What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#1  Postby Individual » Jan 19, 2013 9:30 pm

I know the title seems broad but I will narrow down my questions more specifically. First, is there any biological indicator that a person is trans? Some places suggest that it is completely subjective and that its up to the individual to report their feelings, while others say there is a difference in brain structure where their brain resembles that of the opposite sex, a difference in hormone levels, or even possibly genetic differences. Some even go as far as saying that just by looking at certain parts of a person's body it can be told that they are more built like the opposite sex. When it comes to brain differences, there seem to some conflict between researchers who say male and female brain structures are different while there are camps of gender equality activists who accuse them of "neurosexism". I would like to know more about the biological differences between male and female brains. I would also like to know more about the leading theories on what causes transexuality. Some sources say there is a hormone disruption during fetal development, while others say more environmental factors play into it. Because it seems there is a variety of times in people's lives when they speak of these kind of feelings, from early childhood, to much later in life. Any research conducted on the quality of life of those post-transition would also be helpful/interesting.

I have developed an interest in this because after what feels like a long while of questioning my identity I've concluded that my mind doesnt feel like it matches with my body and appearence. I've felt a strong need to cross dress and alter my body. I am wanting to research this more because I want to find out if people like myself are just being ridiculous or if this phenomena has any solid research to it. The people I try to talk about this with in person seem to consider it "unscientific" and because of this won't take me seriously. I kindly request that any replies try to stay on topic are polite, since this subject is personal to me.

Thank you if you can help
Individual
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 18, 2013 1:05 pm

Individual wrote:I know the title seems broad but I will narrow down my questions more specifically. First, is there any biological indicator that a person is trans?

I don't know.
You might want to look at this:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.aspx
There's a pdf with common question you can download.

Individual wrote:Some places suggest that it is completely subjective and that its up to the individual to report their feelings, while others say there is a difference in brain structure where their brain resembles that of the opposite sex, a difference in hormone levels, or even possibly genetic differences.

Differences in hormone levels, brain structures etc. have indeed been found, both in gay,as opposed to straight people and trans as opposed to cis people.
As I said, I don't know the exact details. Either way it is ultimately up to the individual.
You are the only one who can answer this question for yourself.
As long as you're honest with yourself and comfortable, there's nothing wrong with being transgender or wanting to transition.
Individual wrote:Some even go as far as saying that just by looking at certain parts of a person's body it can be told that they are more built like the opposite sex.

That's the first I've heard of it.
Individual wrote:When it comes to brain differences, there seem to some conflict between researchers who say male and female brain structures are different while there are camps of gender equality activists who accuse them of "neurosexism". I would like to know more about the biological differences between male and female brains.

Here's one study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

Alas I am neither a neuroscientist nor a psychologist, so I'm afraid I can't really help you there.
Individual wrote:I would also like to know more about the leading theories on what causes transexuality. Some sources say there is a hormone disruption during fetal development, while others say more environmental factors play into it. Because it seems there is a variety of times in people's lives when they speak of these kind of feelings, from early childhood, to much later in life. Any research conducted on the quality of life of those post-transition would also be helpful/interesting.

I'd suggest joining emptyclosets.com, it's a site for LGBT and straight people of all ages and there are quite a few people on there who have gone through, or are still in the same position as you.
I'm sure they'd love to help you.

Individual wrote:I have developed an interest in this because after what feels like a long while of questioning my identity I've concluded that my mind doesnt feel like it matches with my body and appearence. I've felt a strong need to cross dress and alter my body. I am wanting to research this more because I want to find out if people like myself are just being ridiculous or if this phenomena has any solid research to it.

This I can help you with.
There's nothing wrong with you. You're not acting ridiculous. As long as you're not hurting anyone, you should do what makes you feel comfortable and happy. Don't let the narrowmindedness or bigotry of other people keep you down.

Individual wrote:The people I try to talk about this with in person seem to consider it "unscientific" and because of this won't take me seriously. I kindly request that any replies try to stay on topic are polite, since this subject is personal to me.

Thank you if you can help

If you want to talk about this, feel free to sent me a private message.
:hugs:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 19, 2013 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

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

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#3  Postby Nicko » Mar 18, 2013 1:15 pm

From what I understand of sexual biology, the incredible thing is that the majority of the human race fits into two categories, not that there is a minority who defy - or rebel against - categorisation.

That said, the only real concern for me is the proven fact that post-transition regret in transsexuals is virtually non-existent. Pre-op transsexuals are unhappy; post-op transsexuals are happy. Really, if that's not enough for the people you are talking to, you need to consider talking to people who aren't sociopaths.

And welcome to the forum BTW.

:cheers:
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#4  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 18, 2013 2:20 pm

Individual wrote:I have developed an interest in this because after what feels like a long while of questioning my identity I've concluded that my mind doesnt feel like it matches with my body and appearence. I've felt a strong need to cross dress and alter my body. I am wanting to research this more because I want to find out if people like myself are just being ridiculous or if this phenomena has any solid research to it. The people I try to talk about this with in person seem to consider it "unscientific" and because of this won't take me seriously. I kindly request that any replies try to stay on topic are polite, since this subject is personal to me.


I dont know where you live but I would suggest visiting a transgender clinic. THey will test you and give advice.
You are not ridiculous. Luckily the amount of research that is being carried out is producing interesting results.
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?

#5  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 18, 2013 2:20 pm

Individual wrote:I have developed an interest in this because after what feels like a long while of questioning my identity I've concluded that my mind doesnt feel like it matches with my body and appearence. I've felt a strong need to cross dress and alter my body. I am wanting to research this more because I want to find out if people like myself are just being ridiculous or if this phenomena has any solid research to it. The people I try to talk about this with in person seem to consider it "unscientific" and because of this won't take me seriously. I kindly request that any replies try to stay on topic are polite, since this subject is personal to me.


I dont know where you live but I would suggest visiting a transgender clinic. THey will test you and give advice.
You are not ridiculous. Luckily the amount of research that is being carried out is producing interesting results.
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?

#6  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 18, 2013 5:41 pm

I haven't actually perused any scientific literature devoted to this subject, but what I have perused on the subject of sexual development in a wide range of organisms, tells me that the categories "male" and "female" are frequently woefully insufficient to encapsulate the reality. Indeed, this is the case in insects, let alone humans, and I've recently posted this post covering the wonderful phenomenon that is bilateral gyandromorphs in insects (though these occur in other organismal clades as well). Additionally, I've posted on repeated occasions how human sexual development is, from the standpoint of embryology and the underlying genetics, a bureaucratic hotch-potch that renders mythology-based assertions on the subject completely null and void. See, for example, this post, where I describe at length some of the hilarity that can ensue when one set of genes completely ignores what another set of genes is doing, with respect to the matter of developing sexual organs.

It comes as no surprise to me, in the light of all of this, that human sexuality is anything but a binary affair. I'm reminded here of a quote, possibly apocryphally attributed to the late Douglas Adams, to the effect that there are, in reality, as many genders as there are human beings on the planet. Fortunately for the reproductive future of the species, a lot of those human beings place themselves in those binary categories of "male" and "female", and there's sufficient overlap between individuals doing so to allow us, at least naively, to consider those categories to be fairly well established.

As for differences between male and female brains, I gather there's at least some literature to the effect that foetal exposure to testosterone can influence the development of certain neuronal pathways in preference to others, and the literature is considered relatively solid. Trouble is, of course, the moment any differences here are declared to be present, regardless of how much solid science supports the existence of those differences, certain individuals with agendas will leap into the fray,. and launch the usual attacks. Of course, the question is whether those observed developmental differences matter with respect to a whole host of interactions, which is an entirely separate question.

Oh, by the way, the rodent research of one John Calhoun opens up some interesting possibilities here as well, I'll let those who are interested discover this for themselves before commenting any further. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22591
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#7  Postby Beatsong » Mar 18, 2013 6:19 pm

Calilasseia wrote:I haven't actually perused any scientific literature devoted to this subject, but what I have perused on the subject of sexual development in a wide range of organisms, tells me that the categories "male" and "female" are frequently woefully insufficient to encapsulate the reality. Indeed, this is the case in insects, let alone humans, and I've recently posted this post covering the wonderful phenomenon that is bilateral gyandromorphs in insects (though these occur in other organismal clades as well).


Yes.

What's extraordinary is not that transgendered people don't experience "normal" gender identity, but that so many cisgendered people manage to be brainwashed into thinking they do.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#8  Postby Beatsong » Mar 18, 2013 6:20 pm

Nicko wrote:FThat said, the only real concern for me is the proven fact that post-transition regret in transsexuals is virtually non-existent.


I'm pretty sure that's untrue. And if so, it's a bit of a dangerous thing to be claiming.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#9  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 18, 2013 6:22 pm

Beatsong wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:I haven't actually perused any scientific literature devoted to this subject, but what I have perused on the subject of sexual development in a wide range of organisms, tells me that the categories "male" and "female" are frequently woefully insufficient to encapsulate the reality. Indeed, this is the case in insects, let alone humans, and I've recently posted this post covering the wonderful phenomenon that is bilateral gyandromorphs in insects (though these occur in other organismal clades as well).


Yes.

What's extraordinary is not that transgendered people don't experience "normal" gender identity, but that so many cisgendered people manage to be brainwashed into thinking they do.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

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

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#10  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 18, 2013 6:56 pm

Beatsong wrote:
Nicko wrote:FThat said, the only real concern for me is the proven fact that post-transition regret in transsexuals is virtually non-existent.


I'm pretty sure that's untrue. And if so, it's a bit of a dangerous thing to be claiming.


As far as I'm aware, it's rare, but sadly not non-existent. There are a small number (and I emphasise here a small number - possibly as low as single figures) of individuals who have undergone MTF transition surgery, then decided to opt for the reverse procedure. I can think of just one instance currently residing (albeit rather dimly) in my memory.

The successful instances, where the individuals concerned report being happy with the outcome of MTF transition surgery, are rather more numerous, which tells us something important.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22591
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#11  Postby HomerJay » Mar 18, 2013 7:49 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
Nicko wrote:FThat said, the only real concern for me is the proven fact that post-transition regret in transsexuals is virtually non-existent.


I'm pretty sure that's untrue. And if so, it's a bit of a dangerous thing to be claiming.


As far as I'm aware, it's rare, but sadly not non-existent. There are a small number (and I emphasise here a small number - possibly as low as single figures) of individuals who have undergone MTF transition surgery, then decided to opt for the reverse procedure. I can think of just one instance currently residing (albeit rather dimly) in my memory.

Difficult to see quite what point people think they're making here, firstly surgery has little to do with transition, secondly surgery where it does take place would be after hormone treatment, so the apposite question might be how many decide against surgery at all and then how many decide against surgery after/during hormone treatment.
For me, the value of a climb is the sum of three inseparable elements, all equally important: aesthetics, history, and ethics

Walter Bonatti 1930-2011

"All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand" - Steven Wright
User avatar
HomerJay
 
Posts: 5868
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#12  Postby Emmeline » Mar 18, 2013 7:58 pm

Interesting article today about Richard O'Brien, creator of The Rocky Horror Show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21788238

O'Brien's idea of a gender spectrum may sound far-fetched to many, but there is scientific research that backs up his position. Cambridge University psychology professor Melissa Hines says there are not two distinct sexes, male and female.

There are many dimensions of gender and an individual person can be in a different position in terms of how masculine or feminine they are”

Professor Dinesh Bhugra, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, offers a different view - suggesting that while people may feel not entirely male, or female, the reality is that they are born one or the other.

"The distinction has to be made between gender and sex. Gender is very much a social construct, sex is biological.

"My guess would be that social notions of gender dictate how we behave."
Emmeline
 
Posts: 10401

Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#13  Postby Nicko » Mar 18, 2013 10:57 pm

Beatsong wrote:
Nicko wrote:FThat said, the only real concern for me is the proven fact that post-transition regret in transsexuals is virtually non-existent.


I'm pretty sure that's untrue. And if so, it's a bit of a dangerous thing to be claiming.


I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, individuals who transition report it as having a positive effect on their lives ("op" was probably a poor choice if words, transition need not involve surgery). Transitioning makes transsexuals feel better about themselves than either therapy or drugs. For me, that is the only relevant concern.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#14  Postby Beatsong » Mar 18, 2013 11:06 pm

Ah yes, I see now. I agree.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 7027

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#15  Postby tnt666 » Jan 18, 2014 4:18 am

Fascinating how much side-stepping and coddling I see in these responses. It is one thing to agree that people need medical intervention in order to help people live. It is another to say that "the body is mistaken" when in fact it is the brain that is mistaken. The simply reality is there is no scientific-biological foundation for transgender ideas. Homo sapiens are a sexually reproducing mammal. 99.9% of Homo sapiens within modern civilisation are born with a reproductive system that is function. However only 99% are recognised as normal at birth, because of the rare occurrence of intersexes individuals, who's genitals are ambiguous (in between) or whose chromosomes don't coincide with their genitals. All determinations of biological male/female are based on the reproductive system and chromosomes.
Before puberty, children are mostly unisexual, boys pee and masturbate differently, but all other differences in boy/girl prepub behaviours are attributable to nurture not nature.
The brain is not a sexual organ, and the vast majority of studies claiming male/female brains have been denounced and debunked, with the same integrity that we debunk vaccines causing atheism. The fields of evolutionary psychology, fMRIs used for behaviour studies (morality MRIs), are generally part of no biological consensus, or peer respect.

But beyond the science, the present judicial trend in Western society is that anyone can say they "feel" like the other sex (in the same way that people say they "feel" better after CAM. Feelings are not evidence. In so self declaring, these people expect to gain immediate access, without questioning (lest we be not PC) to the spaces and activities of the other sex... toilets, change rooms, showers, sports, affirmative action. Some of the trans activists even go so far as to say there there should be not need to get surgery in order to pass for the other sex... we should all just take their word on it... (CAM anyone?)

Even beyond that, there is a yet newer trend that children be released from going through puberty (lest they find it difficult) through hormonal intervention. Yes, in Canada and the USA, pre-teens are being drugged by profit seeking doctors in order to prevent puberty. Now for anyone who has studied sports science on the endocrine systems of children, one knows that preventing puberty has very real consequences for growth completion. Gymnasts and osteoporosis is a prime example.

We have heard so many stories from the intersex population about the harms of messing with genitals as children, and now the trans activists are pushing for exactly that.

Many in the sceptic community confound the political rights of homosexuals and those of trans people (whatever definition people want to use here, because in fact there is absolutely no legal definition in any North American lawbook, it is a moving to a complete self-diagnosis (CAM anyone?). But they are in entirely different scientific domains. Homosexuals just want to legally sleep with each other and have the same rights as contractually serial monogamists. On the other trans activism is about completely denying biological science. It's akin to creationism vs evolution. Some trans want their situation to be declassified from medicine, yet want free medical treatment, want pap-smears done on inverted peni, want their drug lifestyle to paid for while in prison.

There is one other point which an answer here failed at: On speaking out reversals and depression and happiness. Studies demonstrate that suicide rates increase after surgical/chemical transition. So though the alive trans people answering the question may say "feel" better, but they actually commit suicide more. Using "feelings" as an indicator of medical intervention success is pretty darned weak. Like homoeopathy users "feeling" better after their sugar pill. The reality is, that when a person invests so much time and money to such a massive and invasive and deadly surgery, they are going to mentally cling to the idea that they made the right decision. This is a strategy used extensively by marketing firms. Marketers are not only responsible for creating intent to buy, but are equally in the market of preserving the victory feeling of the purchase, product loyalty.

On this issue, it looks like a great many sceptics have not kept us with the fundamental science. Psychology is only peripherally scientific... They're excellent at perceiving mental illness and changing the names of those illness every 2-5 years, but they are desperately incompetent at relating of that to science/biology.

Finally, to treat a mental dysfunction with physical surgery (50s lobotomies on depressed people ring any bells?), to mutilate one's perfectly healthy body parts in the name of mental distress, is a foundational contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm. Whatever mutilations people wish upon their bodies should be made during adult life, whether it FGM, circumcision, STS, religious brainwashing, alcohol and drugs, tattoos & body piercings, and reproduction.
tnt666
 
Posts: 11

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#16  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2014 10:11 am

tnt666 wrote:Fascinating how much side-stepping and coddling I see in these responses.

Fascinating how you choose to start your post which such a peurile snipe.

tnt666 wrote:It is one thing to agree that people need medical intervention in order to help people live. It is another to say that "the body is mistaken" when in fact it is the brain that is mistaken.

You do realise that every major medical and psychological association says otherwise?
You know, as in the actual experts.

tnt666 wrote:The simply reality is there is no scientific-biological foundation for transgender ideas.

Blind counterfactual assertion, I already posted articles in this thread that prove otherwise.

tnt666 wrote:Homo sapiens are a sexually reproducing mammal.

So are most organisms. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

tnt666 wrote:99.9% of Homo sapiens within modern civilisation are born with a reproductive system that is function.

Functioning? You might want to check such sily claims before you make them.
Prevalence
Prevalence of infertility varies depending on the definition, i.e. on the time span involved in the failure to conceive.
Some estimates suggest that worldwide "between three and seven per cent of all couples or women have an unresolved problem of infertility. Many more couples, however, experience involuntary childlessness for at least one year: estimates range from 12% to 28%." [10]

Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. Most couples (about 84 out of every 100) who have regular sexual intercourse (that is, every two to three days) and who do not use contraception get pregnant within a year. About 92 out of 100 couples who are trying to get pregnant do so within two years.[11]
Women become less fertile as they get older. For women aged 35, about 94 out of every 100 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse get pregnant after three years of trying. For women aged 38, however, only 77 out of every 100 do so. The effect of age upon men's fertility is less clear.[11]
In people going forward for IVF in the UK, roughly half of fertility problems with a diagnosed cause are due to problems with the man, and about half due to problems with the woman. However, about one in five cases of infertility has no clear diagnosed cause.[12]
In Britain, male factor infertility accounts for 25% of infertile couples, while 25% remain unexplained. 50% are female causes with 25% being due to anovulation and 25% tubal problems/other.[13]
In Sweden, approximately 10% of couples wanting children are infertile.[14] In approximately one third of these cases the man is the factor, in one third the woman is the factor, and in the remaining third the infertility is a product of factors on both parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility#Prevalence
And I still don't see what this has got to do with the price of fish.

tnt666 wrote: However only 99% are recognised as normal at birth, because of the rare occurrence of intersexes individuals, who's genitals are ambiguous (in between) or whose chromosomes don't coincide with their genitals.

Again, what has this got to do with the price of fish?
How is it relevant to transgenderism, how many people are capable of reproduction and how many are born intersex?


tnt666 wrote: All determinations of biological male/female are based on the reproductive system and chromosomes.

Nonsense. They're based on physical characteristic differences:
"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women

That some of these are related to reproduction, doesn't mean the distinction is based on reproduction alone.


tnt666 wrote: Before puberty, children are mostly unisexual, boys pee and masturbate differently, but all other differences in boy/girl prepub behaviours are attributable to nurture not nature.

The point being?

tnt666 wrote:The brain is not a sexual organ,

So what?

tnt666 wrote:and the vast majority of studies claiming male/female brains have been denounced and debunked,

So you blindly assert.
Reality tells us differently however:
https://www.google.nl/?gws_rd=cr&ei=HmDYUsOoM6SM0AXBmYHIDQ#q=difference+brain+male+female


tnt666 wrote: with the same integrity that we debunk vaccines causing atheism. The fields of evolutionary psychology, fMRIs used for behaviour studies (morality MRIs), are generally part of no biological consensus, or peer respect.

Begging the question that this is the only way differences between male and female brains have been established.
Not to mention another blind assertion proffered without evidence or citations.

tnt666 wrote:But beyond the science, the present judicial trend in Western society is that anyone can say they "feel" like the other sex (in the same way that people say they "feel" better after CAM. Feelings are not evidence.

So psychology is a useless pursuit in your opinion?

tnt666 wrote:In so self declaring, these people expect to gain immediate access, without questioning (lest we be not PC) to the spaces and activities of the other sex... toilets, change rooms, showers, sports, affirmative action.

I think you'll find that most people don't expect to blindly accepted.
Does it bother you that trans people want acces to toilets, showers etc?
Is that crux of your issue with all this?


tnt666 wrote:Some of the trans activists even go so far as to say there there should be not need to get surgery in order to pass for the other sex... we should all just take their word on it... (CAM anyone?)

Got any citations for that?
Even if you have btw, that does invalidate those transsexuals that are willing to transition.

tnt666 wrote:Even beyond that, there is a yet newer trend that children be released from going through puberty (lest they find it difficult) through hormonal intervention.

Not seeing how this directly relates to transsexuality.

tnt666 wrote:Yes, in Canada and the USA, pre-teens are being drugged by profit seeking doctors in order to prevent puberty.

Again, citations?
You're not going to get very far on this site by throwing around assertions without evidence.

tnt666 wrote:Now for anyone who has studied sports science on the endocrine systems of children, one knows that preventing puberty has very real consequences for growth completion. Gymnasts and osteoporosis is a prime example.

What has this got to do with transsexuality?
Transgender has nothing to do with preventing puberty.


tnt666 wrote:We have heard so many stories from the intersex population about the harms of messing with genitals as children, and now the trans activists are pushing for exactly that.

Citations?
Can you actually prove a causal relationship between transgender activists and people wanting to stop puberty, or is this yet another blind assertion?

tnt666 wrote:Many in the sceptic community confound the political rights of homosexuals and those of trans people (whatever definition people want to use here, because in fact there is absolutely no legal definition in any North American lawbook, it is a moving to a complete self-diagnosis (CAM anyone?).

1. Whether transgender is legally recognised in the U.S. is completely irrelevant. Neither science nor reality is limited by what U.S. law does or does not recognise.
2. Virtually all credible psyhocological and medical associations acknowledge the existence of transgender and transsexual people and issues.
3. WTF is this CAM you keep referring to?


tnt666 wrote: But they are in entirely different scientific domains.

They are different issues, but related as both groups are not recognised by large parts of the world.

tnt666 wrote:Homosexuals just want to legally sleep with each other and have the same rights as contractually serial monogamists.

Some would like polygamy to you know.

tnt666 wrote:On the other trans activism is about completely denying biological science.

Except that it isn't. It's completely in line with what there biological brain informs them.

tnt666 wrote:It's akin to creationism vs evolution.

Not really. Creationism is without any evidential support whatsoever.
Transgender/transsexuality on the other hand has lots of evidence for it's existence and is recognised by virtually every psychological and medical assoication in the Western world.

tnt666 wrote:Some trans want their situation to be declassified from medicine, yet want free medical treatment, want pap-smears done on inverted peni, want their drug lifestyle to paid for while in prison.

This a transphobic comment and against the FUA. I suggest you avoid such comments in the future.


tnt666 wrote:There is one other point which an answer here failed at: On speaking out reversals and depression and happiness. Studies demonstrate that suicide rates increase after surgical/chemical transition.

Citations?
Care to back this up, especially that it's caused by the transition and not, for example by rejection from society?


tnt666 wrote:So though the alive trans people answering the question may say "feel" better, but they actually commit suicide more.

Again, can you actually back this up with evidence or are you just here to vent your frustration with a string of baseless and often counterfactual assertions?

tnt666 wrote:Using "feelings" as an indicator of medical intervention success is pretty darned weak.

So again, you think psychology is a pointless pursuit?
And it doesn't just happen based on feelings.


tnt666 wrote:Like homoeopathy users "feeling" better after their sugar pill.

Not similar at all as people who want to use homeopathy don't need to be checked by their doctor. In most cases transgender people who want to transition have to be checked by a psychologist.

tnt666 wrote:The reality is, that when a person invests so much time and money to such a massive and invasive and deadly surgery, they are going to mentally cling to the idea that they made the right decision.

Possibily, possibly not.

tnt666 wrote:This is a strategy used extensively by marketing firms. Marketers are not only responsible for creating intent to buy, but are equally in the market of preserving the victory feeling of the purchase, product loyalty.

Except that, as I said, in many cases, transgender people have to get confirmation from a psychologist, so it isn't as easy as going to a hospital and buying a surgery.

tnt666 wrote:On this issue, it looks like a great many sceptics have not kept us with the fundamental science.

Like yourself you mean?

tnt666 wrote:Psychology is only peripherally scientific...

Thank you for completely disqualifying yourself as having any credibility when disussing this topic.

tnt666 wrote:They're excellent at perceiving mental illness and changing the names of those illness every 2-5 years, but they are desperately incompetent at relating of that to science/biology.

You mean like scientists in other fields constantly update theories and claims?
Because that's how science works, new findings means adjusting your position. That's how it's supposed to work.

tnt666 wrote:Finally, to treat a mental dysfunction with physical surgery (50s lobotomies on depressed people ring any bells?),

So medical science is bogus to? (Leeches ring any bells?)
Seriously your 'arguments' are getting more desperate with each sentence.

tnt666 wrote:to mutilate one's perfectly healthy body parts in the name of mental distress, is a foundational contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm.

Except that the body isn't perfectly healthy, it's causing distress. More-over no doctor is forced to perform transgender surgeries.
The Hippocratic Oath is about malpractice, intent to do malicious harm. Not about helping people.

tnt666 wrote:Whatever mutilations people wish upon their bodies should be made during adult life,

In most cases they are. Also how would you go about determining when someone is adult enough to make this decision?

You have displayed a profound ammount of ignorance on the issue of transgender issues in this post, not to mention a flippant and dismissive attitude towards psychology. You were even skirting close to making transphobic remarks.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to have a less than honourable agenda. In any case I advise you to watch the tone and content of your future posts if you don't want to attact moderator attention.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

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

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#17  Postby Scarlett » Jan 18, 2014 10:27 am

Did it ever occur to our lovely n00b that transgender people commit suicide more than the average person because of bigotry. They appear to be a fair target for bigotry in some circles in the same way homosexuals were in the past.

And, in some places unisex toilets are provided. Oh the shock and horror that a woman may need to pee in a cubicle next door to a man!! :roll:
User avatar
Scarlett
 
Posts: 16046

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#18  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 18, 2014 11:24 am

The existence of CAIS alone tells us that the narrow, binary view of human sexuality from our Palaeolithic past is wrong.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22591
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What does science say about transgender/transsexuality?

#19  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2014 11:25 am

Scarlett wrote:Did it ever occur to our lovely n00b that transgender people commit suicide more than the average person because of bigotry. They appear to be a fair target for bigotry in some circles in the same way homosexuals were in the past.

And, in some places unisex toilets are provided. Oh the shock and horror that a woman may need to pee in a cubicle next door to a man!! :roll:

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

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


Next

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron