What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#61  Postby Beatsong » Jan 19, 2014 8:46 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Beatsong wrote:But what if it's all just a great big con? What if there's not actually any such thing as gender at all, but people have just been brainwashed to believe that there is, and that certain clusters of psychological traits "make them" one gender or the other?

You mean what if gender is a social construct?

It is. Who said that gender dysphoria isn't a result of societal pressure.


The NHS, for a start:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dys ... auses.aspx

However, recent studies have suggested that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.

More research is needed before the causes of gender dysphoria can be fully understood.


Much of the development that determines your gender identity – that is, the gender that you feel yourself to be – happens in the womb (uterus).


Gender development is complex and there are many possible variations that can cause feelings of a mismatch between a person’s biological sex and their gender identity.

In rare cases, the hormones that trigger the development of sex and gender may not work properly on the brain, gonads and genitals, causing variations between them. For example, the biological sex (as determined physically by the gonads and genitals) could be male, while the gender identity (as determined by the brain) could be female.


At no point on this, or any of the linked pages as far as I can see, is there any discussion about exactly what "gender identity" actually IS, or anything to suggest, as you put it so straightforwardly (and IMO, correctly) that it is simply a "social construct". Indeed, the entire site is predicated on the assumption that it's automatically inherent to everybody:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dys ... ition.aspx

Gender identity is your personal sense of which gender you belong to. For example, if a person sees themselves as female, then their gender identity is female.

For most people, their biological sex and gender identity are the same. However, some people experience a mis-match between them, and this is called gender dysphoria.


For me, and presumably for you too, going on what you say above, these statements are lies. Most people's biological sex and gender identity are not the same, because most people don't have a "gender identity" according to the definition of "your personal sense of which gender you belong to". Most people accept that society decides they belong to a particular SEX, based on their biological characteristics. And most people aren't excessively disturbed, to the point of being unable to function effectively, by the fact that that society loads a whole bunch of other crap onto that. But I am yet to see any evidence that most people have a sense of gender identity, of their own, based on feeling that they "belong" to one gender or the other.

You don't. I don't. Scarlett doesn't. Laklak doesn't. So who, prey tell, are these "most people"?

Isn't this just some shit that some people made up? And isn't it just a little bit worrying that that made up shit is now an official statement of the country's primary health authority?

Me, I agree with you. But you're wrong to assume that everyone else does. The people that actually set the agenda about this stuff don't appear to.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#62  Postby aban57 » Jan 19, 2014 9:13 pm

Don't worry Beatsong, I don't think your questions are offensive. On the contrary, I perfectly understand them, and I'm glad you ask them. Please go on :)
Here is how I explained my situation to my best friend, she's been the first to know. It may not be perfectly right on the scientific level, but I think it's close enough.
A human can be defined by 2 traits : his gender, and his sexual orientation. Society tells us that for each one, we have to fit in one of 2 boxes. Male/female for the gender, leaning towards girls when you're a boy, and vice versa for the sexual orientation.
But in both cases, there is a small range of people that doesnt belong to any of the 2 boxes.
Sexual orientation has homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality... And then there are what they call deviances. Transvestism, gerontophilia, zoophilia, all that kind of stuff.
Gender has hermaphrodites, transsexuals, cross-dressers.
In both cases, it's innate. You don't become homosexual, you don't become transsexual. (By the way, if everyone on the planet were aware of that simple fact,hatred towards these categories of people would be much less important)

Back to your question Beatsong.
For "normal" people, there is adequation between physical gender and "felt" gender. That's why most people don't even make the difference between the 2. So I guess it's hard to conceive that someone can fell like he/she belongs to the opposite gender. Just like some people have trouble conceiving how a man can lean towards men.
Our brain can't invent, it only infers from what it already knows. I guess you'll just have to accept it :thumbup:
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7501
Age: 44
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#63  Postby Evolving » Jan 19, 2014 9:36 pm

Beatsong wrote:...that most people have a sense of gender identity, of their own, based on feeling that they "belong" to one gender or the other.

You don't. I don't. Scarlett doesn't. Laklak doesn't....


I thought the whole point of Scarlett's post was that she does have a clear female gender identity and was imagining what it would be like to have that same identity and yet have male genitalia. (Scarlett herself is obviously far better placed than me to expound upon her point!)
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 12533
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#64  Postby Scarlett » Jan 19, 2014 9:45 pm

Hmm, not as simple as that Evo. I said earlier, I don't know what it feels like to be a "woman", I only know what it feels like to be me and I happen to be a woman. I, personally, don't feel that it necessarily implies I have anything in common with other women any more than men though.

My response earlier about a mastectomy and gaining of a penis, just means that I'm happy being me, I like having a woman's body, I like what it can do, and I wouldn't change it.
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#65  Postby Beatsong » Jan 19, 2014 10:34 pm

aban57 wrote:Don't worry Beatsong, I don't think your questions are offensive. On the contrary, I perfectly understand them, and I'm glad you ask them. Please go on :)


Thanks. This is a touchy subject and I've pretty much been accused of transphobia when raising such things before. But my concerns are not about the decisions of trans people - all of which I accept take place within an imperfect world and have to be based on giving them the best possible life and alleviating their suffering within that world. My concerns are with the wider concept of "gender identity" as it is applied to so-called "normal" people. That concept seems to be full of holes and essentially come down, as I described above, to made-up shit.

Of course if we actually looked at that scientifically and changed the way we conceive of gender in general, it would naturally change the background upon which trans people make their decisions. It would change for example the assumptions that psychiatrists etc. bring to their counselling of trans people (such as the assumption that everyone else has a subjective "gender identity" corresponding to their sex). That would surely have an effect on how trans people view their lives and their options, but I couldn't possibly say what that effect would be.

Back to your question Beatsong.
For "normal" people, there is adequation between physical gender and "felt" gender. That's why most people don't even make the difference between the 2.


I dispute that, as I've described above. I dispute the assumption that "normal" people HAVE a "felt" gender. There is no evidence for that assumption. And the thing that is being assumed isn't even properly defined and noone (including the people claiming it's real) seems to be able to describe what it actually is.

It's like God. Until someone can show me some evidence that it actually exists, I believe it doesn't. It certainly doesn't exist for me (although I accept that everyone's different, and it could exist for some people and not others).

So I guess it's hard to conceive that someone can fell like he/she belongs to the opposite gender.


Yes, but probably not for the reason you think. I find it hard to understand what is actually meant by "belonging to the opposite gender" because I don't believe that everybody else actually feels they belong to their own gender in the first place. So it's being defined by contrast with something, but the something that it's supposed to contrast with isn't real.

It's like defining a category of people by the fact that they "believe in a different kind of pink unicorn from everybody else". How does that make any sense, when everybody else doesn't actually believe in pink unicorns in the first place?

What is clearly undeniable is that there is a very real and very specific form of psychological distress experienced by a small number people, in relation to the gender category that society imposes upon them according to their sex. The problem is that the only language, the only structure that those people have to make sense of that problem is the language and structure that society provides them with. If that language and structure is made up shit, then there's a problem, isn't there?
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#66  Postby susu.exp » Jan 20, 2014 1:25 am

[quote="scott1328";p="1907090"It is. Who said that gender dysphoria isn't a result of societal pressure.[/quote]

I'm about to say it: Gender dysphoria is not a result of societal pressure. It's not as if there weren't alternatives if that were the case and transitioning is hardly something somebody does to escape social pressures.

But to give my 5 cents to the thread as a whole - I see some broken communication there. And I hope I can help to unbreak it.

To start off, let's talk about gender identity in Cis people. I'll start with an analogy: A sports fan, middle aged, somewhat potato-shaped and drunk exits a stadium. He tells you that "We have just beaten *rival club*". "No", you think, "the team you are rooting for just beat *rival club*, you've just been sitting in the stands drinking beer." That in a nutshell is an identity - an association with some group that let's you parttake in the groups successes without you having to actually do anything. Gender identity serves the same purpose, just that rather than Arsenal or Chelsea people are identifying with team schlong or team vajayjay. In short, it is a crutch. You want to see that crutch in work, read a book by Barbara and Allan Pease - they are all pretty exchangable. The payoff for having a gender identity is that all possible human abilities fall into two categories: Those you are by default better at than half the world population and those where your inabilities aren't personal weaknesses, but just the nature of your sex.

Now, this kind of construction is rather fragile, for reasons so obvious I don't think I need to list them. But it's precisely that fragility that makes it so dangerous - people are willing to defend their house of cards. Transsexuals seeking physical treatment that aren't careful in being as unthreatening to their therapists delusions risk not getting treatment. Most transpeople I know do not buy into gender identity as a concept, but they also use it to communicate with cis society at large.

And that's the crux here. From what I gather from beatsong and tnt666 they aren't ordinary cis people. I do agree that there's little point in having a gender identity (if that wasn't clear from the above). Taking that view and being public about it is what makes me genderqueer. I don't preassume that either of the two are comfortable with that term, but trying to navigate a society in which having a gender identity is seen as a requirement for sanity led me to adopt the term.

One thing to note here is that while a rejection of the notion of gender identity is threatening to cis-normativity, it's also a notion that allows transsexuals to communicate with their delusional therapists. It's hard to navigate this - but I wouldn't hold anybody in need of treatment to the standard I have otherwise. If hospitals did refuse to treat nonbelivers, any atheist willing to say a hail mary on entry is excused from my POV and in this case we have a comparable situation.

Note that this is similar to the tensions between gays and lesbians on on hand and bisexuals on the other. The mere existence of bisexuals implies that sexual orientation isn't neccessarily about sex (or gender? - oh, the cans of worms that question opens), which seems to challenge both homosexual and heterosexual orientations alike. But it really doesn't, because one of them already is under a lot of social pressure, while the other one smugly proclaims to be "normal". Asking transpeople what gender identity is supposed to mean falls into pretty much the same category.
susu
susu.exp
 
Posts: 1690

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#67  Postby Mayak » Jan 20, 2014 2:22 am

susu.exp wrote:That in a nutshell is an identity - an association with some group that let's you parttake in the groups successes without you having to actually do anything.


Huh? I can call myself an Astronomer all I want, but who the hell is going to believe me. Maybe, I can also be Godzilla? Let's go back to your analogy, the fans identity is much more than just sitting in a seat and drinking a bear. He could have watched that team and went to their games growing up, he could know every fact about them, many of the members could be from where he lives, he could personally know some of them, and so on. In fact, he could ask you a question about the team and if you stutter to answer, he will just write you off as not a true fan. He's not just partaking in their success, the team is a part of his life. It's a reflection of his life experiences, not a mere association he decided to makeup on the spot. Fact is, some associations are closer than others and associations have a certain threshold before they can become an accepted part of your identity. You can't just walk into a random house and say, "Your son is here!".

Sure, you could say all this is a social construct. But, social constructs are a hugely important part of our lives. Especially, the construct of identity. Which is a very important reflection of how we live our lives.


susu.exp wrote:You want to see that crutch in work, read a book by Barbara and Allan Pease - they are all pretty exchangable. The payoff for having a gender identity is that all possible human abilities fall into two categories: Those you are by default better at than half the world population and those where your inabilities aren't personal weaknesses, but just the nature of your sex.


Are you saying by default men's abilities are assumed to be than women's?
Mayak
 
Posts: 1172

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#68  Postby susu.exp » Jan 20, 2014 2:40 am

Mayak wrote:Huh? I can call myself an Astronomer all I want, but who the hell is going to believe me. Maybe, I can also be Godzilla? Let's go back to your analogy, the fans identity is much more than just sitting in a seat and drinking a bear. He could have watched that team and went to their games growing up, he could know every fact about them, many of the members could be from where he lives, he could personally know some of them, and so on. In fact, he could ask you a question about the team and if you stutter to answer, he will just write you off as not a true fan. He's not just partaking in their success, the team is a part of his life. It's a reflection of his life experiences, not a mere association he decided to makeup on the spot. Fact is, some associations are closer than others and associations have a certain threshold before they can become an accepted part of your identity. You can't just walk into a random house and say, "Your son is here!".


That doesn't take away anything I wrote. He still did not contribute to the teams success on thei field, did he? I doubt people make up gender identities "on the spot" either and I do not doubt that they are important to them.

Mayak wrote:Sure, you could say all this is a social construct. But, social constructs are a hugely important part of our lives. Especially, the construct of identity. Which is a very important reflection of how we live our lives.


You are using the term "social construct" incorrectly here. A social construct is the relationship between a signifier and that which it signifies. While social constructs are important to identity - identities themselves aren't social constructs.

Mayak wrote:Are you saying by default men's abilities are assumed to be than women's?


There seems to be at least one word missing from that sentence.
susu
susu.exp
 
Posts: 1690

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#69  Postby Mayak » Jan 20, 2014 4:11 am

susu.exp wrote:That doesn't take away anything I wrote. He still did not contribute to the teams success on thei field, did he? I doubt people make up gender identities "on the spot" either and I do not doubt that they are important to them.


Actually, fans contribute a great deal to a team's success. Great fans know how to pump a team up. And seeing the same crew of loyal fans game after game, really adds to how you play. The dynamic between fans and their teams is a huge part of any sport.

Your analogy implied an on the spot type of identity which had zero importance between the person and what they identify with.

susu.exp wrote:You are using the term "social construct" incorrectly here. A social construct is the relationship between a signifier and that which it signifies. While social constructs are important to identity - identities themselves aren't social constructs.


Huh? A signifier and what it signifies? No clue what you're saying, and neither does Google. Is English not your first language?

susu.exp wrote:There seems to be at least one word missing from that sentence.


Yes, there is one word missing. Since it's extremely obvious, one would think you'd answer anyway...
Mayak
 
Posts: 1172

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#70  Postby susu.exp » Jan 20, 2014 2:26 pm

Mayak wrote:Huh? A signifier and what it signifies? No clue what you're saying, and neither does Google. Is English not your first language?


It isn't. But the statement I made is rather legible I think (and in fact typing in signifier into google gives you a suggestion from google to complete this to "signifier and signified", with the first hit giving some relevant background). The classical example is the relationship between the word "tree" and what people think of when they read it (their notion of what a tree is). That relationship is a social construct - in this case it's particular to a specific language, in other cases it's only relevant to particular cultural groups.

susu.exp wrote:Yes, there is one word missing. Since it's extremely obvious, one would think you'd answer anyway...


It's not obvious to me at all. If it were obvious I would have answered.
susu
susu.exp
 
Posts: 1690

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#71  Postby PCS » Jan 30, 2014 11:20 am

First of all, my advice to the OP even though I am not sure he will be back any-time soon. Do what you want with your body, do what you want with your looks, do what you want with your lifestyle, wear what you want, when you want, and grow a thick skin, realise people may be hard on you, don't let them get you down. No one's business what you choose to do so long you are not hurting anyone. :thumbup:

In relation to suicide, a point brought up earlier in the thread: I quote, from this study which I had seen many moons ago:
Little information is available about completed suicide among transgender individuals (Mathy, 2002b). Because of researchers’ greater access to transsexuals who seek medical treatments such as sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy, studies have tended to focus on this subgroup of the overall transgender population. One clinical study reported a disproportionate number of suicide deaths among Dutch transsexual women and men receiving hormone therapy, compared to the general population (van Kesteren et al., 1997). Another international review of studies that followed over 2,000 persons in 13 countries who had undergone gender reassignment surgery identified 16 possible suicide deaths (Pfäfflin & Junge, 1998). If confirmed as actual suicides, these figures would translate to an alarmingly high rate of 800 suicides for every 100,000 post-surgery transsexuals. By contrast, the current suicide rate for the overall U.S. population is 11.5 suicides per 100,000 people. It is not clear whether this very high suicide rate still exists among transexuals.
Yes the comparisons are made with general population and other LGB population, not with pre-therapy tansgender which the study makes clear is hard to gauge. The numbers are still astronomically massive. Even compared to the elevated suicides seen in the LGB community, the 800:100,000 piece of statistics is daunting and horrific. I am aware this doesn't explicitly imply that they regret being transsexuals but if the statistics are accurate, they are concerning and there is something seriously wrong in the transsexualism debate which merits serious investigation/action.

I agree 100% with Beatsong. The crux of the matter to me is the actual definition of transgender, specifically in the self-identifying. What if we disregard social genders? Surely then people wouldn't be able to self-identify as the wrong gender?

Another point I would like to raise, from the same study than above:
In the United States, 1 in 30,000 assigned males and 1 in 100,000 assigned females are estimated to seek gender reassignment surgery at some point in their lifetime (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The Amsterdam Gender Dysphoria Clinic, which has collected data on the Dutch transsexual population for more than four decades, has estimated the prevalence to be substantially higher at 1 in 10,000 assigned males and 1:30,000 assigned females (van Kesteren, Asscheman, Megens, & Gooren, 1997).
According to both statistics in this quote, there are 3 times more MTF than FTM. Why is that? Is there a biological explanation that would make these figures reasonable? (sorry I am biologically illiterate, serious question to educate myself) Or could it be a result of our patriarchal and, dare I say, extremely sexist society? From my anecdotal experience I would say it is much more difficult to be a feminine man than a masculine woman, men are constantly told to "man up" and "stop acting like such a big girl".
“Last words are for those fools who believe they have not yet said enough...” Last words of Karl Marx
User avatar
PCS
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 322
Age: 35
Male

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#72  Postby PCS » Jan 30, 2014 11:23 am

Scarlett wrote:Hmm, not as simple as that Evo. I said earlier, I don't know what it feels like to be a "woman", I only know what it feels like to be me and I happen to be a woman. I, personally, don't feel that it necessarily implies I have anything in common with other women any more than men though.

My response earlier about a mastectomy and gaining of a penis, just means that I'm happy being me, I like having a woman's body, I like what it can do, and I wouldn't change it.


Is that not Beatsong's point? If we are all individuals and if nobody knows what it feels like to be a woman/man, what would drive anyone to seek to fix this which we don't feel like in the first place?
“Last words are for those fools who believe they have not yet said enough...” Last words of Karl Marx
User avatar
PCS
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 322
Age: 35
Male

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#73  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 30, 2014 11:43 am

PCS wrote:From my anecdotal experience I would say it is much more difficult to be a feminine man than a masculine woman, men are constantly told to "man up" and "stop acting like such a big girl".


Depends on the society you live in which is partly why I moved here.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 75
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#74  Postby jnail7 » Mar 04, 2014 11:13 pm

First, from my perspective, the biggest issue is the breakdown in communication. To try and get passed this and also to try and help conceptualize the poorly phrased "feels like <insert gender>" here is an analogy:

Our brains are very efficient at filtering out "unimportant" information coming in from the sensory organs, to the point that one could not distinguish between the ignored sensation or complete lack of said sensation. This is how most of us can go about our day and not notice the clothing that constantly touches our skin. The nerve activation is there, but the information is ignored as "unimportant". When that status changes, then we are aware. Most of us go about our lives oblivious to our clothes. Now imagine wearing the hottest, scratchiest (think burlap), wrongly sized, allergy inducing, full body garment that looks like regular clothes to everyone else. They will not understand your discomfort as their experience tells them that there is no such sensation. However, in this analogy, you could swap clothes to help them understand.

The problem is how do you describe such discomfort when there have not been invented words for such concepts. As children, we mimic behaviors we see around us, but we also internalize those behaviors we identify with to try and make sense of the world. As a transgender child, there is no means to describe other than imitating gender expressions as the closest way of conceptualizing the problem. Society has placed so much emphasis on gender confirming expressions that they become a symbolic panacea or tortuous trap that prevents further exploration to try and describe the disassociation.

Philosophy further hampers discussion through the axiom that it is impossible to know something that cannot be experienced. Ie. How can you "feel" that you are really male/female if you have never been male/female. This question fails to comprehend the experience. The assumption from the gender athiests (ie. gender is useless social construct) is that if everyone were free to completely express themselves outside the boundaries of gender conformity, then there would be no need for individuals suffering from GD to transition. This fails to acknowledge the use of gender expression conformity as a substitute/coping mechanism for the actual underlying "problem".

It is reasonable to assume that there are definite structural differences in the brain between Men and Women, at the very least, in so much as those sexes are biologically dimorphic (typically) and have different endocrinological, sensory mapping, and other specialized mechanism. This makes no qualitative claim on the physical/mental potentials between the sexes, but simply that there should be, on a fundamental level, some purposeful differences. This difference must be established in embryonic development. We know that this process is not even remotely perfect. Thus, it is possible for some of the expected brain differences to be incorrectly developed in relation to karyotype or even anatomy. If that happens, how would one describe their experiences with such a condition?

The answer, the best way they can and still survive. It may start with "cross-dressing" because of its symbolic power. It may result in suicide due to negative social pressure or inability to comprehend/cope with the condition. It could result in genital self mutilation as some introspection starts to identify the "wrong". It could lead to complete social transition and possible "corrective surgery", again trying to address something which language completely fails to express.

All current surgery is mutilation. Will that stop you from getting a life saving procedure or will you wait until science has progressed to the point that we can spontaneously regenerate and change our physical characteristics at will? Ask someone who is transgender that if their choice was between having a completely natal body that aligned with their "gender identity" or having the currently available surgery and they will all choose the former. Make that choice between this surgery or nothing, you will get a mixed bag as some will accept the current limits and go with the surgery, some will feel conflicted as the surgery is cosmetic rather than 100% functional, some will not choose the surgery for their own reasons-like survivability of the procedure in their current state of health.

In closing, you want to understand or disprove the transgender experience, then you need to grasp that no one has found the Rosetta stone that can decipher how to even describe the experience outside of tautologies, analogies, or jargon. Even those who suffer from this are so varied in their descriptions that infighting and No Real Scottsman fallacies become rampant. You may as well try comprehending what it would be like to have never experienced sight or sound in your entire life. Blindfolds and earplugs just won't cut it because you have seen and you have heard, so you know it when it is absent. For someone with GD, their hope is to achieve a state where they know the dysphoria is absent.

Sorry for the long rant.
jnail7
 
Name: Kiereana
Posts: 5

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#75  Postby Beatsong » Mar 04, 2014 11:49 pm

jnail7 wrote:Sorry for the long rant.


On the contrary - a very interesting a though provoking post. Just to pick up on what seems the essential problem, to me:

It is reasonable to assume that there are definite structural differences in the brain between Men and Women, at the very least, in so much as those sexes are biologically dimorphic (typically) and have different endocrinological, sensory mapping, and other specialized mechanism. This makes no qualitative claim on the physical/mental potentials between the sexes, but simply that there should be, on a fundamental level, some purposeful differences. This difference must be established in embryonic development. We know that this process is not even remotely perfect. Thus, it is possible for some of the expected brain differences to be incorrectly developed in relation to karyotype or even anatomy.


I actually think there's a huge bunch of assumptions and guesses running through this whole paragraph, and certainly wouldn't want to start trying to base any conclusions on it. But no matter; the point is the part I've bolded:

Who gets to say that the minority matching of one brain type (eg, f) to one anatomy type (eg, m) is "incorrect"? Isn't that a pejorative value judgment that you're loading upon it, not a property of the thing itself?

There might be a case for this if transgenderism - considered purely as a matter of practical mental/physical functioning, disregarding factors of social stigma and prejudice - were some kind of disability that shortened peoples' lives or ruined their health. Like we can say that haemophilia is "incorrect" compared to blood that is able to clot properly. But it isn't. In raw physical and mental terms, there is nothing compromising to one's health or longevity in being transgender.

There's also the problem that the brain differences you postulate are more likely to be to do with averages and tendencies than mutually exclusive alternatives. So at what exact point in the continuum from maleness to femaleness does a brain become "incorrect" for its body?
NEVER WRONG. ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#76  Postby PCS » Mar 05, 2014 10:37 am

Edit: I just realised I read that wrong :oops: You have indeed said the former i.e. "completely natal body" than current proceedures, that makes my post sound a bit stupid. :doh:

jnail7 wrote:All current surgery is mutilation. Will that stop you from getting a life saving procedure or will you wait until science has progressed to the point that we can spontaneously regenerate and change our physical characteristics at will? Ask someone who is transgender that if their choice was between having a completely natal body that aligned with their "gender identity" or having the currently available surgery and they will all choose the former. Make that choice between this surgery or nothing, you will get a mixed bag as some will accept the current limits and go with the surgery, some will feel conflicted as the surgery is cosmetic rather than 100% functional, some will not choose the surgery for their own reasons-like survivability of the procedure in their current state of health.


Can you expand on this? First of all: What exactly do you mean by a completely natal body that aligned with their "gender identity"? And secondly: Do you have any evidence to back up said assumption?

I would find it extremely hard to believe that a transgender individual would favour current medical practices over improved ones where the result is a perfect body of the opposite sex. At present, transsexuals cannot perform the most natural reproductive functions as MTF don't have ovaries or uteruses and cannot get impregnated and FTM don't have functioning testes, maybe prosthetic ones, and cannot therefore impregnate. They also need to take hormones for the rest of their life and as far as I am aware (I may be wrong), they do have some loss of sexual pleasure because of op, and their new genitals need high maintenance.

And that is my point (and I thing the one Beatsong is trying to make): Can we separate gender from the notion of natural sex? Why can't impregnators be woman and child bearers be men without needing surgery? Is surgery an attempt to fit into societal norms? If not, are current medical practices sufficient to make the transition between one sex to the other?

Beatsong wrote:
jnail7 wrote:Sorry for the long rant.


On the contrary - a very interesting a though provoking post.


I second that, that is what we are here for. Welcome to the forum! :cheers:
“Last words are for those fools who believe they have not yet said enough...” Last words of Karl Marx
User avatar
PCS
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 322
Age: 35
Male

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#77  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 05, 2014 12:16 pm

PCS wrote:I would find it extremely hard to believe that a transgender individual would favour current medical practices over improved ones where the result is a perfect body of the opposite sex. At present, transsexuals cannot perform the most natural reproductive functions as MTF don't have ovaries or uteruses and cannot get impregnated and FTM don't have functioning testes, maybe prosthetic ones, and cannot therefore impregnate. They also need to take hormones for the rest of their life and as far as I am aware (I may be wrong), they do have some loss of sexual pleasure because of op, and their new genitals need high maintenance.


Even as a man I have no interest in reproduction. If I was lucky enough in my time to have had surgical and hormonal treatment (which due to many factors was not available) reproduction would still be the last thing I would think about. All genitals need high maintenance which a lot of people forget about. :yuk:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 75
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#78  Postby PCS » Mar 05, 2014 1:42 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
PCS wrote:I would find it extremely hard to believe that a transgender individual would favour current medical practices over improved ones where the result is a perfect body of the opposite sex. At present, transsexuals cannot perform the most natural reproductive functions as MTF don't have ovaries or uteruses and cannot get impregnated and FTM don't have functioning testes, maybe prosthetic ones, and cannot therefore impregnate. They also need to take hormones for the rest of their life and as far as I am aware (I may be wrong), they do have some loss of sexual pleasure because of op, and their new genitals need high maintenance.


Even as a man I have no interest in reproduction. If I was lucky enough in my time to have had surgical and hormonal treatment (which due to many factors was not available) reproduction would still be the last thing I would think about. All genitals need high maintenance which a lot of people forget about. :yuk:


That wasn't my point. It is obvious that reproduction is not on the top of the list for a transsexual or else they wouldn't go ahead with operation. First of all, I misunderstood the original comment to say "Ask someone who is transgender that if their choice was between having a completely natal body that aligned with their "gender identity" or having the currently available surgery and they will all choose the former latter." I have acknowledged this and wouldn't have written my response if I had properly read the original message which I was replying too. :doh: So anything I said has to be read in the context of this misunderstanding, I am not trying to denigrate transsexuals I was just merely questioning the misunderstood statement and making the point that current medical interventions in this regard are far from perfect. I just want to make it clear while we are at this, that I am not making the same argument we hear with the anti-homosexuality crew, "being transsexual/gay is unnatural therefore wrong", that is not what I am trying to say.

Genitals are not that high maintenance anyway, not much more than other body parts or mouth/teeth anyway, as long as you shower at least once a day (and after certain activities) and brush your teeth at least twice daily, you'll be alright, if this is not the case and yours are high maintenance I suggest you go visit the doctor. As far as I am aware (I might be wrong) this is not the same for post-op transsexuals which - apart from their hormones for the rest of their lives - there are a number of creams they need applied to the region and some other extra care. Apart from that, I believe there are dilation exercises post-op women need to do, for years after operation and specially during prolonged periods of sexual inactivity, to ensure vaginal width and depth, never heard of any naturally born woman having to do this :ask: But this was all mention because of my original misunderstanding.

But now that you have replied to my post I will ask the following:

What are you precisely achieving by going through gender reassignment surgery other than conforming to social expectations of what you ought to look based on natural sex?
“Last words are for those fools who believe they have not yet said enough...” Last words of Karl Marx
User avatar
PCS
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 322
Age: 35
Male

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#79  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 05, 2014 2:38 pm

PCS

Ask women around you. Dilation when you are past the bloom of youth is often required if you want keep up sexual activity. Also many women use plenty of cream. The body is not the best designed machine.

By doing the surgery and hormone treatment you achieve to get a container that is more in tune to how your mind feels.
I was unable to get it due to my age and my parents. I expressed my feelings to them when I was seven but back in the '50's that was totally unacceptable. I adjusted my life and moved on. I have been always a loner because it was a way of self protection. Even to day my mother or my sister will not accept it.

I love women and if I had the operation I would have been a lesbian. When I was forty I went to the gender clinic in Amsterdam.
I tested out to be 85% female which confirmed everything that I thought. I was too old to change. It can be done but the results are not that good.

Here is the clinic and there are plenty of links and information (in English) which will answer all your questions:

http://www.eje-online.org/content/155/suppl_1/S131.full
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 75
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#80  Postby jnail7 » Mar 05, 2014 2:59 pm

Beatsong wrote:

Who gets to say that the minority matching of one brain type (eg, f) to one anatomy type (eg, m) is "incorrect"? Isn't that a pejorative value judgment that you're loading upon it, not a property of the thing itself?


In context, "incorrect" simply refers to deviations from the intended developmental blueprint. There is no pejorative. My eyes developed incorrectly, as a result my visual acuity after corrective lenses is just barely past the functional range. If you find offense to this term, then how would you describe the developmental outcome of my eyes. If you find a term that is satisfactory to you for this condition, then simply substitute your chosen word for "incorrect" and move on to the actual point of my post.


Beatsong wrote:There might be a case for this if transgenderism - considered purely as a matter of practical mental/physical functioning, disregarding factors of social stigma and prejudice - were some kind of disability that shortened peoples' lives or ruined their health. Like we can say that haemophilia is "incorrect" compared to blood that is able to clot properly. But it isn't. In raw physical and mental terms, there is nothing compromising to one's health or longevity in being transgender.


I could be misreading this, but it seems you are implying that if a disease does not pose a risk to one's observable physical health or longevity, then it is not worth treating. My eyes do not pose a risk to my physical health or longevity, so I should forgo corrective lenses? Or a more applicable analogy, High functioning Autism does not come with a risk to physical health or longevity, we don't really know the cause(s) or how to remove the condition. What is your actual point with this paragraph?

Beatsong wrote:There's also the problem that the brain differences you postulate are more likely to be to do with averages and tendencies than mutually exclusive alternatives. So at what exact point in the continuum from maleness to femaleness does a brain become "incorrect" for its body?


Averages and tendencies? What makes the brain so special that it is immune to our physiological dimorphism? Your implication is that a male and female could have their brains swapped and everything would still function normally. How are the differing distributions of nerves processed? Endocrine regulation maintained? As to your question, who knows. Research into this area is woefully underfunded and I am personally amazed at what research does actually exist. As research eventually progresses maybe we will get an answer for your question (that is until subsequent research gains evidence in support of a rivaling hypothesis.)

We can sit here and beat strawmen until we have created a complete mess. However, I propose (as was the intent in my post) that we really do not have the language to effectively describe the realities of this condition. We will constantly go in circles arguing completely different concepts because we are distracted by our own interpretation of the terminology used in describing this condition. At best, we know that a condition exists and certain treatments have shown to be statistically significant in reducing the quality of life impact from the condition. If it were simply an issue of social pressure, then nobody would transition due to the stigma associated with transitioning.
jnail7
 
Name: Kiereana
Posts: 5

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron