Keep It Real wrote:Here's a fun idea - lets deride circumcision and approve of gender reassignment genital butchery. At least the former serves some purpose circa hygene...yet both are frankly ignorant as :insert DEVESTATING expletive:

Keep It Real wrote:You missed the part where free will is a myth.

Following decades of research into genetic and epigenetic factors, medical providers and mental health experts in most western nations have, thankfully, embraced the leading theory that sexual orientation and gender identity are hardwired into the brain during fetal development.

aban57 wrote:http://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/

Following decades of research into genetic and epigenetic factors, medical providers and mental health experts in most western nations have, thankfully, embraced the leading theory that sexual orientation and gender identity are hardwired into the brain during fetal development.

Adolescence is associated with changing social roles, and there is good reason to believe that gender socialization intensifies at that time of life (Crouter et al., 1995; Hill and Lynch, 1983; Stein, 1976).

By informing parents about the various psychosexual trajectories, we want them to succeed in finding a sensible middle of the road approach between an accepting and supportive attitude toward their child’s gender dysphoria, while at the same time protecting their child against any negative reactions from others and remaining realistic about the actual situation. If they speak about their natal son as being a girl with a penis, we stress that they have a male child who very much wants to be a girl, but will need an invasive treatment to align his body with his identity if this desire does not remit. Finding the right balance is essential for parents and clinicians because gender variant children are highly vulnerable to developing a negative sense of self (Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004).

The Dutch approach to clinical management of children with GID contains elements of a therapeutic approach but is not directed at the gender dysphoria itself. Instead, it focuses on its concomitant emotional and behavioral and family problems that may or may not have an impact on the child’s gender dysphoria.

The earlier one can start with the treatment, including puberty inhibition with GnRH agonists then followed by cross-sex hormones, the better the outcome

When first introduced, an age of 12 years was recommended for puberty suppression. However, boys and girls enter puberty at different stages.

Because the protocol for young adolescents had started in a period when there were no studies on the effects of puberty suppression, the age limit was set at 12 years because some cognitive and emotional maturation is desirable when starting these physical medical interventions. Further, Dutch adolescents are legally partly competent to make a medical decision together with their parent´s consent at age 12. It is, however, conceivable that when more information about the safety of early hormone treatment becomes available, the age limit may be further adjusted (de Vries, 2010).

NNY wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Also "hard wiring" has not been proven. In the Bakker study, brain activation areas were studied. Those activation areas were a repeat of a previous 2014 study that Bakker took part in. Her study is a post-hoc study and post-hoc studies are similar to the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy. But maybe her intuition on this is correct, only time will tell.

NNY wrote:

aban57 wrote:http://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/

Following decades of research into genetic and epigenetic factors, medical providers and mental health experts in most western nations have, thankfully, embraced the leading theory that sexual orientation and gender identity are hardwired into the brain during fetal development.

The ncbi link that was given here has nothing what so ever to do gender dysphoria nor does it have anything to do with "transgenderism." It mentions gender once and only once. It states

Adolescence is associated with changing social roles, and there is good reason to believe that gender socialization intensifies at that time of life (Crouter et al., 1995; Hill and Lynch, 1983; Stein, 1976).

The ncbi article is about SEX determination. Where genes determine sex and how epigenetics (how methyl groups can 'switch' genes off and on) can affect how gene regulation works. Gene's involved in sex determination for males are not restricted to the Y chromosome, but the SRY gene which starts the ball rolling for sex determination is on the Y chromosome.

Also "hard wiring" has not been proven. In the Bakker study, brain activation areas were studied. Those activation areas were a repeat of a previous 2014 study that Bakker took part in. Her study is a post-hoc study and post-hoc studies are similar to the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy. But maybe her intuition on this is correct, only time will tell.

When it comes to "expert" opinion, there are always more than one opinion. the Dutch Approach (2012) on GD states

By informing parents about the various psychosexual trajectories, we want them to succeed in finding a sensible middle of the road approach between an accepting and supportive attitude toward their child’s gender dysphoria, while at the same time protecting their child against any negative reactions from others and remaining realistic about the actual situation. If they speak about their natal son as being a girl with a penis, we stress that they have a male child who very much wants to be a girl, but will need an invasive treatment to align his body with his identity if this desire does not remit. Finding the right balance is essential for parents and clinicians because gender variant children are highly vulnerable to developing a negative sense of self (Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004).

The Dutch Approach concentrates on the the welfare of the child not the diagnosis of the GD, it states

The Dutch approach to clinical management of children with GID contains elements of a therapeutic approach but is not directed at the gender dysphoria itself. Instead, it focuses on its concomitant emotional and behavioral and family problems that may or may not have an impact on the child’s gender dysphoria.

but if you compare this to Bakker's approach she concentrates on "treating" the gender dysphoria.

The earlier one can start with the treatment, including puberty inhibition with GnRH agonists then followed by cross-sex hormones, the better the outcome

the NHS also takes the approach of treating the GD rather than concentrating on the child with GD

When first introduced, an age of 12 years was recommended for puberty suppression. However, boys and girls enter puberty at different stages.

The Dutch Approach also tries to make sure the child with GD has the mental facilities to make a decision for itself

Because the protocol for young adolescents had started in a period when there were no studies on the effects of puberty suppression, the age limit was set at 12 years because some cognitive and emotional maturation is desirable when starting these physical medical interventions. Further, Dutch adolescents are legally partly competent to make a medical decision together with their parent´s consent at age 12. It is, however, conceivable that when more information about the safety of early hormone treatment becomes available, the age limit may be further adjusted (de Vries, 2010).

but the NHS and Bakker don't seem to take into account the ability of a child to be able to provable reason for itself.

I hope those that read the above have enjoyed my little informative rant on the topic of GD.

aban57 wrote:

NNY wrote:

aban57 wrote:http://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/

First, the way transgender are treated has nothing to do with how GD appears. It's different in every country, and sometimes has pretty much nothing to do with what science knows on the subject.
Also, as it's said in my quote, the "hard wire" thing is the leading theory (they probably should have said hypothesis), because it's the only one that currently explains all we know. Nobody said it was proven.

I agree that how trans is treated and how GD appears are not related, but my response is to Bakker's statement.

We will then be better equipped to support these young people, instead of just sending them to a psychiatrist and hoping that their distress will disappear spontaneously

Bakker also stated the following.

Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD," lead author Dr Julie Bakker commented about her team’s findings, set to be presented today at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting in Barcelona.

Pebble wrote:

NNY wrote:

aban57 wrote:

I agree one must not over interpret the data, but it would be wasteful not to explore the data gathered, thoroughly in such a difficult population to recruit to studies, and certainly the data presented would help with any future prospective study being designed.

Post hoc is any retrospective data analysis, however it is only comprehensively useless if the data is analysed in a random fashion and publishing only that which delivers a p value, here there was a clear logic presented for the further analysis of the data. I think we are also missing is a clear statement of the original hypothesis, this would be included in the initial study proposal - and may, for all we know, have included these subsequent analyses.

Edited for clarity: