degrees).

The biggest take away from this, is that we are procreating meat bags with a highly developed state of consciousness. Like every other organism on the planet, we are subject to natural selection. One of the differences that we have compared to other species is that we imbue natural phenomena with meaning, creating social 'norms' that nature is otherwise blind to. That is, to claim that one state of existence is more right, correct or natural than another is an erroneous position to take. Societies do it because contrived norms fit conveniently to models of human existence, be they economic, social or political.

At one time it was believed that you develop a male or female gender identity as a result of early childhood experiences, but there's now an abundance of evidence showing that theory to be wrong, and that gender identity is biological in nature - something that's built into the physical structure of your brain before birth. As with other aspects of sexual development, whether you get the male or female version depends on whether there's androgenic hormones (testosterone and DHT) present during the time your prenatal development is taking place, not on whether you have a Y chromosome or not.

Here's a list of some of the research:

https://lizdaybyday.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/one-stop-trans-brain-research-list/

There's also the fact that a lot of us seem to either have a known intersex condition, or show symptoms that are usually associated with being intersexed (e.g. "eunuchoid habitus", a type of body structure that's usually associated with intersex conditions). Additionally, a surprisingly high number of us who are aged over 40 have a known or suspected history of DES exposure (DES being an artificial estrogen that was widely used as a treatment for preventing miscarriages up until about 1980).

Quote from: SpaceMutie on July 07, 2015, 10:47:21 PM
There's something I've been hearing a lot recently, and it's been putting me on edge. Thanks to the gay marriage decision, a lot of very angry religious people have been going to war with a lot of very angry LGBTQIA people about anything: transgender people, gay people, etc. The argument is that each person, gay, straight, trans, or otherwise, is 'born that way'. I don't... really know what to think about that. When I was a little girl, I loved the quintessential 'girly' parts of my life. I played with dolls, I wore skirts and stockings, I absolutely loved My Little Pony and pink and glitter and dress-up. I couldn't have been more of my mother's perfect daughter. Unlike a lot of my peers, I wasn't already feeling that gender ache that I feel now. I never longed to be a man, I was still in that stage where 'boys were icky' and I couldn't talk to them without feeling grossed out.

That didn't change either. In 5th grade, a friend and I used to chase around this one boy in our class named Logan, and we considered ourselves deep enemies. I wasn't born thinking that I wanted to be a man. I didn't want that, not back then. So, when people say that, it makes me really, really nervous. If I say something, does that not make me a 'real' transman anymore? I feel what I am with all my heart, and I devote a lot of time to helping people with similar issues out. I didn't have gender dysphoria at a young age, and I barely have it now, though it does happen occasionally. I don't know if I'm even taking the saying right, because I've been too shy to ask people in case that they treated me like a lesser person for not being like them.

It still happens, and I don't know what to do about it. Maybe I'm just overreacting. Sorry about that...

Well, I didn't feel gender dysphoria until I was age 19. Starting at age 16, however, I did develop body image discontent, but it took a long time to attribute it to my gender. The years that preceded this, however, I experienced no discontent whatsoever. I was actually a buff young guy who excelled at sports. Yet I am a true woman, regardless of what anyone else wants to think.

Ally

I think we probably are born this way, whether its genes or hormone imbalance in the womb etc etc.
My only proof of this is
firstly: Children, a lot of kids know at a young age and havent been influenced by media or parents etc.

Secondly: History, Transgender is not a 20th/21st Century thing like some idiots believe, transgendered souls have been upon this earth for centuries. The Western world just refused to acknowledge these people. Asia, Native America & Africa all have works/pictures etc showing that Trans people were around. As trans existed centuries ago, that rules out any pollution, modern tech and electromagnetic radiation theories, GMC crops, pesticides, nuclear emmissions etc etc.

Thirdly: Brain, Because the brain knows it and the body doesnt. They used to shock trans people to "correct" their brains, yet it cannot be corrected in that way. The body has to alter to change the mind. I'm not sure at what stage the brain develops BUT it is ingrained into the brain or at least the potential to be transgender lies there. The best study I have seen (although not fully reliable due to the lack of trans people involved) showed that MtFs have pituatry glands (they start your puberty and control hormones/development) have the same size as a cis-female. FtMs have the same sized one as a cis-male.

Fourth: We know that consciously most of us would NOT choose to be transgender and would rather live a normal cis life. Its human nature to not want to stick out all the time. We and only we know that something doesnt feel right. The world thinks we are attention seekers and are deliberately trying to change the status quo, but its normal human instinct to coincide with the status quo, so long as it isnt against any instinctual morals.

Fifth: If we developed it in life, if it were for instance a flu. Then we would be cured of it, it would simply only pass. We would have grown out of it. It would have been a phase and yet it becomes a way of life - for most.

Sixth: Because the human body is adaptable. We do not know the human body very well. We still have to figure out what and how the brain properly functions, how it stores things. How the rest of your body stores memories -yes you read that right! The body stores memories just like the brain. In recent transplants people have reported the same suicidal feelings after taking someone elses heart (without knowing he was depressed). Having anothers face and suddenly twitching the same as they used to (again without knowing). The adaptation comes from animals being able to switch sexes, something that can be done on human gonads (only in labs ATM). If fishes/toads etc can change sex to save their species then why wouldnt the same be in mammals/humans - which we have now found proof of!


I personally like to think its a switch, moreso a dimmer switch. I think its built into many of us, some have it on really low and they never know its even on, its only a little sliver of light at the back of their minds. Some have it on full and no matter what they do they cant turn the damn thing off. And some have it switched off. It lies dormant until they turn 36 and then they are dazzled by its brightness.

I honestly dont think its an external force that made us like this. We all dont live in the same place, therefore we cant have all been exposed to the same external forces - unless there is one particular thing we all have in common (par the trans-ness) that cis-people and LGB persons dont have in common with us.

Gentle

Quote from: Echo Eve on July 10, 2015, 12:18:15 AM
There's a lot of references to the biological status of being transgender (or cis). But the whole nature-nurture, choice versus biological status, in their either-or guise, are faulty arguments. I would ask, biological compared to what? Choice? But where do these "choices" come from -- are they not also biological?

In any case, there's little point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-. No more so than trying to prove being a cis male/female in the same way. The brain is a highly complex and dynamic model-making machine, which has a plasticity capable of responding and changing to environmental influences. In numerous recent studies, the brain has been shown respond ('rewire') to environmental influences very rapidly. We don't know why nature pumps out so many diverse creatures, and for all we know, this diversity is what's keeping us all going (there are some interesting hypotheses related to this latter subject).

That said, I think a strong case can be made for nurturing influences playing a role (as part of a symbiotic nature-nurture process). To this end, I suspect that people are not necessarily born transgendered (though some may be), but are rather born with a capacity to respond to external pressures that then leads to ->-bleeped-<- (to varying degrees).

The biggest take away from this, is that we are procreating meat bags with a highly developed state of consciousness. Like every other organism on the planet, we are subject to natural selection. One of the differences that we have compared to other species is that we imbue natural phenomena with meaning, creating social 'norms' that nature is otherwise blind to. That is, to claim that one state of existence is more right, correct or natural than another is an erroneous position to take. Societies do it because contrived norms fit conveniently to models of human existence, be they economic, social or political.

If it were merely a case of "nurture" people could successfully be nurtured back to identifying as their birth gender through conversion therapy. We all know that doesn't work and it's unethical which is why the practice of it was largely banned.

It's actually harmful not to seek out a biological cause for being transgender. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to change their gender for social or personal reasons but often times people with other psychological issues; multiple personality disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, just to name a few, mistakenly think they're transgender. Not only does that damage the cis population's understanding of what it means to be trans but some of those people go on to transition then realize it was a mistake because they aren't transgender. If there were a known biological cause for being transgender it would open roads to more understanding, more medical care, and more mental health care. People would no longer be able to write it off as "Oh, you just want to be this way." Like it or not, at this point, we do need the rest of society's validation because it's mainly cis gendered people who will be determining what sort of care we can have access too and other things.

Because of society there is a "nurture" aspect to being transgender, social roles and expectations exacerbate dysphoria for example, but it isn't the cause because if somewhere along the line we learned to be this way then we would also be able to unlearn it and relearn to identify as our birth gender. There is so much that points to the cause being that the brain doesn't recognize its physical gender and feels at odds with it. That's also why transgender people feel even more at odds with things like their gender roles and other societal expectations.

There are many things missing in the nurture theory. It states that being gay has to do with not feeling man enough. Apparently those people have been nurtured to believe they ain't men enough. If this was true than how on earth would a transwoman ever be a lesbian. A transwoman for sure doesn't feel like she is not woman enough and there are still transwomen lesbians and transmen that are gay. So obviously the sexual orientation has nothing to do with howmuch of a man or woman do you feel like, like stated in the old psychological books. This theory sounds very logical but practice has shown that the gender identity has nothing to do with the sexual orientation. Indeed many gay men have had totally normal brain development and they always were as manly as the other men but they still end up being gay. On the other hand the old psychological theory says that you become transman or a transwoman because of identification with a figure from the opposite sex. If you are born with a woman's brain, isn't it normal to see yourself as a woman and identify yourself with other women regardless of your genitals? Basically the early symptoms of gender dysphoria are stated as causes of the disorder. How on earth a symptom can causes disease?
After decades of practicing conversion therapy, there is no single evidence that it works. At least one person would have been cured. Obviously it has nothing to do with social factors but it is based in the brain development.

Quote from: Contravene on July 10, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
If it were merely a case of "nurture" people could successfully be nurtured back...

It's actually harmful not to seek out a biological cause for being transgender...

Because of society there is a "nurture" aspect to being transgender...

Puzzled as to why my post was quoted and misrepresented in this manner, as the response addresses conclusions that don't exist in my initial post.

Quote from: possessed on July 10, 2015, 02:39:30 PM
If you are born with a woman's brain, isn't it normal to see yourself as a woman and identify yourself with other women regardless of your genitals?

Or you're a man who identifies more with women, or vice versa, but not trans.

Quote from: Echo Eve on July 11, 2015, 03:16:38 AM

Puzzled as to why my post was quoted and misrepresented in this manner, as the response addresses conclusions that don't exist in my initial post.

Eh, never mind. There's no need to be hostile about it. You stated why we shouldn't need to find a biological cause. I stated why we do. Rather simple.

Quote from: Echo Eve on July 10, 2015, 12:18:15 AM

In any case, there's little point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-. No more so than trying to prove being a cis male/female in the same way. The brain is a highly complex and dynamic model-making machine, which has a plasticity capable of responding and changing to environmental influences. In numerous recent studies, the brain has been shown respond ('rewire') to environmental influences very rapidly. We don't know why nature pumps out so many diverse creatures, and for all we know, this diversity is what's keeping us all going (there are some interesting hypotheses related to this latter subject).

That said, I think a strong case can be made for nurturing influences playing a role (as part of a symbiotic nature-nurture process). To this end, I suspect that people are not necessarily born transgendered (though some may be), but are rather born with a capacity to respond to external pressures that then leads to ->-bleeped-<- (to varying degrees).

Well there are parts of the brain that are relatively fixed, and there are parts that are not.
For example there is white matter which can easily develop over time.
Of course there are parts that can take over if other parts fail. And there is more repairing capacity than people would be told many years ago.

There are brain scans saying exactly that. There is a part that was compared to the gender people identify with and it was a match.
And there is white matter which might develop later during life, so no exact answer was possible there.

hugs

Quote from: Contravene on July 11, 2015, 05:42:58 AM
No need to be hostile about it.

You stated why we shouldn't need to find a biological cause.

I wasn't hostile.

I stated no such thing.

Coming in at the tail end of this thread, but I just wanted to point this out-

Saying there are male and female parts of the brain doesn't ignore gender fluid people at all. If there are X number of gendered parts of the brain and X components of what leads to one vs the other, there is no reason someone couldn't have some of them and not the others, or even partial development of key pieces.

Also, everything in our heads is biological. You can't get outside of it unless you are attributing something spiritual or magical to why someone is transgender.

There is room for every identity even as science allows us to understand more about the transgender brain.

Some people like broccoli, others don't. Are we born this way?

There are those who enjoy listening to "classical" music, and those who don't. Are we born this way?

We may possess the greatness of heart to live and let live, or the narrowmindedness that makes us want to impose our views upon others. Are we born this way?

Fear in all its forms can control us for all of our lifetimes, or we can strive to better ourselves and this world. Are we born this way?

Are we?

Also the christian view of the things doesn't explain the transsexuality at all. They say it is all result of sin. Translating the sin in practice means that it all comes from guilt. Getting yourself free of guilt doesn't promote cure for transsexuality but it promotes self acceptance. So obviously sin (guilt) causes feelings of low self esteem but not transsexuality or gayness. So i only accept the views of modern psychology and science that the only approach with a transsexual person should be self acceptance therapy as the obly beneficial form of therapy.

Sent from my LG-H220 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Echo Eve on July 10, 2015, 12:18:15 AM
In any case, there's little point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-.

Let me be more precise then.

You stated "there's little point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-."

I stated why there was a point in referencing biological markers insofar as proving and therefore validating ->-bleeped-<-.

I'm not sure if I can break it down further for you, but I can trying you want.