Quote from: Becca on November 10, 2009, 04:44:33 PM
I remember that, it was one of the most obscene loads of self serving crap I've ever heard. Doesn't everybody have that arm thing? I thought that's just how skeletons are built. It made me so mad I had to spend a week in the corner gnawing my ankle before I was presentable to the public again.

The angle between my upper and lower arms when fully extended is outside the female norm, and within the male norm; and my elbow doens't have the range of motion (in terms of extension) that most women have. So, to answer your question, no, not everyone has that. But I agree it was a somewhat unfortunate discussion. It's kind of a cop-out: it's a way of saying, "Hey, look, i'm not crazy! Some bona fide scientest measured me, and so you can see it's inevitable that I would be trans!"

C'mon, people, gird up now thy loins like a transsexual! Grow a pair of ill-suited gonads, and figure out what you gender is without the intervention of some compass- and protractor-wielding nerd!

when people tell a TS that 'she is just like a real woman!' with some awe and surprise in their voices she knows she is different.

when a person decides to transition and start hormones and gives everyone the effect of being a teenage girl going through a natural puberty its easy to see that the BSTc brain idea is true.

when a person takes hormones and apart from getting boobs and probably general fatness but doesn't go through that joyful transition like a normal young girl and ends up giving everyone the impression of being a crossdresser with no femaleness then you know that person is not TS as Harry benjamin knew it

Help me understand what you mean Lilac. That's an interesting study, sure. As I recall it was done by LeVay, cohort of Ray Blanchard...but dirty names aside we can't discredit the value of the "nurture" factor here. Just because the "nature" factor might be in order hardly means the proper transition is going to be the same for everyone because the rest of the brain is involved too and won't be ignored. As I remember they did find parts similar to genetic women, but the one transsexual who hadn't been on hormones for a while did have a slightly larger BTSc, and others have had a hard time replicating the data. I might be wrong, I've been so wrapped up in regular brain physiology and crap for the last year that I haven't had the time or energy to keep up on current trans research.

Quote from: Becca on November 16, 2009, 11:51:25 AM
Help me understand what you mean Lilac. That's an interesting study, sure. As I recall it was done by LeVay, cohort of Ray Blanchard...but dirty names aside we can't discredit the value of the "nurture" factor here. Just because the "nature" factor might be in order hardly means the proper transition is going to be the same for everyone because the rest of the brain is involved too and won't be ignored. As I remember they did find parts similar to genetic women, but the one transsexual who hadn't been on hormones for a while did have a slightly larger BTSc, and others have had a hard time replicating the data. I might be wrong, I've been so wrapped up in regular brain physiology and crap for the last year that I haven't had the time or energy to keep up on current trans research.

As I understand it, there are now two separate studies, the 2nd one including a lot of controls to eliminate many of the flaws of the first, but came up with the same conclusions.

Quote from: Becca on November 16, 2009, 11:51:25 AM
Help me understand what you mean Lilac. That's an interesting study, sure.

Study? What study!   It's my own personal observations over many years verified by most of the natural women I know.

Re: physical characters that identifies transsexual?

Bodyshape, bone structure, hip ratio, pelvic ratio, voice, forehead, height (in some cases), position of eye sockets, male hairline (in some cases), hand size (in some cases),
upper body mass compared to lower body mass (in some cases), adams apple (in some cases)  .etc...etc..etc..

I think the question was about comparing people pre-transition to the norms of their assigned gender, and whether there are any physical differences there.

Quote from: Naturally Blonde on November 18, 2009, 06:41:46 AM
Re: physical characters that identifies transsexual?

Bodyshape, bone structure, hip ratio, pelvic ratio, voice, forehead, height (in some cases), position of eye sockets, male hairline (in some cases), hand size (in some cases),
upper body mass compared to lower body mass (in some cases), adams apple (in some cases)  .etc...etc..etc..

That you mean identify a trans from the norm after ttherapy? ^^
I'd add "(in some cases)" everywhere btw, Kim Petras and some others are perfect examples of where hips, voice, forehead, bone structure, and everything else are perfectly normal.
Eyes? what O_o many people, male, trans, all, have feminine eyes and eyes sockets position and whatever..

There are men with gynacoid pelvis, they are not trans, it happens.
20% of women have android pelvis.

http://www.gfmer.ch/Obstetrics_simplified/anatomy_of_the_female_pelvis.htm
Near the end:

Quote
Four types of female pelves were described. Actually, the majority of pelves are of mixed types:

Gynaecoid pelvis(50%):
It is the normal female type.
Inlet is slightly transverse oval.
Sacrum is wide with average concavity and inclination.
Side walls are straight with blunt ischial spines.
Sacro-sciatic notch is wide.
Subpubic angle is 90-100o.
Anthropoid pelvis (25%):
It is ape-like type.
All anteroposterior diameters are long.
All transverse diameters are short.
Sacrum is long and narrow.
Sacro-sciatic notch is wide.
Subpubic angle is narrow.
Android pelvis (20%):
It is a male type.
Inlet is triangular or heart-shaped with anterior narrow apex.
Side walls are converging (funnel pelvis) with projecting ischial spines.
Sacro-sciatic notch is narrow.
Subpubic angle is narrow <90o.
Platypelloid pelvis (5%):
It is a flat female type.
All anteroposterior diameters are short.
All transverse diameters are long.
Sacro-sciatic notch is narrow.
Subpubic angle is wide.

Uhmmm,

What "myself" said!  I think?  Huh??  English please.

Gynaecoid pelvis(50%):
It is the normal female type.
Inlet is slightly transverse oval.
Sacrum is wide with average concavity and inclination.
Side walls are straight with blunt ischial spines.
Sacro-sciatic notch is wide.
Subpubic angle is 90-100o.

I want all that!
I think.  I mean, what the @#%& is an inlet with a slightly transverse oval?  And do I want a wide Sacro-sciatic notch?
Oh, who knows.  Well, I do.  I know I'm in way over my head, and should have known when to stay out.

SusanKG

Loaded questions, God bless a Milk Cow, especially the Strawberry flavoured one's. Everyone has an answer to these flb's, & I will read every little one! 

Quote from: Myself on November 19, 2009, 01:05:17 AM
That you mean identify a trans from the norm after ttherapy? ^^
I'd add "(in some cases)" everywhere btw, Kim Petras and some others are perfect examples of where hips, voice, forehead, bone structure, and everything else are perfectly normal.
Eyes? what O_o many people, male, trans, all, have feminine eyes and eyes sockets position and whatever..

That's an unfair example of someone who started HRT before puberty kicked in!

Yes, I must agree that I can not dissagree that this thread was supposed to be about the normal features of the normal TS people, maybe  even those one's who are afflicted with being very old.

Quote from: Bellaon7 on November 21, 2009, 08:32:11 AM
Yes, I must agree that I can not dissagree that this thread was supposed to be about the normal features of the normal TS people, maybe  even those one's who are afflicted with being very old.

My point was that not many people are 12 when they start HRT. Obviously examples of pre puberty transsexuals  have more feminine atributes. But unfortunitely many of us have already hit some form of puberty before we started our transition.

If we're talking about post-transition, I think the lack of gender-appropriate sex organs and karyotype are the most obvious and reliable, if imperfect and invisible, indicators of being trans.

But occasionally there is a thread around here that's not about passing, and I thought this was one of them. I thought this was about being in the closet.

I though it was about how to tell the difference between TS & other people.

---

Post Merge: November 21, 2009, 05:51:34 PM

---

Quote from: ifonlyican14 on November 05, 2009, 08:26:18 AM
hi
I have read here that transsexual have things in common, i dont mean things due to hormones, but psychological and physical, which exist even before hrt, is this true, is there any thing special about our communication with other people, can you tell

so ... yeah.

Quote from: Naturally Blonde on November 21, 2009, 07:21:22 AM
That's an unfair example of someone who started HRT before puberty kicked in!

Well, there are still differences that I disagree with you on (eyes? eyesockets?)
But yeah, general differences are hips, body size and skull (unless surgery fixed it or was really lucky)

I don't know,  i have very small bones, especially hands and wrists, but i havent transitioned yet, i don't know
any other ts, but i don't think it's a coincidence. I mean, in never felt that manly, because i wasn't built like a "real man".
I think it's too simple to put all the causes of GID into our brain.

Quote from: Sandra90 on November 22, 2009, 05:45:14 AMI think it's too simple to put all the causes of GID into our brain.

I agree. But some are archetypal men and women before hrt/ffs/whatever and it does indeed all seem to be in their heads.

Really case by case thing, transsexuality is. Some seem to have a hormonal imbalance and others seem to be rather normal and yet still insist on being assigned the wrong sex. How confusing.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 21, 2009, 05:25:55 PM
But occasionally there is a thread around here that's not about passing, and I thought this was one of them. I thought this was about being in the closet.

This thread is about physical characteristics that identify a transsexual, which I suppose is a product of looking physically male. If a transsexual is not easily identified as male their physical characteristics are more identifiable as female.