A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/pdf/378068a0.pdf

Thanks to Andrea, who informs us that this 1995
article is just now free -- to view and download.

A more recent study, Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure, 2006 indicates that changes in brain morphology are due to cross-sex hormone treatment.  The 1995 article above is cited as an alternate explanation.  Methodology was used that didn't exist in 1995, namely high resolution Magnetic Resonant Imaging (MRI).  The older study was conducted by post mortam examination.  Subjects in the 2006 study were scanned prior to hormone treatment and showed no differentiation from non-transsexuals of the original gender.  Dramatic changes in brain morphology were observed in all subjects after hormone therapy regardless of age at time of treatment.

Claire, the second study from what I understand was put forth by bias scientists who wanted to disprove the first study at any cost... and has since been dismissed.... But Thats what I understand, not what I know for sure... Though I'll gladly see if I can research and find the facts for everyone

Reading the study it seemed well designed and executed.  Before and after HRT with a control group.  I believe the European Journal of Endocrinology is a peer reviewd publication.  Also it was funded by a drug company.  Nothing in the text sounded biased but let me know if you find something.

The first MRI machine was built in 1977, they were in widespread use, even in shopping malls by '95.

There are MRIs and then there are MRIs.  Ones capable of doing brain imaging weren't available until 1993.  The technology has advanced in the 15 years since.  If you want to believe that post-mortams on 6 dead ->-bleeped-<-s proves that all of us have brain abnormalities by all means, do.  The Dutch study, given its dynamic nature and a control group strikes me as far more compelling.

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of disease will allows us to say "its not our fault." BFD!

How about this explanation.  During the process of reincarnation from our previous lives, in the sidpa bardo, we made a mistake and ended up with an unfavorable re-birth.  We are left in corporeal life with the burden of correcting our karmic error.  Prove me wrong, tekla!

Ones capable of doing brain imaging weren't available until 1993

So, two years before, according to what you said above, Methodology was used that didn't exist

More likely, they didn't have the research money to use one.  But, by your own admission they did exist.  And group II, who had the money, from a drug company --- let me use my PSYCH POWERS and imagine that the study ended up supporting the use of drugs that the company made.

The Dutch study, given its dynamic nature and a control group strikes me as far more compelling.

Compelling is what I want in a drama, accuracy is what I want in a scientific survey.

How about this explanation.  During the process of reincarnation from our previous lives, in the sidpa bardo, we made a mistake and ended up with an unfavorable re-birth.  We are left in corporeal life with the burden of correcting our karmic error.  Prove me wrong, tekla!

Wrong no.  That is grounds for institutionalization in 15 different states however.  And, outside of Bible Colleges, not exactly a scientific proof. 

Quote from: tekla on June 30, 2008, 07:01:56 PM
Ones capable of doing brain imaging weren't available until 1993

So, two years before, according to what you said above, Methodology was used that didn't exist

What difference does it make when the technology was available?  The key question is were  changes in brain morphology due to hormone therapy?  If you read the study (which I doubt) it's clear that large changes in brain morphology were due to hormones, not some genetic defect.

Quote from: tekla on June 30, 2008, 07:01:56 PMMore likely, they didn't have the research money to use one.  But, by your own admission they did exist.  And group II, who had the money, from a drug company --- let me use my PSYCH POWERS and imagine that the study ended up supporting the use of drugs that the company made.

Ferring Pharmaceutical has no product on the market that is directly affected by this research.  Their big sellers are human growth hormone, infertility treatments and a treatment for bed wetting.  They are a privately held Swiss company.

Quote from: tekla on June 30, 2008, 07:01:56 PM

The Dutch study, given its dynamic nature and a control group strikes me as far more compelling.
Compelling is what I want in a drama, accuracy is what I want in a scientific survey.

compelling

adjective
1.    driving or forcing; "compelling ambition"
2.    tending to persuade by forcefulness of argument; "new and compelling evidence"

Quote from: tekla link=topic=38237.msg250905#msg250905
date=1214870516
How about this explanation.  During the process of reincarnation from our previous lives, in the sidpa bardo, we made a mistake and ended up with an unfavorable re-birth.  We are left in corporeal life with the burden of correcting our karmic error.  Prove me wrong, tekla!

Wrong no.  That is grounds for institutionalization in 15 different states however.  And, outside of Bible Colleges, not exactly a scientific proof. 

Well Sweetie, I'll have lots of company!  350 million Buddhists can't be wrong    My statement is supported by descriptions of accidents that can happen in rebirth, sidpa bardo.  It's in The Tibetan Book of the Dead.  Personally, I'd rather have a spiritual flaw which can be corrected the next time around to an organic brain disease!

Oh, don't make me do this....


What difference does it make when the technology was available?

Well, because you stated....

Methodology was used that didn't exist in 1995, namely high resolution Magnetic Resonant Imaging (MRI)

I was only going on what you said, and I knew that by 1995 that the technology you cited was pretty widely in use and available.

I still like 'accurate' date, not 'compelling' data.  But I'm a scientist by training and belief.

Well Sweetie, I'll have lots of company!  350 million Buddhists can't be wrong

So, 2.1 BILLION Christians are even more right, and 2.2 Billion Muslims are even more right. Great choice there honey.

Well, Snuggums, you haven't even addressed my more important questions:

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?

If it's discovered who's not say they won't just lance our hypothalami.

"Well I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than have a pre-frontal labotomy!"

And Muslims and Christians don't explain the process of death and rebirth.  But then none of the Abrahamic religions believe in it.

Please;

Points have been made on both sides.  I've found the academic debate interesting...

...but not the snarkiness the exchanges have devolved into.

Please agree to disagree.

And, to Susan's staff, please lock the topic for a cooling-off if needed

Karen

I'm not being snarky, I'm being a scientist.  It only seems snarky to those who would give creation equal weight with theory.  To wit:

Muslims and Christians don't explain the process of death and rebirth
I might be missing something here, but don't both have a very exact, and precise idea of heaven and hell?  Sure they do, and in fact, one even says "amen, amen unless a man be born again..."  Sure it does.

Second, if I'm wrong because 10, or ten thousand people believe different, does that make me wrong?  No.  It only makes me a minority.  If might makes right - which is the theory here - then we all better be on our knees to Mecca tomorrow morning, cause that's were the numbers are.

But... it not about numbers.  Its about facts.  And that is different.  You can't say 'well study A did not have ...." when it clearly did.  It just didn't use it.  Which is fine, as long as you say, 'they didn't use it'.  It may, or may not make it more, or less valid, but at least be accurate.