http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/gene-linked-to-transsexuality/

Not the full story:

by Melanie Macfarlane SYDNEY: The first genetic link to male-to-female transsexualism provides new evidence of the biological nature of the condition, say Australian researchers. 'There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however...

Full story here, but I can't access it:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2275/gene-linked-transsexuality

Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 26, 2008, 05:46:04 AM
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/gene-linked-to-transsexuality/

Not the full story:

by Melanie Macfarlane SYDNEY: The first genetic link to male-to-female transsexualism provides new evidence of the biological nature of the condition, say Australian researchers. 'There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however...

Full story here, but I can't access it:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2275/gene-linked-transsexuality

I went to ScienceDirect.com to find the article.  The closest I was able to find was Gene variant more prevalent in transsexuals
The New Scientist, Volume 199, Issue 2667, 30 July 2008, Page 14 Linda Geddes.  I have to wait until I am in school and access to it's server to view the article.  (I only have "guest access" at home.  ScienceDirect's server recognizes if you are accessing from home or an "educational center."  This afffects what I can access.)

Once I find it, I will share what I find.

One of the commenters on Questioning Transphobia posted a summary of the study, as well.

I was able to access the mention article and it beings up a question.  Lets say that they have found this gene and they say that is how to find out if one has a trend to being Trans.

What if they have proof now, but someone does not have the gene?  Does that mean that said person is not really Trans?  Or is Transsexuality really physiological after all.  Would one person negate the findings?

What if you were tested and you do not have the gene?  What would you do?  Me, personally I would still continue with full time and go ahead with SRS.

The BBC article on this has chosen to refer to transsexual women as "male transsexual" in the title. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7689007.stm

They're usually pretty good at responding to complaints about this sort of thing so if you're willing... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/feedback/complaints_form.stm

Posted on: October 26, 2008, 02:18:56 pm

---

Quote from: Janet Lynn on October 26, 2008, 10:58:56 AM
I was able to access the mention article and it beings up a question.  Lets say that they have found this gene and they say that is how to find out if one has a trend to being Trans.

What if they have proof now, but someone does not have the gene?  Does that mean that said person is not really Trans?  Or is Transsexuality really physiological after all.  Would one person negate the findings?

What if you were tested and you do not have the gene?  What would you do?  Me, personally I would still continue with full time and go ahead with SRS.

The results are better looked at from another angle.  Not the 'trans women are more likely to be slightly androgen insensitive' angle but that 'essentially male bodied people who are slightly androgen insensitive are more likely to be female identified than those who're not'.  Which really just says that those who are a somewhat intersex (in this particular manner) are less likely to identify male.  This seems pretty bloody obvious to me

It in no way means that those with the 'normal' version of the androgen receptor can't be trans, just means they're possibly somewhat less likely to be.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on October 26, 2008, 10:58:56 AM
I was able to access the mention article and it beings up a question.  Lets say that they have found this gene and they say that is how to find out if one has a trend to being Trans.

What if they have proof now, but someone does not have the gene?  Does that mean that said person is not really Trans?  Or is Transsexuality really physiological after all.  Would one person negate the findings?

What if you were tested and you do not have the gene?  What would you do?  Me, personally I would still continue with full time and go ahead with SRS.

No, it does not mean that.  No doubt we will discover that a variety of factors, one genetic, can cause a female norm neurological development in a physiological male pre-natally.  What it does mean, in light of the Danish BSTc studies, the recent German studies confirming that classically transsexed women have a female norm olfactory response to phernomones and the numerous studies confirming the cognative functions of classically transsexed women also fall within female norms and lastly the confirmation by Harvard Medical that the marker for response to estrogen treatment yields results that indicate a difference between AGs and classically transsexed women that can predict post-surgical satisfaction and orgasmic response.  What it means that the transsexuality is a choice and psychological crowd is dead wrong.  Not one single study in the past fifteen years confirms their position.......every single study points towards the fact that classic transsexuality is a neurological intersexed condition.......every single study.  This issue should finally be considered decided.  Us hated HBSers win.

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 26, 2008, 03:23:59 PM
This issue should finally be considered decided.  Us hated HBSers win.

I've long believed that it's more likely hard wired as opposed to psychological. The question of choice is simply whether or not to act on it. And I don't hate HBSers. 

Z

Quote from: Zythyra on October 26, 2008, 04:55:30 PM

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 26, 2008, 03:23:59 PM
This issue should finally be considered decided.  Us hated HBSers win.

I've long believed that it's more likely hard wired as opposed to psychological. The question of choice is simply whether or not to act on it. And I don't hate HBSers. 

Z

The only HBSers I've ever had a problem with are those who wish to deny non-binary trans people access to medical treatment and those who think their gender identities are more valid than those of others.  I've always been open-minded as to the etiology of transsexualism, and think that biological factors play a significant part.

Well, given that I suspect that this study demonstrates that people HBSers want to dismiss as "transgender" (in this context, used as a slur) as having the same genetic tendency as other trans women, I don't know if "win" is the best word.

Also, I'm hoping we won't see genetic testing required for diagnosis, or physicians telling women that their babies are potentially trans, and thus recommending abortion. That's not a win, either.

Posted on: October 26, 2008, 05:25:31 pm

---

Quote from: Andra on October 26, 2008, 05:21:28 PM
The only HBSers I've ever had a problem with are those who wish to deny non-binary trans people access to medical treatment and those who think their gender identities are more valid than those of others.  I've always been open-minded as to the etiology of transsexualism, and think that biological factors play a significant part.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I don't hate HBSers, but I hate a lot of the arguments some HBSers use.

For my full discussion on this issue see my latest blog entry.......you know where it is.

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 26, 2008, 03:23:59 PM
This issue should finally be considered decided.  Us hated HBSers win.

At which game?

Hatred is pointless, as is elitism, arrogance, and the attitude of "I'm going to prove I am who I say I am by doing everything in my power to prove you're not who you say you are, since that will somehow validate my existance and to hell with all the people I step on in order to rid myself of my insecurity."

*sigh*

It's infantile. It serves no purpose other than to alienate and divide those who would achieve much more by standing united.

Nothing is ever decided. Nothing is ever set in stone. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that based on current knowledge, this is what we believe. Which, since there are so many more unknowns than knowns in this world, says really nothing at all, except for providing a method by which one group of people can sit in judgement over another group of people.

'Truth' is perception. Conclusions are little more than expressions of individual perception of statistical data. My opinion is that one way isn't the only way, nor should it be taken as such.

As Nietzche said:

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."

Yeah, I think you're inaccurately representing a lot of the views in opposition to HBS.

Like, many people who aren't interested in confirming a biological cause aren't opposed to the idea that there could be a biological cause, but to the ramifications of confirming such a cause.

Quote from: Andra on October 26, 2008, 05:21:28 PM

Quote from: Zythyra on October 26, 2008, 04:55:30 PM

Quote from: nooneinparticular on October 26, 2008, 03:23:59 PM
This issue should finally be considered decided.  Us hated HBSers win.

I've long believed that it's more likely hard wired as opposed to psychological. The question of choice is simply whether or not to act on it. And I don't hate HBSers. 

Z

The only HBSers I've ever had a problem with are those who wish to deny non-binary trans people access to medical treatment and those who think their gender identities are more valid than those of others.  I've always been open-minded as to the etiology of transsexualism, and think that biological factors play a significant part.

ditto

Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 26, 2008, 06:08:28 PM
Yeah, I think you're inaccurately representing a lot of the views in opposition to HBS.

Like, many people who aren't interested in confirming a biological cause aren't opposed to the idea that there could be a biological cause, but to the ramifications of confirming such a cause.

^^^^
Bingo.

If they know what causes it, will we see mothers being warned they may have a trans child so they can abort?

I mean, I'm glad to see an identified correlation, but they haven't proven a causal relationship and the sample group is pretty small, so it's hard to accurately predict statistics off of it.

It's worthy of further investigation, but it doesn't prove anything. There may also need to be an environmental trigger with the gene pattern to cause it to happen, we simply don't know.

My problems with the HBS guidelines aside, this is interesting research, I'd like to see it extended.

Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 26, 2008, 06:08:28 PM
Yeah, I think you're inaccurately representing a lot of the views in opposition to HBS.

Like, many people who aren't interested in confirming a biological cause aren't opposed to the idea that there could be a biological cause, but to the ramifications of confirming such a cause.

I never said anything about HBS one way or the other.

What I expressed in that post was the distaste for certain viewpoints adopted in light of such knowledge, whether that knowledge be factual or otherwise.

Finding a biological cause is all well and good, and if one is found that contributes towards an explanation of some people's transsexuality, then fair enough, so much the better. But the key word, no, letter in that is "finding a biological cause". What I have a problem with is if that changes to "finding the biological cause", as though everything else experienced by any other person that doesn't happen to fit with that biological cause is somehow irrelevent and less legitimate.

It isn't the genetics that worry me, it's people's attitudes based on the findings.

Exactly what I was trying to say.  Should others, using science, tell me that I am not Trans.  It would become another reason to discriminate against the community.  HBS is, at best, a good guideline.  I don't need anyone to tell me that I am insane for feeling the way I feel about myself.

The only way they could ever know is to walk a mile in my moccasins.

Take cancer, for example. There are innumerable different variations of the disease, multiple causes, even as far as psychosomatic, but we don't go around saying "well your cancer is the wrong type of cancer, technically we don't consider it cancer, so we're not going to operate and attempt to fix it... you can just go ahead and die." Why should this be different?

It shouldn't matter how you came to feel the way you feel. What should matter, in my opinion, is that you do, and if it's detrimental to your way of life, causing you pain and sorrow, affecting your ability to function within society, and even threatening your existence, then you should be afforded the same level of respect and consideration as anyone else presenting with the condition, no matter what initial cause brought you to that stage, physiological or psychological.

Quote from: Leiandra on October 26, 2008, 06:26:45 PM

I never said anything about HBS one way or the other.

What I expressed in that post was the distaste for certain viewpoints adopted in light of such knowledge, whether that knowledge be factual or otherwise.

That comment was aimed at nooneinparticular above, in reference to what she's posted here and on her blog. I was trying to add to your point, not argue with or at you.

QuoteFinding a biological cause is all well and good, and if one is found that contributes towards an explanation of some people's transsexuality, then fair enough, so much the better. But the key word, no, letter in that is "finding a biological cause". What I have a problem with is if that changes to "finding the biological cause", as though everything else experienced by any other person that doesn't happen to fit with that biological cause is somehow irrelevent and less legitimate.

It isn't the genetics that worry me, it's people's attitudes based on the findings.

And what I was talking about in my post is exactly what you're saying here - I agree with you.

Posted on: October 26, 2008, 08:20:46 pm

---

Quote from: Leiandra on October 26, 2008, 06:46:09 PM
It shouldn't matter how you came to feel the way you feel. What should matter, in my opinion, is that you do, and if it's detrimental to your way of life, causing you pain and sorrow, affecting your ability to function within society, and even threatening your existence, then you should be afforded the same level of respect and consideration as anyone else presenting with the condition, no matter what initial cause brought you to that stage, physiological or psychological.

Yes, this. Why you're trans isn't important, when you first realized isn't important. What is important is that you are trans right now and need to do something about it.

Posted on: October 26, 2008, 08:22:44 pm

---

Oh, and it looks like it's not that significant after all:

QuoteThe longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.

Quote from: Lisa Harney on October 26, 2008, 08:58:01 PM
That comment was aimed at nooneinparticular above, in reference to what she's posted here and on her blog. I was trying to add to your point, not argue with or at you.

Ah, I'm sorry, honey. I thought you were talking to me.

*hugs*

I'm sorry for not being clear.