Quote from: jmaxley on January 17, 2011, 04:50:20 PM
I'd have a whole list of things considered female too.  I get the "fake male" feeling alot.  Partly because my body is female.  Partly because my gender identity leans more towards genderqueer than strictly male.  I've never felt like a woman but don't usually feel like a man either.  I can feel masculine or feminine though, but prefer feeling masculine a whole lot more.  Most of the time I feel like neither.  I'd still much rather have a male body though.  I HATE having a female body.

Same.  You pretty much said everything for me (are you my twin?  ).    My list for "male" attributes is very very small.  In fact, I don't think there are really any other than "I feel male" (albeit a feminine male).  It's so hard to describe.  I would be much more comfortable in a male body than the body I'm in right now.

Quote from: LukasGabriel on January 17, 2011, 05:48:18 PM
Same.  You pretty much said everything for me (are you my twin?  ).    My list for "male" attributes is very very small.  In fact, I don't think there are really any other than "I feel male" (albeit a feminine male).  It's so hard to describe.  I would be much more comfortable in a male body than the body I'm in right now.

Just want to clarify: When I suggest making a list, I don't think it should be a list of female and male attributes.  I don't think that would be helpful.

I would suggest making a list about why you think you are male/female or should present that way.

Quote from: SnailPace on January 18, 2011, 12:53:47 AM
Just want to clarify: When I suggest making a list, I don't think it should be a list of female and male attributes.  I don't think that would be helpful.

I would suggest making a list about why you think you are male/female or should present that way.

What should the list consist of?  I'm getting a bit confused because some people may have nothing to put but that they feel male or female, and then maybe a couple of other things.

Quote from: LukasGabriel on January 18, 2011, 08:41:47 AM
What should the list consist of?  I'm getting a bit confused because some people may have nothing to put but that they feel male or female, and then maybe a couple of other things.

I agree.  One of the first thing I told my therapist is that I knew I needed help when I understood "normal" people didn't think the way I was thinking.  To me any such list as its been proposed is no more valid then the COGATI or any of the other so call "tests" out there.

Quote from: regan on January 18, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
I agree.  One of the first thing I told my therapist is that I knew I needed help when I understood "normal" people didn't think the way I was thinking.  To me any such list as its been proposed is no more valid then the COGATI or any of the other so call "tests" out there.

Well, I don't propose that making a list will be a fix-all cure in any way.  And it definitely won't be a "diagnosis".  It's merely a tool that could potentially calm some confusion in questioning individuals.

For example, I'll make a list for myself. 

A big disclaimer for this list.  All of what I list are things I once thought but have now come to terms with.  They are not all logical or thought out reasons or politically correct.  I will address all of this afterwards.

Reasons I think I am a man:
- Sense of "otherness" with my body, do not relate
- Sometimes I forget that my body is this way
- Very strong desire for male sexual organs
- Feel most comfortable in male clothing
- Feel most comfortable being reffered to in masculine ways (pronouns)

Reasons I thought I was a woman:
- Raised as a girl
- I didn't understand what is was to be trans
- Attracted to men
- Did not feel terribly strong aversions to my body, only a strong disconnect

Now, I go over my list to "rethink" everything I wrote.

The first thing on the list that I realize isn't right is "Feel most comfortable in male clothing".  What clothing you wear is not necessarily reflective of your gender.  Other than that, I figure my first list is okay.

As I move on to the second, I realize the first two go together.  Because I didn't understand trans issues, I thought that being raised a girl automatically made one.
As for "Attracted to Men", I now know that sexuality and gender are not related.
And as for the last, I believe that the "disconnect" is what is shared among all trans people.  It is the different personalities that interpret this feeling into hatred for our own bodies at times.

In conclusion, this is only an excersice that can help you get in touch with your own thoughts on the matter.  By no way is it a "transsexuality test".

Hi Perlita and regan.

Been reading on the connection between the

Found this synopsis which appears to sum the theory up quite well.

http://www.changelingaspects.com/Articles/Male%20To%20Female%20Transsexual%20Individuals%20Have%20Female%20Neuron%20Numbers%20In%20The%20Central%20Subdivision%20Of%20The%20Bed%20Nucleus%20Of%20The%20Stria%20Terminalis.htm

Also found this rather dubious critique;

http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/brain-sex_critique.html I get the impression, by reading this and some other information on this woman, that she may be a little disturbed. Sad. Never-th-less, it is quite interestng, if only to force you to remember the actual details of the research, rather than the version of Ms Lawrence.

This one which was referred to by Perlita. I confess, I haven't studied this one in any detail. I've already read the others quite carefully. This one has considerable detail. I'll keep it for reference.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

And finally, this one. Which is the principal source I've used. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/22/3/1027.pdf


The area is described, in a number of sources, as being part of the anxiety and stress response.

Now I know, form clinical observation, that anxiety and stress response are not sex dependant. Both sexes can experience these as a disorder, in similar fashion, though men, most likely for social reasons, tend to be less forthcomming with symptoms and asking for help. (Actually, it's probably just as well. In my experience, when men have crumbled to the point that they are in pieces, they rarely get any sort of positive reaction from anyone, including health professionals. A possible throwback to the custom of the honourable suicide??).

But I'm curious as to the actual function of this organ and the relationship between size and function.

The principal difference I've observed, beween men and women is their differing social response, their almost universal customs in peer group forming.

(I've made reference to models of male and female peer groups in other threads. I get the impression that some here seem to dislike these models. I apologise for this. I find it easier to think in pictures. I will give brief resume of the model I use, if only for the humour).

Males tend to form themselves into pyrramid shaped peer groups where their competitiveness seems to be directed at seeking to undermine those in more secure positions, usurp, or to those that seek to imfultrate, putdown. Generally, their agressivness tends to be confined to those they are actively seeking to undermine, including other peer groups. It also appears to be, generally, short lived.

Females tend to form themselves into peer groups more akin to a flat line, with a bump near the centre, or to on side, indicating the apha. The members of the female peer group, apart from the alpha, seem to be less conscious of hierarchial status, other than their physical proximity to the alpha, which is invariably fluid. Their agression toward those they are rejecting appears to be more persistant and so, ultimately, more vicious and personal, if only because of its persistance.

A further difference appears to be that in male peer groups, acceptance into the group appears to be almost by general acclamation, while in female peer groups, the alpha seems to be the factor.

I'm attempting to rationalise the differing social organisation of males and females with this differing brain function. I don't know of any differnce in relation to stress response, since both seem to have an equal variation in this regard.

Yet, since this appears to be the principal difference in brain anatomy between males and FtMs and females and MtFs, there should be a relationship. If not in the social behaviour, then is some other innate behaviour which is marked by sex differences.



Second point.

The main article suggested that the difference in structure of this organ seems to emerge in adulthood. Is there a possible relationship to the ultimate irregularity of this structure in transgendered individuals and their desire, in childhood, to adopt an opposite gender? (The implications are rather horrific to be honest).



Third point.

How many transgender individuals have been found not to have this physical irregularity?

Has any invstigation into the behaviour and relationships been done on those, not profession to be transgender, yet haveing this physical iregularity?

Thank you so much Perlita for the aditional information.

I have been looking for references to early development of the BST.

I found this. It isn't specifially related to social function as such, rather, sex dependant learning in response to stress. But is very interesting.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~shors/pdf/Bangasser%20and%20Shors%20BNST%20JofN%202008.pdf

It also goes some way to answering my third point, about those with and without the irregularity, not demonstrating and demonstrating the effect.

Well, as you know, my principal training in this area is behavioural. (Being a psychiatric nurse).

I see a lot of gender specific behaviours in almost all mammals. The news that non-human primates have local behaviours has reinforced the notion that the human peer groups are probably innate.

I have noticed that the tendency to form peer groups seems to be universal. I have mainly done this by examining the structure of the different religious groups in different soceties. Now I appreciate the claims of female dominated societies such as the Amazons. I'm afraid I have to be convinced that, if some of the more extreme claims about women adopting the agressive behaviour of men, oppressing the males in their society, in the process, are true, they are anything more than an aberation. Possibly drug induced.

So I've concluded that human behaviour is largely innate and the gender differences are also.

There are a number of important questions remaining. The general similarity in some aspects of social organisation which seem to appear in non-western European societies, for example. Given the clear advantages of the European model in some respects, it seemed strange that other societies were not attempting to pursue these. I considered the innate notion. Europeans do possess some physical characteristics which are unique among humans, non black hair, non-brown eyes, (as a rule rather than an aberation). But I realised that, to a large extent, many non European societies have adopted many European traits. What they haven't mastered, on a societial level, is the virtual elimination of corruption. Indeed, corruption is seen as being largely normal, even to the extent of being unnoticed. A parrallel might be the class system in the UK. (You'd be surprised at how many people here seem to be barely aware of it).

Since other primates have been clearly shown to adopt local customs, as varients of essential behaviour, this further supports the notion that behaviour is essentially innate.

The question of sexual deviance is perhaps clouded by the tendency, in many mammals, to reject those that don't conform to a norm. This is, of course, a survival necessity. Though I don't doubt, that eventually, evidence of sexual deviance in primates, being tolerated in some respects, will be discovered. (You probably, like me, recall a time when it was claimed that only humans used tools!!). I can see no reason, other than competing within peer groups, for this not to be the case. The model I constructed of human society, prior to established communities, about 40,000 years ago, worked a lot more successfully, with the inclusion of sexual deviants. Given that this model would have functioned for, possibly, over a million years, it would be strange that it would reject such and obvious advantage.

I understand your points about the biological/anatomical differences in other animals. I'm always very sceptacle about any findings based upon studies of non human species.  It does seem to indicate that there is some importance to this organ in relation to differences is behaviour based upon gender.

Quote from: Alex201 on January 15, 2011, 10:10:44 PM
Sometimes I just wanna say " ->-bleeped-<- it, I'm gonna be a guy even if I have a female brain". If I am cisgender..then I so envy transgender people.

This to me reads as: "F* society and such. I KNOW who I AM. I'm a GUY"

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Good to hear from you Perlita,

I agree with you that the coming century will be very exciting. So many technologies seem set for greater discoveries than we could have imagined, even 40 years ago.

Sadly, unless someone figures out a way to extend our lives by a larg margin, it seems unlikely you and I will see the end of the century.

I can imagine, people then, looking at our rather crude, 2D video images, lacking any sense of proportion or possibly aroma, thinking we are really quite primitive!!

Anyway. Really looking forward to some criticism of my last contribution. #32. Only with criticism can we see flaws and modify our ideas.

Hello,
I do have a question that has been going through my mind. They have been using hormones in the food supply for over 80 years but by itself its not enough to change much but with all of the others chemicals that are also in use and some have been shown to have some properties of hormones the question i have is if we know that some medications when combined can actual have a multiplied effect is it possible depending on the combination effect could this also be a factor?
The reason i ask is because i have seen the effects of a chemical that was thought to be safe but it ended up causing multiple birth defects in my sister. My mom had worked in ER and at the time they were still using drop ether and they were able to trace her birth defects back to the drop ether.
Thanks
Sarah


All that is gold does not glitter,Not all who wander are lost,The old that is strong does not whither,Deep roots are not reached by the frost,From the ashes a fire shall be woken,A light from the shadows shall spring.
Fellowship of the Ring JR Tolkien

Sarah.

This seems to be on of the chestnuts that pops up every now and again. I understand that the principal source of the increase in female hormones in the environment, for example, is the contraceptive pill.

These are just my own musings on this matter.

Chemical polution may have caused some people to be transgender. But that doesn't explain why so many were clearly transgender, before the industrial era. The numbers are explained by the greater openness of society.

If it transpires that many people are transgender because of chemical polution, how exactly does that affect transgener people?

If you are certain that your sister's problems were caused by chemical polution, it doesn't change the fact that your sister is what she is and deserved to be managed appropriately.

Quote from: Jerica on January 20, 2011, 04:31:29 PM
This to me reads as: "F* society and such. I KNOW who I AM. I'm a GUY"

And there's nothing wrong with that.

As a community, I think we waste alot of time and effort trying to prove that we are who we are.  Why should we have to prove our transgenderedness?  All it really does is divide us into whos more transgendered then who.  All that really should matter is our own sense of ourself and what we choose to do about it.