This looks at MRI and similar studies of early-onset transsexuals, both pre and post transition. The upshot for pre-transition transsexuals is nicely summarized here:
"Untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs show a complex picture for the expression of sex differences in their brains (Tables 5, ,6).6). Contrary to some popular ideas, the MtF brain is not completely feminized but presents a mixture of masculine, feminine, and demasculinized traits. ... Moreover, the brain of homosexual FtMs is not uniformly masculinized but presents a mixture of feminine, defeminized, and masculinized morphological traits (Table 9)."
So while there are definitely pre-existing differences in the brains of early onset gender dysphoria patients relative to same-natal-sex controls, and you're not incorrect to say that they "more closely resemble" the opposite gender, those similarities are limited. They do not come close to fully presenting as the opposite sex phenotype – they are their own unique phenotype. The most significant differences occur post-transition.
Which isn't to say that this has no implications for understanding gender dysphoria – quite to the contrary. But unfortunately it's not a validation of the standard conceptualization of "woman born in a man's body". Believe me, I was very hopeful at one time that this would turn out to be the case, because then we'd have a solid footing on which to approach this issue. But it hasn't – although this still suggests what might be a valuable tool for diagnosing gender dysphoria. If only we actually used it for such.
But unfortunately, this plays no part in the modern "science" of gender-affirming care. Instead, what a "diagnosis" mostly consists of is asking a couple perfunctory questions before prescribing hormones, under the presumption that to do anything else is the equivalent of sending gay kids to conversion camps.
And it should also be noted that this is in *no way* the basis for "gender queer theory", which generally (not that it's entirely consistent) posits that gender is a purely social construct with no relation to underlying biology. And at the moment, this cultural theory – or more accurately, the fear of running afoul of it – seems to be driving the treatment of transgendered teens far more than any actual scientific studies of gender dysphoria, which people are often reluctant to even mention for fear of "pathologizing" transgendered people.
So now, ONCE AGAIN, if you want to discuss this further, KINDLY stop telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I have CLEARLY established that I know WAY more than you think I do, and have paid attention to this for FAR longer than it has been a salient political issue. And unless you can demonstrate that YOUR familiarity with this issue predates Caitlyn Jenner and "I Am Jazz", I'd recommend you stop being so rude and presumptuous.
Oh, you promise? I will be happy to take you up on that! Because frankly I'm tired of your nonsensical sophistry.
I didn't move any goalposts. I not only acknowledged the MRI studies, but I explained what they established and what they didn't establish (no, I didn't address the thyroid studies, because I only have so much time for someone who is likely just going to call me a transphobe anyway).
And in particular, I discussed how these studies play NO PART in modern gender affirming care. They are merely thrown out by people like you as an after-the-fact justification for the pillorying of people concerned about an increasingly reckless standard of care in response to a POORLY UNDERSTOOD uptick in transgender identification in teens, which THREATENS THE WELL-BEING of people BOTH CORRECTLY AND INCORRECTLY diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But I suspect you didn't actually read that part, as you often pose questions which indicate that you skim rather than read what I say.
And what you call "gibberish" is the very BASIS for at least the classic interpretation of gender identity and transsexuality (despite the fact that it contradicts other fashionable ideological notions) – that being transgender is something that someone IS rather than something they choose to be. That they are born this way (or effectively set this way in early life development), just like gay people. I would like to establish if this is true, and if so, restrict care to those for whom it IS true. This is something that ANYONE with ANY real familiarity with this issue besides name-dropping Renee Richards and collecting little factoids from advocacy sites would be able to tell you, and I'm frankly stunned that you don't recognize this. Most importantly, this is a CENTRAL QUESTION involved in determining how to treat gender dysphoria in young people, and I shouldn't have to explain to a grown adult why.
So thank you for promising not to subject me to your bull-headed ignorance any longer. I'm sick of wasting my time discussing relevant medical studies and going into detail regarding the worldwide state of scientific consensus on this matter, only for you to tell me that I reject medical science. I'm tired of explaining, repeatedly, why this matters to the well-being of the transgendered community, and making it absolutely clear that I reject right wing bigotry on this matter, only to have you CONSISTENTLY CALL ME TRANSPHOBIC. In your conversations with me you have demonstrated everything that is wrong with modern progressivism, and I am more than happy to never hear from you again.
But just remember: YOU ARE THE ONE who always runs away from the discussion. That should tell you something.
Yes, I am well aware of them. I have been aware of them for over a decade. And I originally found them quite encouraging.
However, they don't say what you and many others seem to think they say. Here's a meta-study from 2016:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/#!po=13.0872
This looks at MRI and similar studies of early-onset transsexuals, both pre and post transition. The upshot for pre-transition transsexuals is nicely summarized here:
"Untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs show a complex picture for the expression of sex differences in their brains (Tables 5, ,6).6). Contrary to some popular ideas, the MtF brain is not completely feminized but presents a mixture of masculine, feminine, and demasculinized traits. ... Moreover, the brain of homosexual FtMs is not uniformly masculinized but presents a mixture of feminine, defeminized, and masculinized morphological traits (Table 9)."
So while there are definitely pre-existing differences in the brains of early onset gender dysphoria patients relative to same-natal-sex controls, and you're not incorrect to say that they "more closely resemble" the opposite gender, those similarities are limited. They do not come close to fully presenting as the opposite sex phenotype – they are their own unique phenotype. The most significant differences occur post-transition.
Which isn't to say that this has no implications for understanding gender dysphoria – quite to the contrary. But unfortunately it's not a validation of the standard conceptualization of "woman born in a man's body". Believe me, I was very hopeful at one time that this would turn out to be the case, because then we'd have a solid footing on which to approach this issue. But it hasn't – although this still suggests what might be a valuable tool for diagnosing gender dysphoria. If only we actually used it for such.
But unfortunately, this plays no part in the modern "science" of gender-affirming care. Instead, what a "diagnosis" mostly consists of is asking a couple perfunctory questions before prescribing hormones, under the presumption that to do anything else is the equivalent of sending gay kids to conversion camps.
And it should also be noted that this is in *no way* the basis for "gender queer theory", which generally (not that it's entirely consistent) posits that gender is a purely social construct with no relation to underlying biology. And at the moment, this cultural theory – or more accurately, the fear of running afoul of it – seems to be driving the treatment of transgendered teens far more than any actual scientific studies of gender dysphoria, which people are often reluctant to even mention for fear of "pathologizing" transgendered people.
So now, ONCE AGAIN, if you want to discuss this further, KINDLY stop telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I have CLEARLY established that I know WAY more than you think I do, and have paid attention to this for FAR longer than it has been a salient political issue. And unless you can demonstrate that YOUR familiarity with this issue predates Caitlyn Jenner and "I Am Jazz", I'd recommend you stop being so rude and presumptuous.
Oh, you promise? I will be happy to take you up on that! Because frankly I'm tired of your nonsensical sophistry.
I didn't move any goalposts. I not only acknowledged the MRI studies, but I explained what they established and what they didn't establish (no, I didn't address the thyroid studies, because I only have so much time for someone who is likely just going to call me a transphobe anyway).
And in particular, I discussed how these studies play NO PART in modern gender affirming care. They are merely thrown out by people like you as an after-the-fact justification for the pillorying of people concerned about an increasingly reckless standard of care in response to a POORLY UNDERSTOOD uptick in transgender identification in teens, which THREATENS THE WELL-BEING of people BOTH CORRECTLY AND INCORRECTLY diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But I suspect you didn't actually read that part, as you often pose questions which indicate that you skim rather than read what I say.
And what you call "gibberish" is the very BASIS for at least the classic interpretation of gender identity and transsexuality (despite the fact that it contradicts other fashionable ideological notions) – that being transgender is something that someone IS rather than something they choose to be. That they are born this way (or effectively set this way in early life development), just like gay people. I would like to establish if this is true, and if so, restrict care to those for whom it IS true. This is something that ANYONE with ANY real familiarity with this issue besides name-dropping Renee Richards and collecting little factoids from advocacy sites would be able to tell you, and I'm frankly stunned that you don't recognize this. Most importantly, this is a CENTRAL QUESTION involved in determining how to treat gender dysphoria in young people, and I shouldn't have to explain to a grown adult why.
So thank you for promising not to subject me to your bull-headed ignorance any longer. I'm sick of wasting my time discussing relevant medical studies and going into detail regarding the worldwide state of scientific consensus on this matter, only for you to tell me that I reject medical science. I'm tired of explaining, repeatedly, why this matters to the well-being of the transgendered community, and making it absolutely clear that I reject right wing bigotry on this matter, only to have you CONSISTENTLY CALL ME TRANSPHOBIC. In your conversations with me you have demonstrated everything that is wrong with modern progressivism, and I am more than happy to never hear from you again.
But just remember: YOU ARE THE ONE who always runs away from the discussion. That should tell you something.
So go ahead and mute the thread now.