Quote from: beth on February 05, 2008, 07:47:58 PM
Keep in mind that there are more first borned than second born than third born among all people. You have to factor those odds to get any kind of meaningful answer.

Why?  If there is validity to the theory the probability of gay/trans sons should directly increase as the number of births increases.  Onlys (1) are like a control. the value of the x y intersect is 1.

Well the survey is suggesting the very opposite of what the theory predicts.  But here is something interesting/amusing from Wired Science. He totally confuses transexuality with homosexuality but it is his attempt to explain the evolutionary purpose of the fraternal birth order effect:

Dean Hamer sees one possible answer in the fraternal-birth-order studies. "In Polynesian cultures, where you're talking about very big families, it was typical to have the last-born son be mahu, or gay," he says. Explorers described young boys who looked after the family and sometimes dressed as girls. "They suspected that their families had made them that way. But you just can't take a guy and make him clean up and have him become gay. He's got to have some gayness inside. Maybe that's the biological purpose to the mahu: taking care of Mom."

He says this half in jest, I think, but some other evidence bolsters his argument, including the appearance of transgender younger sons among Native Americans (the so-called two-spirits) and in premodern corners of India, Samoa, and Indonesia. A survey published this year suggested that transgender fa'afafines in Samoa are more "avuncular" than heterosexuals—that is, more likely to care for kin. Another study says that female relatives of gay men may have more children; perhaps the very thing that makes their brothers and sons gay makes them more fertile, an ideal situation with extra babysitters on hand. You can slice this stuff any way you want.

I'm technically the first but my mom lost 2 children before me

Well it's not as simple as the question makes it seem.  Some firstborn act like middle kids and vice versa.  Case in point:  I am the second of 3, but because of a severe drug problem, my older brother was more of a little brother.  I had to be the responsible one who took care of him.  He ended up dying from it, so I have no idea where that leaves me in the survey.

Kristi

Quote from: Claire de Lune on February 06, 2008, 11:39:17 AM

Quote from: beth on February 05, 2008, 07:47:58 PM
Keep in mind that there are more first borned than second born than third born among all people. You have to factor those odds to get any kind of meaningful answer.

Why?  If there is validity to the theory the probability of gay/trans sons should directly increase as the number of births increases.  Onlys (1) are like a control. the value of the x y intersect is 1.

              In the general population are the odds of a person being the first born the same as a person being the 10th born? No they certainly are not the same odds.  The odds depend on the average number born per mother. Every mother has a first born, some have a second born and fewer have a third born. Very few have a 10th born.

             So this poll, if taken from the general population would have the most in the first born, less in the second born and even less as you go down.   The transsexual poll would have to have this factor mitigated to get any kind of useful answer.

             As an example, our poll is showing more numbers in first born and fewer as the birth number increases. Does this mean first borns are more likely to be trans? No it just correlates to the state of the general population.

I'm the last one.  I got four older brothers.  no girls in the house.  just my mom




trans guys are ok to answer this poll right?

I'm the oldest of four, no sisters, three younger brothers. So I'm first-born.

My mom was in labor for over 20 hours with me though I'm proud of it.

Oh and the second born is like my antithesis - for all my girliness he has machismo, in both looks and personality, though he still retains some kind of caring. Oddly enough he has artistic enclinations (and draw well), while I don't really have such enclinations (art is usually seen as a more feminine domain, so it contrasts with his personality and looks, while my 'advantage' in facts, theory etc suggests a more male domain...but add empathy in the mix and I'm the ideal counselor/psychologist, which is more female...go figure).

Quote from: Keira on February 06, 2008, 08:46:02 AM
Berleigh, we're talking probability here, not causality.

Having your mother have a much more female siblings than the 50% ratio is either dumb luck or linked to something in the genes. Especially if
it also happened in the previous generation. Say, if your grandmother
had many sisters and few brothers.

2 sister 1 brother, could easily be dumb luck, but 10 sister, 1 brother is
very unlikely, if it happens over many generations, well there is
something happening for sure since it couldn't happen
Unless there is something systemic that happens in
reproduction.


That same something can seemingly expressed in
some of the male offspring and thus cause TS to happen
in some of them (substantial probability of occuring,
though not a certainty).

With people having less and less children
(since 1 or 2 children is not enough to get a really
skewed ratio), it will be harder to get
information from the current generation, though looking at
our ancestry could help.

My mother has a lot of sisters....what does that mean?.......
My father had agoraphobia....and my mother has mental health problems....what does that mean?

I was adopted as a baby, brought up with a different family and found out who my real parents were when I was in my late 20's....what does that mean?

I would think it would be most relevant to look at your brothers and sisters, as well as you parents siblings offspring, to determine trait patterns that may be passed down.

Realislitically I think Tsism deveopls in more than one way, and it may be very possible that a being gay is linked to TSism, in the way that homosexualality is derived from having the pheromone receptors of the oppiste sex. (possibly)

The may eventually find one gene trait, but even with the human genome project map, the would have to develop a program that can rescan a new input and make comparisions to the original to find it, and i dont think the project is that far along...

Quote from: Berliegh on February 07, 2008, 04:14:07 AM

Quote from: Keira on February 06, 2008, 08:46:02 AM
Berleigh, we're talking probability here, not causality.

Having your mother have a much more female siblings than the 50% ratio is either dumb luck or linked to something in the genes. Especially if
it also happened in the previous generation. Say, if your grandmother
had many sisters and few brothers.

2 sister 1 brother, could easily be dumb luck, but 10 sister, 1 brother is
very unlikely, if it happens over many generations, well there is
something happening for sure since it couldn't happen
Unless there is something systemic that happens in
reproduction.


That same something can seemingly expressed in
some of the male offspring and thus cause TS to happen
in some of them (substantial probability of occuring,
though not a certainty).

With people having less and less children
(since 1 or 2 children is not enough to get a really
skewed ratio), it will be harder to get
information from the current generation, though looking at
our ancestry could help.

My mother has a lot of sisters....what does that mean?.......
My father had agoraphobia....and my mother has mental health problems....what does that mean?

I was adopted as a baby, brought up with a different family and found out who my real parents were when I was in my late 20's....what does that mean?

The sex of a child is wholly a function of the father, not the mother.  Females have an x chromosome in their ova where as sperm comes in 2 flavours, x or y, that determine biological sex.

QuoteIn the general population are the odds of a person being the first born the same as a person being the 10th born? No they certainly are not the same odds.  The odds depend on the average number born per mother. Every mother has a first born, some have a second born and fewer have a third born. Very few have a 10th born.

             So this poll, if taken from the general population would have the most in the first born, less in the second born and even less as you go down.   The transsexual poll would have to have this factor mitigated to get any kind of useful answer.

             As an example, our poll is showing more numbers in first born and fewer as the birth number increases. Does this mean first borns are more likely to be trans? No it just correlates to the state of the general population.

I see.  I misunderstood your original point.  The problem is easily solved by selecting the same number of cases for each category (row) in the sample.  One line of code should do the trick! 


I'm a recovering statistics geek

Quote from: Claire de Lune on February 07, 2008, 09:54:45 AM
The sex of a child is wholly a function of the father, not the mother.  Females have an x chromosome in their ova where as sperm comes in 2 flavours, x or y, that determine biological sex.

Yeah, as far as we know - who knows what factors from the mother's side might be influencing gene selection at conception. For example, want more hens? Make it warmer...

Quote
One line of code should do the trick! 

I'm a recovering statistics geek

Ah. And here I thought you were a recovering computer nerd like me! 

Quote from: lady amarant on February 07, 2008, 10:51:44 AM

Quote from: Claire de Lune on February 07, 2008, 09:54:45 AM
The sex of a child is wholly a function of the father, not the mother.  Females have an x chromosome in their ova where as sperm comes in 2 flavours, x or y, that determine biological sex.

Yeah, as far as we know - who knows what factors from the mother's side might be influencing gene selection at conception. For example, want more hens? Make it warmer...

Quote
One line of code should do the trick! 

I'm a recovering statistics geek

Ah. And here I thought you were a recovering computer nerd like me! 

Nope, not a computer nerd but I do speak the language! 

There is an influence from the mother in TS, so even if you've got
a genetic male, that person could be female in some way, could
be seen externally, or only be visible in the brain. There are
many genes involved in devellopping a male; remember, the
fetus originally is female its later that the differentiation occurs.
In the most simple cases, a modification of the sex DNA causes
the devellopmental issues, but there a lot more genes involved
in differentiation that those ones. If you've got androgen insensitivity
you can have the male genes and your phenotype is female. It would
be interesting to know if there has ever been someone with AI who
had GID. If not, that would be one point more establishing
GID being biological. Proof of that is not established conclusively, but
there seems to be a preponderence of evidence in this direction.

Quote from: Keira on February 07, 2008, 01:16:20 PM

There is an influence from the mother in TS, so even if you've got
a genetic male, that person could be female in some way, could
be seen externally, or only be visible in the brain. There are
many genes involved in devellopping a male; remember, the
fetus originally is female its later that the differentiation occurs.
In the most simple cases, a modification of the sex DNA causes
the devellopmental issues, but there a lot more genes involved
in differentiation that those ones. If you've got androgen insensitivity
you can have the male genes and your phenotype is female. It would
be interesting to know if there has ever been someone with AI who
had GID. If not, that would be one point more establishing
GID being biological. Proof of that is not established conclusively, but
there seems to be a preponderence of evidence in this direction.

You're still speaking of AIS in its complete form. Unfortunately, someone affected by Complete AIS who would have GID would be stuck. No amount of androgens would virilize them. Though almost 100% identify as female and are fine with it.

In it's partial or mild forms, which can (and does often) result in an ambiguous or male phenotype, many transition (many being reportedly 5-10% of those diagnosed). Some also happen to be diagnosed much later after transitioning, by fluke.

Quote from: Keira on February 07, 2008, 01:16:20 PM

There is an influence from the mother in TS, so even if you've got
a genetic male, that person could be female in some way, could
be seen externally, or only be visible in the brain. There are
many genes involved in devellopping a male; remember, the
fetus originally is female its later that the differentiation occurs.
In the most simple cases, a modification of the sex DNA causes
the devellopmental issues, but there a lot more genes involved
in differentiation that those ones. If you've got androgen insensitivity
you can have the male genes and your phenotype is female. It would
be interesting to know if there has ever been someone with AI who
had GID. If not, that would be one point more establishing
GID being biological. Proof of that is not established conclusively, but
there seems to be a preponderence of evidence in this direction.

The discussion was about birth order and live births of sexually differentiated people.  The focus is on gender identity and sexual preference measured logitudinally.

But, I countered that there wasn't any proof of birth order and being TS but there was seemingly a correlation between the sex ratio in ancestors in the female line and being a TS.

So, the initial question itself makes no sense if there is not TS to birth order link.

Schala, I didn't ignore partial insensitiivity. Its just much clearer to talk
of cases where the differences are very clear.

Also, are you sure about partial AIS and TS 5-10% are TS, is this even measurable since even the male population, sensitivity to androgens
and tissue response to stimulus vary immensely. I suppose that they can establish an arbitrary threshold when it has some physiological impact (say smaller frame, less muscle mass, effects on the gonads, etc)

But that would be an ad-hoc diagnostic a good measure since there is a difference between the sensitiivty of the receptors and how the cell reacts to this. You could have a low sensitivity yet a high expressivity (gene expression). Meaning a low stimulus creates a big reaction (this also based in our genetic makeup but not related to sensitivity). Also, the response could be different from tissue to tissue. In those with total insensitivity, the different tissue response doesn't matter and its clear cut.

Quote from: Keira on February 07, 2008, 05:25:11 PM

But, I countered that there wasn't any proof of birth order and being TS but there was seemingly a correlation between the sex ratio in ancestors in the female line and being a TS.

So, the initial question itself makes no sense if there is not TS to birth order link.

Schala, I didn't ignore partial insensitiivity. Its just much clearer to talk
of cases where the differences are very clear.

Also, are you sure about partial AIS and TS 5-10% are TS, is this even measurable since even the male population, sensitivity to androgens
and tissue response to stimulus vary immensely. I suppose that they can establish an arbitrary threshold when it has some physiological impact (say smaller frame, less muscle mass, effects on the gonads, etc)

But that would be an ad-hoc diagnostic a good measure since there is a difference between the sensitiivty of the receptors and how the cell reacts to this. You could have a low sensitivity yet a high expressivity (gene expression). Meaning a low stimulus creates a big reaction (this also based in our genetic makeup but not related to sensitivity). Also, the response could be different from tissue to tissue. In those with total insensitivity, the different tissue response doesn't matter and its clear cut.

I'm speaking of those diagnosed. I can't speak for the undiagnosed, although I might be one. Typically, if you produce normal levels of testosterone, and have normal levels of LH and FSH, and abnormal development, the possibility is greater.

I mean, typical testosterone range would normally result in a typical physical development when compared with your extended family of same chromosome make-up (like body hair, facial hair, breast growth, pubic hair, armpit hair, baldness).

If it doesn't, then something might be worth looking at.

Complete AIS is typically diagnosed in-utero (pre-screened because of previous family incidence) or at puberty (absence of menarch), though sometimes also in adulthood, it depends on parents involvment and knowledge about the child's health. The diagnosis rate is pretty high.

Partial AIS is typically diagnosed either at the same time as its Complete form (pre-birth or puberty), or at birth if there is ambiguity, or in childhood. It results more often in ambiguity.

Mild AIS is either diagnosed at birth pre-natally, or by fluke by a doctor who thought something was amiss for a phenotypic male (and apparently, it takes a lot for them to think something is amiss).

Typical 'clear' indication of MAIS - gynecomastia to a significant degree, post puberty, or larger during it. Infertility (usually because of trying to conceive, so later in life). Hypogonadism (probably younger, but not necessarily).

Quote from: Schala on February 07, 2008, 03:18:17 AM
I'm the oldest of four, no sisters, three younger brothers. So I'm first-born.

My mom was in labor for over 20 hours with me though I'm proud of it.

Oh and the second born is like my antithesis - for all my girliness he has machismo, in both looks and personality, though he still retains some kind of caring. Oddly enough he has artistic enclinations (and draw well), while I don't really have such enclinations (art is usually seen as a more feminine domain, so it contrasts with his personality and looks, while my 'advantage' in facts, theory etc suggests a more male domain...but add empathy in the mix and I'm the ideal counselor/psychologist, which is more female...go figure).

Hahah! Your younger brother is an opposite as well? Mine doesn't draw, and is hard headed. He's not dumb, but he certainly is apathetic when it comes to asking certain questions about life. I'm the artist and he's the "who cares?" type. I do end up being peoples suburban shrink to talk to sometimes though... I have empathy no matter how much of a jerk I am, hence my guilt... Lol.

Question, "Do you ACT more or are INTERPRETED more as the younger brother even though you're older?" I am... Hahahah

QuoteQuestion, "Do you ACT more or are INTERPRETED more as the younger brother even though you're older?" I am... Hahahah

I'm seen as more mature (but that aint showing in my looks ), but am also always seen as the younger of the two.

He's 23 and can pass for 25. I'm 25 and can pass for 17.

My brother is four years younger than I am, 25 to my 29. I usually get pegged at around 21-22 by people who meet me for the first time, while he is taken to be late 20's. I can understand it though. He is, to say the least, manly. Full beard, broad shoulders, broad chest, tall, big, powerful hands... Me, well sadly I got the broad shoulders and the height as well. My maternal grampa was 6'7, my brother is about 6'3 or 4 - sorry I have a metric mind, so I'm converting on the fly here. I suppose I'm actually quite lucky at only 5'11 and a bit. As for the rest ... luckily not (even now I only need to shave every other day), and electro and anti-androgens are starting to improve my position a bit

As to attitudes and stuff, he's typically guy - doesn't like talking about emotional stuff, gruff, practical, stubborn, always ready to jump in and defend, protect, advise, but rarely to listen ... by contrast, I too usually end up therapising friends and family and, and, and ... Which I don't really mind - it's nice to help people, even if only by listening to them.