Insect in WI

lifeinneon · 2012-05-25T03:03:51.750562+00:00

Thank you! :D

hoping4rein · 2012-05-24T15:30:34.279900+00:00

Right. The issue is extrapolating to all trans people which I have seen done.

hoping4rein · 2012-05-24T05:58:57.796061-07:00

Even though you admit that this points to a prior propensity to act in such a way, you are still talking about the acts themselves having shaped the brain. This conflicts with my example of someone having been forced to live outside of their own leanings.

No, they're not in conflict. We're talking about the scale and scope of what we can identify non-destructively or non-invasively.

I'm trying to think of a good visual metaphor, so bear with me. Bolded for readability, not emphasis:

Think of it like a piece of fabric that has a microscopic flaws that don't cause it to tear, but make it more sensitive to tearing in certain spots [predisposition without a trigger results in being indistinguishable from the expected outcome]. Once it tears, you can definitely see along which line it tore, but the microscopic flaw has been destroyed in the process [a dead person can't have their thoughts correlated to functional scanning of the region]. So if you're just handed the two torn halves,[the deceased brains] it may not be clear that a pre-existing microscopic flaw contributed to where the fabric tore, so you may not know if there was something different between them and other similar torn fabrics.

We know that usage changes the brain. Everything you do changes your brain somehow. But not all of those changes are 1) detectable non-destructively or 2) able to be correlated to what you were thinking or doing at that moment. The methods we have for analyzing microscopic changes in things like protein synthesis or individual synapses requires destruction of the brain to see. Functional MRI can't yet analyze things at the scale needed for that kind of live analysis in order to link "I am having an episode of gender dysphoria right now" to a specific test result.

ETA: Regarding the BTSc, Zhou et al (1997) was the study that gave rise to that bit of evidence. However, that study and the David Reimer case are the two that get cited most frequently as evidence of a biological basis for sex/gender identity, but those had extremely small sample sizes (6 and 1 respectively). We're so eager for an answer, and science journalism is so eager for a story they can sensationalize with "Hey, we found a cause for transsexualism!" that we lose sight of the fact that we're looking for differences in adult brains pre-segregated based on arbitrary criteria. When you have a sample size that small, it's just too possible that other factors might show the same or more statistical significance. We might find similar dimorphism in the BTSc correlated to drinking Pepsi vs Coke (I'm only being slightly facetious; the smaller the sample size, the more impact noise has on the analysis).

hoping4rein · 1 day

The bSTC research is what I meant most when I was talking about sample sizes. Zhou et al. was an N=6 study for the MTF brains. However it is totally plausible as a place to look for that neurological difference because the hypothalamus and the amygdala (which are linked in part by the stria terminalis) are such key components of the limbic system (the so-called "lizard brain", the absolute most basic functions: fear, rage, pleasure, hunger, thirst, rudimentary learning, sexual behavior).

So, don't take my skepticism with the same dose of salt grains as you would from radfems claiming this is all junk "dude science". :P I think that it's totally reasonable to expect that if there is such a "base level" neurological difference, then the best odds will be on finding it somewhere in or very closely, directly linked to the hypothalamus and/or amygdala, or in the somatosensory cortex, the so-called "body map", or both. (As someone who, like I said, has phantom sensation, I have to believe the somatosensory cortex is involved somehow)

I just don't think that the data right now justifies making the broad, sweeping statements of absolute, settled fact that some people have in the past with regard to brain sex vs body sex. I think that's what we will find, but it sends up my "misuse of science" red flag when I hear people talk about this in terms of conclusive proof.

hoping4rein · 1 day

Not exactly. There's two separate mechanisms involved there.

It's not about the messages sent in, but the messages received. You can play the music as loud as you want, but if no one is there to hear it, no one will write about it in Rolling Stone.

So if the person lacks receptivity for certain types of influence, it doesn't matter how strong that influence is. They may be averse to something no matter how much it is thrust upon them or how often they engage in it anyway.

If they are predisposed to a certain type of behavior (even if it doesn't occur to them to do it without prompting; for instance, some people love shaving and some people hate it but very few would have done it without someone else providing the idea) then even the weakest signal, hearing about it one time from someone on TV, can cause lasting, dramatic impact, and engaging in that behavior can provide a sense of satisfaction.

Those are things that we simply don't have the tools to measure or predict.

On the other hand, after a lifetime of a certain type of behavior, the brain has specialized the areas necessary for reproducing that behavior. These can be significant enough changes that we see statistically meaningful differences in the shape and structure of the brain between those who do something and those who don't do something(e.g. driving a taxi cab). But that doesn't change whether or not the person wants, is inclined to, or is averse to that behavior.

Does that help?

hoping4rein · 1 day

That's a good way of saying it. It's certainly plausible, and I would put my money on neurological or neurohormonal causes rooted early in development (I'm talking prenatally here), but the ethics of testing such a thing with present technology is um. . . questionable. :P

But like all things in science, not knowing the answer to "why" does not invalidate the observed fact itself.

hoping4rein · 1 day

The largest problem is sample size, across the board. These are loose correlations.

We're also looking for differences between men and women in mature brains that have already been through a lifetime of changing and adapting to their life and circumstance. We'd need to compare the same brains pre-"setting" of gender identity to post-"setting", which probably means children, and then wait a decade or more to see which ones turn out trans.

From a self-awareness perspective, if my brain showed up as female on a scan I could very easily envision it being because I have been internalizing female-coded socialization lessons all my life that I can recall. In other words, whenever "A is for boys, B is for girls", I was picking B. In other words, my brain has been "feminizing" in terms of what would show up on any scan looking for differences. But the fact that I picked B at all means there must have been something in the neurological substrate there prior to it; a circuit path of least resistance that routed to "female" symbols = "my" symbols. That's something that had to be present in very early childhood when the entire brain is underdeveloped and still growing. So that's a level of detail I can't even conceive of a means of looking at offhand (invasive or not).

So, in a lot of ways I feel we're asking the wrong question when we ask "what's the difference between men's and women's brains?" when meaningful differences arise from how people are categorized, socialized, and how they spend their time in a day behaving. (The difference between men and women is roughly the same or less than the difference between people who drive taxi cabs and people who don't. Structural change follows usage.)

hoping4rein · 1 day

To be fair, the science IS pretty bad on this, and I get very uncomfortable when I see it held up almost dogmatically by other trans folks. The answer almost certainly is neurological; nothing functions but for the cells and organs of the body, and as this pertains to self-awareness, we'll find the answer in the brain. Now, the male brain vs female brain stuff is problematic because so much of the brain is plastic, and we know that experiences change it's micro structure both in terms of synapses and gene expression through epigenetic tagging. So looking for answers on an fMRI is probably not going to tell us what we really need to know.

It's also asking the wrong question. I know we all want a firm answer we can shove in the noses of bigots, but remember: there's no answer that will satisfy someone who dismisses science as "dude science" and female scientists as "collaborators". So forget them and we should focus on what we CAN learn about the brain.

We know gender identity is pretty solid in most folks. (btw, David Reimer is an N=1 study; that's the least conclusive sample size you can get. It is just a very poignant and straightforward anecdote. However, a non-negligible number of trans people report similar certainty throughout life.)
We know that there are conscious manifestations of being trans that vary in degree. (some, like myself and a few others even have phantom limb experiences with regard to genitals we never physically possessed, and this is an identified phenomenon in people born with congenital missing limbs.)
We know socialization changes the structure of the brain and we know that the current state of the brain affects how new experiences are integrated. We know that hormone balance dramatically affects emotionality and to a degree personality.

Forget whether or not radscum will criticize us based on what the science says or doesn't say. They are ideologues. They will do this no matter what.

Instead, we should look for the answers we CAN find.

haywire · 4 days

Biology and society influence one another. It's not necessarily either-or but both: socially mediated biological inclinations, and biological inclinations shaping our relationship with society.

If it was all socialization, and socialization was so effective, then how did any feminists break free of how they were socialized?

If it was all biology, how do you explain how so much of what we do as gender norms need to be taught?

It's a combination of both. People have things that appeal to them for whatever reason, biologically, neurologically. When social interaction presents them with some gendered concept, the idea may strike on patterns or preferences that make it easy to incorporate it into their behavior. Or it may run directly counter to what's there already and get rejected.

We also know that the kinds of things a person does, the activities they do, and the things they learn changes how their brain works. Subtly in some cases, dramatically in others. But there's also things that don't change, things too deep for social interaction to erase. Maybe they can be masked for a time, but rarely permanently, not without doing damage (most mental trauma is about robbing a person of autonomy, whether it is by forcing someone into an inappropriate gender role, the wrong sex partnership, the wrong puberty. Eventually, what the person holds as true about themselves will fight to come forth, and depending upon what outside forces are preventing it, there can be lasting damage emotionally, mentally, and sometimes physically)

haywire · 4 days

Well, I think the real issue is why people get the impression in the first place: radical feminists saying and doing transphobic shit and harassing trans people in the name of radical feminism.

I dislike feeling like I've been forced to distance myself from radical feminism, since it was so formative in terms of my ideas about gender. But the transphobic ones tend to preach a brand of gender abolition in such dogmatic fashion that there is no room for trans people. Soon, trans people become the enemy to be purged, and I want no part of telling people what they can and can't express in terms of gender.

kubabubba · 4 days

$75T would exist if pirates weren't circumventing the market and eliminating the need for $75T to exist!

JulianMorrison · 4 days

They'll have to sample numerous tissues to ensure no stem cell populations in the body have Y Chromosomes either. You never know if there's a germ line chimera sneaking in based on blood testing alone.

natalie1984 · 5 days

I'm also wondering how much unintentional self hate it caused.

A lot for me. Not consciously, but it reinforced my belief that no matter what I was feeling, I obviously couldn't be transgender because I would never want to be like her. It wasn't even conscious enough to qualify as being in denial. I just never connected the dots because they kept getting driven so far apart by these images throughout my life.

pixellated · 6 days

Patriarchy

Nicely sums up Do. Not. Want.

nadleehe · 9 days

Heh, I'm reading that book right now! I just got done with my college's neurobiology and biology of gender courses.

I also have a left-handed father and a twin mother. >_>

nadleehe · 9 days

Almost impossible and almost certainly unethical depending upon the tissues involved. Central nervous system tissue is on the list of DO NOT TOUCH UNLESS CANCEROUS.

ChrysalisGurl · 9 days

I was a fan from a few years ago when they first got big. I always found the songs resonated with me but I couldn't comprehend why. I wasn't even in denial at that stage, I had forgotten gender mattered to me. This is a puzzle piece falling into place.

jojojok · 10 days

Ctrl + F

Because apparently there's a ton of people who don't know what that does

kindnessabound · 10 days

I wish! :-D But thank you ;-)

kindnessabound · 11 days

Here's mine. The purple is fading and the length is all screwy because of some in the front broke at one point. http://i.imgur.com/LLHZ0.jpg

A_Durbeyfield · 12 days

I was wondering how far down I'd get before I saw the first kindness coins=sex reasoning. The alternative to dating you is not automatically dating someone who is abusive, and your sense of entitlement is just dripping from your post. Is your ego that big that you can't think any guy who dates a girl you were attracted was actually a cool person? Do you really think no woman could spot an attitude like yours a mile away?

WildMagnemite · 14 days

It's the childlike innocence of the turrets.

MrsMousey · 15 days

Right?? That was the first thing I thought when I read about this.

Thrash Unreal was #2 on my playlist for my transition, right after Born This Way. I think those two songs say a lot about me and my goals, haha.

catherinecc · 15 days

This is how I felt about Thrash Unreal.

One-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

lifeinneon

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login