• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transgender senior can't be king

I can read the article and see the current situation very clearly for myself, that doesn't mean the school is making a good choice OR in the right. Personally, I think it's in their best interests to step off and let this one slide. That's all I'm saying.

I think, in this case, the whole thing has been OBE (overcome by events). For future reference, if you are going to allow a female student to be treated as male, dress as male, be called male, then don't do stupid crap like this.
 
I think, in this case, the whole thing has been OBE (overcome by events). For future reference, if you are going to allow a female student to be treated as male, dress as male, be called male, then don't do stupid crap like this.

I believe that was my point, I made over 6 pages back :2razz:

Here's the problem, the way I see it. The school failed to set definitive rules. If they had refused to let the student participate as a male in any other activities, I would probably stand by their decision to exclude the individual from running for Homecoming King.

However, they allowed the student to be male in every other aspect of school life.
 
I believe that was my point, I made over 6 pages back :2razz:

Here's the problem, the way I see it. The school failed to set definitive rules. If they had refused to let the student participate as a male in any other activities, I would probably stand by their decision to exclude the individual from running for Homecoming King.

However, they allowed the student to be male in every other aspect of school life.

Devil's advocate, from the school's perspective, I would guess they didn't think allowing this kid to be treated as male on an average daily basis was a big deal. They only had a problem with it when the kid (and the kids who voted for her) made a big public deal out of (which I think was some of the kid's reasoning behind the whole thing)

one female out of a school of hundreds dressing and acting like a guy...no big whoop, who cares and how many people even noticed
electing a female as homecoming King...publicity stunt (I have a sneaky, cynical suspicion that this is akin to all the "popular" kids voting for the fat ugly girl as prom queen)
 
Ok, to continue with what I was saying. The causes of transexualism are not completely known. This is not an issue that has been studied, extensively. However, recently, there have been studies using MRI's and exploring the limbic system that have demonstrated some potential causality. Both genetics and biology have been considered as links.

Much of the information regarding the studies done on the causes of transsexualism are highly technical in nature. I will attempt to explain them in layman's terms"

A study done in 2000 examined the part of the brain that identifies gender identity... the central subdivision of the bed-nucleus of the stria terminalis or BSTc for short. They examined the somatostatin (SOM), a hormone, neurons. What they found was this. Males have 3-4 times the amount of SOM neurons than females do. This is regardless of sexual orientation; homosexual males were similar to males just as homosexual females were similar to females. However, when examining the SOM neurons of transsexuals, they found that FTM (females who claimed to be male) SOM neurons were in the MALE range while MTF (males who claimed to be females) SOM neurons were in the FEMALE range. They examined people who had hormone treatment, who had not, who had sex reassignment surgery, and who had not. Didn't matter. The SOM neuron levels remained the same. Also irrelevant was when the individual indicated their transsexualism. This gives indication that whatever the cause, it occurs while the individual develops in the womb.

Link to the actual study and links to other information used:

Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus -- Kruijver et al. 85 (5): 2034 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Male to Female Transsexual Individuals have Female Neuron Numbers in the Central Subdivision of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis - Tara's Transgender Resources


There also may be a DNA link to transsexualism. In a 2008 study, researchers discovered that MTF transsexuals have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene which causes weaker testosterone signals... similar to that of females.

Link to that information:

BBC NEWS | Health | Transsexual gene link identified

The first study that I posted has been reproduced and is being used to explore the answers to a numbers of questions about human sexual development.

If we are talking about biological gender development, we all know that an XX person is female and an XY person is male. However, what this creates is the anatomical differences between males and females. It does NOT impact the brain and hormone level development. It is theorized that in transsexuals, hormone surges, often occurring in the 3rd month of pregnancy occur in the opposite fashion as would typically occur. An XX fetus might get the hormonal surge, whereas an XY might not. This can account for the differences in the BSTc SOM receptors. There is some discussion that this may be caused by hormones or other medications ingested during pregnancy, such as DES, but there is no conclusive evidence surrounding this. What is clear is that a transsexual's brain-hormonal pathways operate similar to the sex opposite to what they are anatomically.

Things to consider when discussing transsexualism. Firstly, though there is a strong connection between the differentiation in BSTc SOM neurons and gender identity, the mechanisms that create gender are complex and not completely understood; the brain is still a very complicated organ.

Secondly, cases of children who may have had some genital abnormality at birth, and were "reassigned" to the opposite sex for cosmetic reasons at that time, retained their chromosomal identity. In other words, if a boy was born without a penis, but with testicles, and he was castrated a brought up as a girl, he would retain his gender identity and STILL identify as a boy. A study done with children like this found that all eventually presented as male, not female as they were raised. This gives credence to the idea that transsexualism is NOT socially or environmentally driven.

Hopkins research shows nature, not nurture, determines gender

Thirdly, it has been found that true transsexual people cannot be "cured" though psychiatry or psychology. This is NOT a mental disorder, but an inconsistency between brain-hormonal functioning/structure and chromosomal anatomy.

Further links that provided information for this post:

http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Research-Assets/etiology.pdf
Transsexuality
Transsexualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please feel free to ask any questions. This is just an overview as there is more information.

In my post, tomorrow, I will discuss treatment for GID and how it relates to transsexualism. There is a pretty clear set of guidelines, and as someone who actively treats folks with GID, I will identify them both from a clinical position and from an experiential position.

Wow, real data! I'm impressed CC. The first study is the one I'm looking at now, and I agree with the conclusions of the researchers, however, like them, I caution that the corollaries are based on the relative assumption that the dimorphic structure of the brain is necessarily sexual, or primarily sexual.

Either way, it is an interesting read, thanks for posting it.

Tim-
 
Since transexualism in and of itself is NOT a mental disorder, your point is not only irrelevant, but is a non-sequitur.

Here is what the DSM says:

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria For Gender Identity Disorder

So, what do you have to say to that? How about the fact the Wikipedia page you cited explicitly says transsexualism is included in gender identity disorder?

CaptainCourtesy;1059011371A study done in 2000 examined the part of the brain that identifies gender identity... [SIZE=2 said:
the central subdivision of the bed-nucleus of the stria terminalis or BSTc for short. They examined the [/SIZE]somatostatin (SOM), a hormone, neurons. What they found was this. Males have 3-4 times the amount of SOM neurons than females do. This is regardless of sexual orientation; homosexual males were similar to males just as homosexual females were similar to females. However, when examining the SOM neurons of transsexuals, they found that FTM (females who claimed to be male) SOM neurons were in the MALE range while MTF (males who claimed to be females) SOM neurons were in the FEMALE range. They examined people who had hormone treatment, who had not, who had sex reassignment surgery, and who had not. Didn't matter. The SOM neuron levels remained the same. Also irrelevant was when the individual indicated their transsexualism.

I have looked at somatostatin and I am not seeing what role it could possibly play in gender identity.

Secondly, cases of children who may have had some genital abnormality at birth, and were "reassigned" to the opposite sex for cosmetic reasons at that time, retained their chromosomal identity. In other words, if a boy was born without a penis, but with testicles, and he was castrated a brought up as a girl, he would retain his gender identity and STILL identify as a boy. A study done with children like this found that all eventually presented as male, not female as they were raised. This gives credence to the idea that transsexualism is NOT socially or environmentally driven.

That doesn't give credence to anything of the sort. For one a person being physically one gender thinking he or she is of that gender is what one would expect. Second, it requires you to discount the possibility that the child has not received subtle mixed signals or blatant mixed signals that would impact the child's perception of his or her gender.

Thirdly, it has been found that true transsexual people cannot be "cured" though psychiatry or psychology. This is NOT a mental disorder, but an inconsistency between brain-hormonal functioning/structure and chromosomal anatomy.

There are many mental disorders that are believe to be incurable as I am sure you are aware. Being incurable does not mean it is not a disorder.
 
DOL -
I have looked at somatostatin and I am not seeing what role it could possibly play in gender identity.

Well, in the defense of CC, (Gawd really am I actually doing this) he is not stating something as fact. The truth is that you're correct, just like I pointed out in the post above yours. There are assumptions, but the assumptions are not without merit, as there are clear corollaries in the dimorphic structure of males and females. How relevant it is, is the main question, and just how sexually necessary the structure is is also a fair question, but the data does suggest a path for research, and on that alone I agree with CC's documentation.


Tim-
 
As interesting as all that is...it has little bearing on this case. These studies are focued on male-female transsexuals. I would like to see data, if it exists, on the female-male transsexual (which is afterall what this thread is about) unless this is part of these studies and I just missed it.
 
What I still haven't heard is why he shouldn't be allowed to be homecoming king just because he was born a "she"? Rules should have reasons behind them, not just be set because someone feels it should be that way or even the ever-so-popular "because that's the way it's always been". What harm can come from allowing a girl who lives life as a boy (or even a girl in general) to be homecoming king?

In the more general discussion, what actual harm comes from allowing a person to live life as the gender they feel they are, if it isn't the gender they were born as? Allowing someone to believe they are an animal, such as a dog or a duck or a turtle, means that either someone would have to agree to look after the person as a "pet" or allowing the person to be possibly putting themselves at risk of things such as exposure, food poisoning, animal attacks, etc. if they truly do try to live their lives as that animal. I'm not sure if it is legal or not to keep someone as a "pet" if they believe they are an animal, but I doubt it. However, the same things cannot be said about someone who simply wants to live as the opposite sex as they were born, with or without surgery to change themselves physically. The person will still be living life as a human, which means communicating with other people, following the laws of the land, thinking for themself, taking care of themself, and doing everything a human does, just not conforming to gender norms.
 
What I still haven't heard is why he shouldn't be allowed to be homecoming king just because he was born a "she"? .

answer in bold, because the rules say "shes" can't be HK. There would be no harm in allowing this, since homecoming king is bull**** meaningless title anyway.

I am a white guy, my wife and I adopted two black boys. They have been raised in a white family, treated like white kids, they think of themselves as white kids but none of that changes the fact that they are black. they were born black and they will always be black.
 
answer in bold, because the rules say "shes" can't be HK. There would be no harm in allowing this, since homecoming king is bull**** meaningless title anyway.

I am a white guy, my wife and I adopted two black boys. They have been raised in a white family, treated like white kids, they think of themselves as white kids but none of that changes the fact that they are black. they were born black and they will always be black.

There is a difference. Men and women are treated differently in society based on their gender. There are different expectations for how they should dress and conduct themselves. Different races are not held to those same standards by titles or contests. Discrimination laws would prevent there from ever again being a contest that was only for blacks or only for whites in a school. If a black boy "acted" more white than other black boys in the school, it wouldn't have any impact on what he may or may not be eligible to do or where in the school he could go. It doesn't work the same way when you are talking about a girl who acts, and actually lives life as, a boy, or a boy who acts, and actually lives life, as a girl.
 
As interesting as all that is...it has little bearing on this case. These studies are focued on male-female transsexuals. I would like to see data, if it exists, on the female-male transsexual (which is afterall what this thread is about) unless this is part of these studies and I just missed it.

That's not true. The first study I cited refers to both MTF AND FTM. Re-read the information and you will see that.
 
The choice of who is to be homecoming king or queen should be left up to the kids. Not their parents.
 
I was just reading through this thread again when I was reminded of something from an Art History study I did in college. Took me a second to find a source to back it up. It looks like everyone arguing that a king is male by definition has just lost the battle.



As far back as Ancient Egypt, there has been precedent for female kings.

Egypt: The Kings (Pharaohs) of Ancient Egypt

Game. Set. Match.

Homecoming Pharaoh DOES sound much more cool than Homecoming King, doesn't it?

I'm not sure if it is as cool as Homecoming Poobah, but close.
 
That's not true. The first study I cited refers to both MTF AND FTM. Re-read the information and you will see that.

got it and thanks. I still see nothing that would prove that the brain differences are causative and not as a result of.

as the old saying goes: "correlation does not equal causation"
 
Last edited:
The choice of who is to be homecoming king or queen should be left up to the kids. Not their parents.

I personally think they should banish all those stupid "popularity" contests in school. All it does is give the "popular" kids yet another opportunity to spit on the "losers".
 
got it and thanks. I still see nothing that would prove that the brain differences are causative and not as a result of.

as the old saying goes: "correlation does not equal causation"

I don't agree, but the research is in it's infancy. It demonstrates that the difference in the amount of SOM neurons is correlated with transsexualism. We also know that hormones cause the number of SOM neurons, hormones secreted by the woman while the fetus is in th womb, usually during the 3rd month of pregnancy. Between 1938 and 1971, a drug called DES (a synthetic form of estrogen) was often given to women to prevent miscarriage. Along with doing this... and sometimes causing birth defects, because DES both added certain hormones and prevented others, it was discovered that some who were exposed to DES became transsexual, and those who did were found to have a number of SOM neurons that correlated to the opposite of their chromosonal gender. This points to a causational, not just correlational affect; hormonal issues cause an alteration in the number of SOM neurons, which causes transsexuality. Now, DES has not been used since the early '70s, however, it is the surge or lack of surging of hormones that seems to cause the amount of SOM neurons in the BSTc part of the brain... the part that triggers the brain's understanding of gender. What mechanisms can cause this "surge" or lack thereof? We don't know, but there seems to be a causal relationship, and though the research is very new, it does seem to give us a direction.
 
DOL -

Well, in the defense of CC, (Gawd really am I actually doing this) he is not stating something as fact. The truth is that you're correct, just like I pointed out in the post above yours. There are assumptions, but the assumptions are not without merit, as there are clear corollaries in the dimorphic structure of males and females. How relevant it is, is the main question, and just how sexually necessary the structure is is also a fair question, but the data does suggest a path for research, and on that alone I agree with CC's documentation.


Tim-

Yes. Nothing is conclusive, but this does give researchers a path on which to go.
 
Here is what the DSM says:

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria For Gender Identity Disorder

So, what do you have to say to that? How about the fact the Wikipedia page you cited explicitly says transsexualism is included in gender identity disorder?

Read the DSM-IV classification of GID. Transsexualism is NOT mentioned at all. GID is a precursor to transsexualism, though the latter is NOT a disorder. I will explain what this means in my next post, but unless you can find the word "transsexual" in the DSM-IVTR diagnosis of GID, your position holds no water.

Oh, and in case you continue to argue this debunked point, here is the official DSM-IVTR diagnosis:

Gender Identity Disorder

A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:

1 .repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex
2. in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing
3. strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex
4. intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex
5. strong preference for playmates of the other sex

B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Find the word "transsexual in the quote box and place it in bold.



I have looked at somatostatin and I am not seeing what role it could possibly play in gender identity.

Then you are refusing to accept what is right in front of you. SOM is a hormone that inhibits the secretion of OTHER hormones; in this part of the brain, testosterone. Males have more of these neurons, causing LESS secretion, and more retainment. This results in the gender identity of male. The opposite happens with females.

That doesn't give credence to anything of the sort. For one a person being physically one gender thinking he or she is of that gender is what one would expect. Second, it requires you to discount the possibility that the child has not received subtle mixed signals or blatant mixed signals that would impact the child's perception of his or her gender.

It certainly does. Even if we give the possibility that SOME of the children received signals of some sort, EVERY SINGLE ONE reverted to the sex that their brains told them they were. It dismisses the social impact of gender in these cases.



There are many mental disorders that are believe to be incurable as I am sure you are aware. Being incurable does not mean it is not a disorder.

That may be true in some cases. However, in this one, you are incorrect. Transsexualism is NOT a disorder. GID is. Again, you can either except reality or deny it, but it doesn't CHANGE it.
 
Treatment. Being transsexual has the benefit of having a very structured management tool: The Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorder. I will provide the link at the end of this post for anyone who wishes to read it, and will intersperse some of my commentary with either excerpts or citations. In MY treatment of those with GID, this is the manual, with some variation, that I follow. One thing of note to be aware of. The entire process from diagnosis of GID to completion of sex-reassignment-surgery can take YEARS and usually does. Other practitioners may vary in their time-frame, but I move very conservatively with this issue as I want to be certain. Also, not every person goes through all the stages, even if they ARE transsexual. Some may choose to stop at any stage.

There are 5 elements of clinical work: diagnostic assessment, psychotherapy, real-life experience, hormone therapy, and surgical therapy. There are several practitioners that might be involved in the treatment team: mental health clinician, physician prescribing hormone therapy (HT), and the surgeon performing the sex-reassignment surgery (SRS). The mental health professional is, generally the team "leader". It is this individual's responsibility to assess and diagnose GID, to identify the individual as being transsexual, to indicate the readiness of any of the major stages and any minor stages that fall within the major ones, to determine and treat any co-morbid psychological issues, and to assist in educating family members.

There is a specific structure for treatment, and this structure also depends on the age of the individual. For example, it is NOT recommended that any non-reversible physical treatments be performed on a child under the age of 16, and NO treatments may be performed on a minor without parental consent. There are, however, some universal conditions.

Firstly, during the assessment stage, the mental health practitioner needs to take a complete history, family history, assess for co-morbid psychological disorders, and determine whether these are the cause of the individual's gender distress or whether these are separate or caused BY the gender distress. In general, a diagnosis of GID should not be given in less than 3 months.

At the point that the diagnosis of GID is given, the individual is considered, though not confirmed as transsexual. Transsexuality is NOT the diagnosis, but a state of being; Gender Identity Disorder is the diagnosis. Consider that a mental disorder is classified as a psychological state that causes distress. The transsexuality is not causing the distress, but rather the conflict between ones anatomical gender and the symptoms of GID that are inconsistent with this. Alleviating the symptoms of GID is the goal NOT cure. It then behooves the mental health practitioner to assist the individual in either ways to manage this diagnosis or to assist the individual towards moving towards some sort of intervention.

Once the individual is considered transsexual, the treatment of the GID takes on an additional piece. Along with continued care for the distress surrounding the GID and any co-morbid issues, assessing readiness level for moving forward with interventions is done. This is done in conjunction with the individual. For example, an individual who may want to start discussing their transsexuality with friends would work around this, discussing the "whys", "hows", "whos", "whens", and the ramifications of these decisions. The stability of the individual and descriptions of their specific circumstances are taken into consideration when determining the readiness of any step such as this. I know that I tend to err on the side of caution and conservatism, making sure the individual is ready.

After the identification of transsexualism has been confirmed, much of the work not only focuses on the psychological issues surrounding GID, but also ways for the individual to begin transitioning to their perceived sex. Things often start simply, with minor attire or hygiene changes, name and pronoun alterations (often starting with individuals or small groups), and can progress to more widespread alterations towards the perceived gender. Again, all of these changes are made with a readiness assessment, agreed upon by both the individual and the mental health practitioner, based on that individual's situation.

As the individual moves through some of these transitions, the next stage is either the "real life" experience or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). The "real life experience" requires the individual to live as the perceived gender for at least 6 months, preferably a year. If this is successful, and there are specific criteria that need to be met, then the individual is confirmed as transsexual; if not, then the consideration is revoked and other issues that may have already presented are further explored. This is one reason why I, though others disagree, NEVER recommend any physical interventions until the "real life experience" has been completed and deemed a success. This is the true test, as identified by the guidelines, to confirm transsexuality. I do not believe in providing physically intervening treatment for something that is not an issue.

If transsexuality is confirmed, HRT and SRS can then be performed, again, according to the Standards guidelines, along with the readiness assessment of the mental health practitioner, and now at least one or two medical practitioners. And, of course, with the desires of the individual. Some individuals choose to do neither HRT or SRS, some only HRT. It depends on the individual.

The guidelines that I have been discussing are mostly taken from the following link:
http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf

Though much of the work I do follows these guidelines, I certainly use my own training and experiences in psychotherapuetic treatment, along with interventions to assist the individual deal with psychological issues that go along with GID, such as depression and anxiety.

Please feel free to ask any questions.
 
Read the DSM-IV classification of GID. Transsexualism is NOT mentioned at all. GID is a precursor to transsexualism, though the latter is NOT a disorder. I will explain what this means in my next post, but unless you can find the word "transsexual" in the DSM-IVTR diagnosis of GID, your position holds no water.

Oh, and in case you continue to argue this debunked point, here is the official DSM-IVTR diagnosis:



Find the word "transsexual in the quote box and place it in bold.

You haven't debunked anything. You cited a source that actually explicitly said transsexualism was part of gender identity disorder. Though the link on Wikipedia was no longer working I found the new page on the NHS site:

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person feels that they are trapped within a body of the wrong sex. The condition is also sometimes known as:

* gender identity disorder
* gender incongruence
* transgenderism

People who have long-lasting and extreme gender dysphoria are known as transsexuals.

Just in case there is any confusion here is another part where they make this clear:

Transsexual is someone with an extreme and long-term case of gender dysphoria, who seeks to alter their biological sex to match their gender identity.

So what do you have to say to this? Is the National Health Service of the United Kingdom ignorant of medicine or are they just lying?

Then you are refusing to accept what is right in front of you. SOM is a hormone that inhibits the secretion of OTHER hormones; in this part of the brain, testosterone. Males have more of these neurons, causing LESS secretion, and more retainment. This results in the gender identity of male. The opposite happens with females.

I understand that somatostatin inhibits the secretion of certain hormones. However, I see no indication in your source or in any study I looked up that it in any way increases secretion of testosterone, which is what it would have to do in order for the connection to be legitimate in any way. Hormones act by being released into the rest of the body, not being held back from the rest of the body. It stands to reason that as men secrete far more testosterone they would need more somatostatin to keep it in control.

The more plausible explanation for the higher level of those neurons is that of prenatal hormone levels. Many claim hormonal levels in the womb determine "gender identity" so it seems reasonable to conclude that you are postulating a reverse cause and effect. Higher levels of these neurons is merely a symptom of a different alleged cause.

It certainly does. Even if we give the possibility that SOME of the children received signals of some sort, EVERY SINGLE ONE reverted to the sex that their brains told them they were. It dismisses the social impact of gender in these cases.

It is not a mere possibility. If the parents are aware of the issue, something that seems unavoidable, they will give mixed signals. Maybe when you focus on the broad and general nature of the mind you lose sight of the particulars, but people give clear and blatant signs that can be picked up on subconsciously from birth. Parents who know the child was born a boy will without fail give mixed signals. These are not people trained in the art of deception. Even if they try to hide it the signals will be picked up on whether consciously or unconsciously.
 
You haven't debunked anything. You cited a source that actually explicitly said transsexualism was part of gender identity disorder. Though the link on Wikipedia was no longer working I found the new page on the NHS site:



Just in case there is any confusion here is another part where they make this clear:



So what do you have to say to this? Is the National Health Service of the United Kingdom ignorant of medicine or are they just lying?

And you have proven nothing. Nowhere does it say that transsexualism ITSELF is a disorder. Gender dyphoria can be caused by transsexualism... so you treat the disorder which is the GENDER DYSPHORIA, not the transsexualism which is NOT a disorder. Further, transgenderism is often used as the "short" term when discussing this issue. It is easier to say "transgendered" than Gender Identity Disorder. It's kinda like saying "I'll make a Xerox of that, when you are not using a Xerox machine. It's a misnomer and is not accurate in defining the disorder. You are just seeing what you want to see, not what's accurate.



I understand that somatostatin inhibits the secretion of certain hormones. However, I see no indication in your source or in any study I looked up that it in any way increases secretion of testosterone, which is what it would have to do in order for the connection to be legitimate in any way. Hormones act by being released into the rest of the body, not being held back from the rest of the body. It stands to reason that as men secrete far more testosterone they would need more somatostatin to keep it in control.

SOM inhibits hormones and can inhibit ANY hormone. In this case, it is inhibiting testosterone. And. in this case, by inhibiting their secretion, the BSTc part of the brain (sexually dimorphic) retains the hormone, assisting in causing maleness. So, sorry, but you are not correct.

The more plausible explanation for the higher level of those neurons is that of prenatal hormone levels. Many claim hormonal levels in the womb determine "gender identity" so it seems reasonable to conclude that you are postulating a reverse cause and effect. Higher levels of these neurons is merely a symptom of a different alleged cause.

You are partially correct. Hormone surge, which often occurs during the 3 month of pregnancy can affect gender. It is postulated that this "surge" affects the BSTc and impacts the direction that sexual dimorphism goes. The inhabition of the SOM neurons secreting testosterone and retaining them in the BSTc may be the cause for the brain's "wiring" of gender. Of course, as I said, this research is pretty new.



It is not a mere possibility. If the parents are aware of the issue, something that seems unavoidable, they will give mixed signals. Maybe when you focus on the broad and general nature of the mind you lose sight of the particulars, but people give clear and blatant signs that can be picked up on subconsciously from birth. Parents who know the child was born a boy will without fail give mixed signals. These are not people trained in the art of deception. Even if they try to hide it the signals will be picked up on whether consciously or unconsciously.

Since you have no evidence of this "possibility" and research tends to disagree with you, I conclude that your position is unfounded.
 
And you have proven nothing. Nowhere does it say that transsexualism ITSELF is a disorder.

Here is what it says (I'll highlight the important parts for you):

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person feels that they are trapped within a body of the wrong sex. The condition is also sometimes known as:

* gender identity disorder
* gender incongruence
* transgenderism

People who have long-lasting and extreme gender dysphoria are known as transsexuals.

Saying it is also known as gender identity disorder means this is just another name for the condition. The point being that these terms are interchangeable.

You are just seeing what you want to see, not what's accurate.

I think you are the one seeing what you want to see.

SOM inhibits hormones and can inhibit ANY hormone. In this case, it is inhibiting testosterone. And. in this case, by inhibiting their secretion, the BSTc part of the brain (sexually dimorphic) retains the hormone, assisting in causing maleness. So, sorry, but you are not correct.

Where are you getting this notion about testosterone being retained in the brain and causing maleness? I don't find it in the study you cite and I find no mention of this claim. Perhaps you should reconsider insisting on this as the explanation.

Since you have no evidence of this "possibility" and research tends to disagree with you, I conclude that your position is unfounded.

You are concluding my position about unconscious expressions of emotion and their unconscious interpretation is unfounded because of what now? Seriously, I am giving you something incredibly basic here. I mean, haven't you ever watched or at least heard about Lie to Me?
 
Here is what it says (I'll highlight the important parts for you):



Saying it is also known as gender identity disorder means this is just another name for the condition. The point being that these terms are interchangeable.



I think you are the one seeing what you want to see.

Nope. Again, you are absolutely wrong, here. From the "Standards of Care" link I already posted:

Transgender is not a formal diagnosis, but many professionals and members of the public found it easier to use informally
than GIDNOS, which is a formal diagnosis.

NOT a formal diagnosis. Clear cut. You are incorrect.


Where are you getting this notion about testosterone being retained in the brain and causing maleness? I don't find it in the study you cite and I find no mention of this claim. Perhaps you should reconsider insisting on this as the explanation.

No, the same researchers did a study on THIS several years before this particular study. It's what prompted them to move forward. I cannot locate that study, but I remember reading it last year when I read this one, also.



You are concluding my position about unconscious expressions of emotion and their unconscious interpretation is unfounded because of what now? Seriously, I am giving you something incredibly basic here. I mean, haven't you ever watched or at least heard about Lie to Me?

You are presenting NOTHING substantial or evidenciary and as I said, research disagrees with you. Your position remains unfounded.
 
Nope. Again, you are absolutely wrong, here. From the "Standards of Care" link I already posted:



NOT a formal diagnosis. Clear cut. You are incorrect.

Do you mean this one?:

http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf

Because I think you should see what else it says (on page 2 under Epidemiological Considerations about midway into the Prevalance paragraph):

The most recent prevalence information from the Netherlands for the transsexual end of the gender identity disorder spectrum is 1 in 11,900 males and 1 in 30,400 females.

That seems to be saying transsexualism is just one form of gender identity disorder. It does say the term is not a formal diagnosis (it says earlier on page 2 under Clinical Threshold that the term is used to refer to the disorder informally), but that just stays consistent with what I already noted in that the term is used to describe a subset of gender identity disorder.

No, the same researchers did a study on THIS several years before this particular study. It's what prompted them to move forward. I cannot locate that study, but I remember reading it last year when I read this one, also.

Cite it. I am not just going to take your word for it when every single bit of information I find on endocrinology only talks about hormones having an effect on anything, including the brain, when they are secreted.

You are presenting NOTHING substantial or evidenciary and as I said, research disagrees with you. Your position remains unfounded.

When your position is so flimsy that your own sources are disagreeing with you I fail to see why I need to do any extra work. Honestly, what I am saying about unconscious expressions is so uncontroversial that it is amazing to imagine anyone insisting it is unfounded.
 
Do you mean this one?:

http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf

Because I think you should see what else it says (on page 2 under Epidemiological Considerations about midway into the Prevalance paragraph):



That seems to be saying transsexualism is just one form of gender identity disorder. It does say the term is not a formal diagnosis (it says earlier on page 2 under Clinical Threshold that the term is used to refer to the disorder informally), but that just stays consistent with what I already noted in that the term is used to describe a subset of gender identity disorder.

And what I said trumps that. It is a short cut term that is used incorrectly and is NOT a diagnosis. My last post stated that, clearly. You are incorrect.



Cite it. I am not just going to take your word for it when every single bit of information I find on endocrinology only talks about hormones having an effect on anything, including the brain, when they are secreted.

When I find it I will. And I stated that it was secreted, but in limited area where it is then retained.



When your position is so flimsy that your own sources are disagreeing with you I fail to see why I need to do any extra work. Honestly, what I am saying about unconscious expressions is so uncontroversial that it is amazing to imagine anyone insisting it is unfounded.

My sources completely agree with me. When YOUR position is so flimsy that you have to ignore that fact, and make stuff up, it is easy to see why your position is unfounded.
 
Back
Top Bottom