random though about trannies

Don't bring intersexed people into this debate. It's an entirely different circumstance. Transsexual people are those who have a clear sex (I never mentioned gender). Sex is essentially what you have. Gender is your expression of what you are. If you have a penis, then you're sex is generally considered to be male unless we look at your genetics, which in all likeliness you don't have the money for. There isn't a current known biological reason for transsexuality. The research that Zhou/Kruijver was flawed. Please read the follow experpt:

"The mostly likely explanation: The Zhou/Kruijver findings reflect the effects of feminizing and masculinizing hormone therapy

The Zhou/Kruijver findings most probably reflect the effects of transgender hormone therapy. It has been known for years that changes in androgen levels during adulthood can change the volume of sexually dimorphic brain nuclei in the expected direction in experimental animals (Cooke, Tabibnia, & Breedlove, 1999). Changes in hormone levels in adult transsexuals plausibly can have similar effects on sexually dimorphic brain structures.

A recent study by Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006) demonstrated the profound effect of transgender hormone therapy on brain volume in transsexuals: In eight MtF transsexuals treated for 4 months with ethinyl estradiol and CPA, total brain volume and hypothalamic volume decreased significantly with hormone therapy, based on pre- and post-treatment MRI studies. In a control group of nine untreated nontranssexual men, total brain volume and hypothalamic volume increased slightly over a similar period. In six FtM transsexuals treated for 4 months with testosterone, total brain volume increased and hypothalamic volume remained unchanged, whereas in a control group of six untreated nontranssexual women, total brain volume remained unchanged and hypothalamic volume decreased. Hulshoff Pol et al. wrote:

The findings suggest that treatment of MFs with estrogens and antiandrogens decreases the male brain size toward female proportions, whereas treatment of FMs with androgens (not substantially affecting circulating estrogen levels) increases the female brain size toward male proportions. The magnitude of this change (i.e., 31 ml over a 4-month period) is striking, since it signifies a decrease in brain volume, which is at least ten times the average decrease of about 2.5 ml a year in healthy adults. . . The total brain volume changes are at least in part due to changes in medial brain structures surrounding [the] ventricles (including, but not limited to, the hypothalamus . . .). (pp. S110-S111)

Not surprisingly, Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006) conjectured that cross-sex hormone therapy might have been responsible for the Zhou/Kruijver findings:

The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the hypothalamus, larger in males than in females, was found to be of female size in six MFs and of male size in one FM. All these transsexuals had received cross-sex hormone treatment before their brains were studied. Therefore, the altered size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis could have been due to the exposure of cross-sex hormones in adult life. (p. S108)

As Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006) noted, all six MtF transsexuals and the one FtM transsexual had received cross-sex hormone therapy. All the MtF transsexuals had been treated with estrogen and CPA for between 7 and 13 years, except for T4, whose exact duration of hormone treatment was unknown, but was estimated to have been 5 years or more. Hormone treatment apparently continued until death in T1, T4, and T6, until three months before death in T3 and T5, and until 15 months before death in T2. All the MtF transsexuals had also undergone orchiectomy except T4, who was observed to have "significant" testicular atrophy (Kruijver et al., 2000, p. 2040). The FtM transsexual had received injectable testosterone for over 20 years, but this treatment ended 3 years before death; ovariectomy had been performed 23 years before death.

The MRI studies that Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006) conducted measured only the volume of brain structures, not neuron number. The authors argued, however, that steroid-related changes in neuron number were probably partly responsible for the volume changes they observed:

We know that sex steroids have much in common with neurotropins. For instance, like neurotropins, they regulate cell death. Indeed, the most important mechanism by which steroid hormones alter neuron number in sexually dimorphic regions is by influencing cell death. . . . Thus, our reported volume changes in the brains of transsexuals following cross-sex hormone treatment may represent alterations in neuronal cell numbers. (p. S113)

Zhou et al. (1995) were clearly mistaken when they suggested that "the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals cannot be explained by adult sex hormone levels" (p. 70), as were Kruijver et al. (2000) when they concluded that "hormonal changes in adulthood did not show any clear relationship with the BSTc . . . neuron number" (p. 2039). On the contrary, it now seems probable that estrogen treatment was responsible for the low mean BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the six MtF transsexuals studied and that testosterone treatment was responsible for the high BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the one FtM transsexual studied4.

A significant weakness of the Zhou/Kruijver studies was the inclusion of only a few nontranssexual persons with elevated cross-sex hormone levels. This may partly explain why the Zhou/Kruijver investigators underestimated the potent effects of hormone treatment on the adult brain. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Zhou/Kruijver studies did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer) or any nontranssexual women who had been treated with testosterone. They did examine one woman, S1, in whom a virilizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated testosterone levels and one man, S2, in whom a feminizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated estradiol levels. Neither individual had BSTc volumes or neuron numbers that were atypical for their sex, but it is probable that their cross-sex hormone levels, although elevated, had not been high enough and had not lasted long enough5 to be equivalent to the 5-20 years of cross-sex hormone therapy that the transsexuals had received.

Summary and conclusions

The brain-sex theory of transsexualism has never been easy to reconcile with clinical reality: Homosexual and nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism are so different clinically that it is almost impossible to imagine that they could have the same etiology. Nevertheless, for a time the Zhou/Kruijver data gave the brain-sex theory a certain superficial plausibility. In 2002, Chung et al. reported new data that raised serious doubts about the brain-sex theory, but the authors were able to explain why the theory might still be plausible. The new data reported by Hulshoff Pol et al. in 2006 did not invalidate these explanations, but it rendered them largely irrelevant. The simplest and most plausible explanation of the Zhou/Kruijver findings is that they are attributable, completely or predominantly, to the effects of cross-sex hormone therapy administered during adulthood. There is no longer any reason to postulate anything more complicated.

The brain-sex theory was never helpful in explaining clinical observations; now it has become irrelevant to explaining neuroanatomical observations. It is time to abandon the brain-sex theory of transsexualism and to adopt a more plausible and clinically relevant theory in its place. "

At the moment it's unknown to the reason aside from the theory of hormones in the womb 'causing for non congruent brain patterns. However, this really can't be proven without research by means of actually checking levels of pregnant woman through pregnancy and watching the development of said infant. It's unrealistic for such a study to be performed for many reasons.

 

Hahaha! The person who wrote that article is a quack, using complete psuedo science, with NO basis in fact whatsoever. What she is presenting is a pseudoscientific diagnostic theory. That article in fact, has NO basis in any actual scientific research that has actually been done, and in fact, has been completely dismissed not just by most trans people themselves, but most scientists who work in the field who believe that brain-sex is very much a factor in how some trans people end up like that. You may also be interested to learn, that the person who came up with that thesis self-identifies as having a sex-fueled mental illness called "autogynephila". (Which she also believes is what all transwoman have, in fact she also claims to be a "real transsexual" so you could hardly call her views unbiased. For anyone who doesn't know, autogynephilia is a sexual fetish, like an extreme form of transvestitsm, if you will.) I have yet to see the Zhou/Kruijver evidence being dismissed by anyone except quacks with some counter psuedo-science theory, (usually steeped in their own bias) or "sciences" with some sort of religious bias which makes anything they say have to say on the subject questionable from the beginning.

Plenty of scientists still subscribe to the brain-sex theory. "Never helpful", to whom, I wonder? I know there are some with hidden agendas, and try to hide behind, or create scientific arguements that dont hold up under scrutiny. In any case, even if there is the slightest possibility (and I think the current evidence available suggests more than that) that at least some trans have at least some brain components of the opposite sex, then calling those people "trannys" is wrong. The above article you have presented does not discredit the findings I described, as it is not based in any kind of scientific tests, nor indeed, has it any real scientific clout behind it. It is a theory, nothing more, and a theory steeped in her own bias. I suggest you read more about her, and then try and pesent anything she has written, and pass it off as "evidence", discrediting the findings of a genuine scientific test. If that article is the best you have to present, then you've lost the debate I think! Seeing as the person who wrote it is using theorys, rather than actual scientific EVIDENCE to back up her point. And I have yet to see any real scientific evidence which discredits the findings of Zhou/Kruijver. (The article you presented, is not real scientific evidence, and therefore can be easily dismissed as such, unless you personally wish to subscribe to her theory. Unilke the findings of Zhou/Kruijver, which actually have scientific evidence NOT theories, to back it up.) And until I do, that stands up as potential evidence of some trans people having the brain, or brain components of the opposite sex. Lots of scientists working specifically in this field, have dismissed the above article, so whether you wish to believe anything in it, is completely down to you. But if experts in the field are dismissing it, I think that says a lot about it's strength as "scientific" evidence.

And yes, I know technically I may not be trans, but that doesn't mean that I think I am anymore female than someone else who is female, but not genetically. (At least not in the classical sense) And XX males/XY females is a genetic condition, but it still shows up that those chromosomes alone are not enough to define totally a person's gender. And some people will still call me a "tranny" regardless of my genetic structure. (And I have been reffered to in such terms, purely because of how I look) Something which you in your ignorance did, before I corrected you. In any case, judging anyone as a "tranny", without their full genetic makeups and sex in brain structure available, is foolhardy to say the least. You jumped to conclusions about me, the wrong ones, which just proves my point.

To completely discredit the article you presented, an excerpt from it: "Contrary to a popular misconception, the Zhou/Kruijver studies did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer)". This is actually completely false, as they did examine nontranssexual men who had been treated with eostrogen because of cancer. The original paper on their scientific tests confirms this. A second similar test (conducted AFTER the article you've presented was published) actually came to the same conclusions as the first, And furthermore, found one mtf transsexual who had been treated with female hormones for a number of years, had gender in brain structure, typical of the male sex. (the others had sex in brain structure of the female sex) And 2 males who had cross-hormone secreting tumours which did feminise their physical bodies, but NOT their gender in brain structure. This is certainly more than enough to throw serious doubt over the already highly questionable validity of the points in the above article you have presented, even though the original findings of Zhou/Kruijver were in no way discredited by the above article. Least not scientifically. So not all people who are labelled transsexuals have differences in brain structure from their apparaent birth sex. There are scientists who think brain-sex is very much a factor in how some transsexuals are the way they are, and also, some believe genetics also plays a role. (though research into this has been very minimal so far) And that for some at least, it is in fact, an intersex condition which cannot be seen. I think the problem is, there are some who simply dont want trans people to have been born the way they are, and even if 100% concrete, irrefutable evidence emerged of this, Im sure you would still get some people trying to discredit it.

So I will bring intersexed people into the debate, seeing as even with the current evidence available, there is a very real possibility of at least some transsexuals being born the way they are, and that they are just another example of intersex. Yes, at the moment the evidence available isnt 100% proof of this, but is substanstial enough to throw up a strong likelyhood that for some, it is innate. And until YOU can present irrefutable evidence (which currently is impossible, as there isnt any, and all the points in the article you presented have been refuted by many scientists working in the field.) contradicting my points, then I will stick by everything I am saying. It is also worth noting, that a lot of intersex children are given hormones from a young age, to ease them into the gender "chosen" for them by doctors and parents. The reason given for this is, that because gender is not innate, or neurological, (which of course, has now been proven to be completely false), then operating on an intersex baby shortly after birth to "correct" them, is in the child's best interests, and that they can better integrate into society. Needless to say, a lot of these people actually feel the opposite sex of that which was chosen for them, and that the decision made was wrong. Taking hormones does not affect the brain structure, (especially in adulthood, and the fact these outwordly intersex people still feel the opposite sex of that which was chosen for them, even though they have been on hormones a lot longer than conventional trans people, would seem to prove this.) which almost all scientists and experts in the field attest.

On a final note, the problem is not autogynephilia itself, as there surely are people who want hormones and SRS who fall into that category. (Though the latter is certainly not as important to a lot of them compared to people with the gender identity of the opposite sex. Seeing as some of them get off on still having male genitals, while all people with the brain of the opposite sex loath their male genitals) The problem is intersex/gender identity issues being potentially tied in with that. There is currently NO scientific evidence which rubbishes the sex in brain structure research which has been carried out. A lot of trans people have felt the opposite sex all their lives, from a very young age. This fact pretty much negating the "autogynephilic" angle on it's own, seeing as it's accepted that this sexual fetish only manifests itself during puberty. People like Lawrence's attempt to brand all M2Fs who's brain sex is the opposite of their outword physical sex, as autogynephilic, or just "very feminine homosexual men" is based on nothing but pseudo-science claptrap, trying to denounce scientific facts about brain sex, with no arguement that ever holds up to close scientific scrutiny. If they had their way, intersex people who were operated on as babies, and feel the opposite sex of that which was enforced on them by doctors would also be branded as being autogynephilic, (Or autoandrophilic: The female equivelant of autogynephilia) or purely homosexual transsexuals. Seeing as by their logic, brain sex is always in harmony with the outer body, (at birth) and there's no such thing as "gender identity", the intersex person wouldnt have a leg to stand on. Which is why you will also find a lot of experts in the intersex field, also denouncing the views of Lawrence et al.

So, I suppose if Lawrence is really "a true transsexual", then that would mean that all transsexuals are actually autogynephiliacs. But then that would also mean that a lot of people who are currently branded "transsexual", who do not fit into that category, are actually intersex, and not transsexual. She probably feels some sort of sense of guilt, or shame, over being some kind of sexual pervert, so seeks to brand all people labelled "transsexual", as the same as her. Unfortunately for her, all the current scientific and medical research and evidence seems to fly in the face of this assumption. Though I do think that a clear distinction has to be made between the two, labelling wise. Because while it is true that autogynephilia (like homosexuality) has nothing whatsoever to do with having the opposite sex in brain structure (gender identity), currently, both groups of people can be labelled "transsexual", which can be highly misleading. (The way I see it is: autogeynephiliac=tranny, non-autogeynephilic transpeople/intersex=the gender of their brain sex) But I have already asserted my strong belief, that some people labelled "transsexual", actually belong in the intersex category. And the current scientific evidence at least, points to that being highly likely. And nothing in the article you have presented discredits that with any scientific validity, as vital points and data of the Zhou/Kruijver findings are conveniantly left out, and theories are being used to attack scientifically proven facts. (Which is exactly what they are, until they can be disproven, which currently has not happened) Anyone looking at that article without all the facts and knowledge to hand, would likely agree with it, (especially those with pre-disposed bias towards trans-people) unfortunately for you, I know far more about this subject than you probably gave me credit for.

 

Here is part of an article from a sex/gender specialising professor on the article you presented:

In Dr. Lawrence's recent critique of studies of
brain sex in transsexuals (1), she clearly makes
several errors, which when corrected, would invalidate
her arguments. I will not directly address her least
likely suggestion, that the transsexual brain studies
may be the result of non-representative sampling, as
my discussion will indirectly cover that. Also, I will
not at length, address her more likely assertion that
the BSTc in transsexuals is a marker for
autogynephilia. It is basically a recapitulation of
what she has written around 7 years ago on SexNet, and
what appeared on psychologist J Michael Bailey's web
site, which I have deconstructed here in another
article.

http://www.gendercare.com/library/italiano_paper4.html

I should mention, that Lawrence's conclusion that
"Blanchard's theory" of "two distinctly different
subtypes of MtF transsexuals" is "accepted" by "most
knowledgeable clinicians and researchers" (1), is not
one which is found in research which posed this
question directly to clinicans and researchers, let
alone from research which has defined "most
knowledgable".
Thus, I shall direct my attention to the
contention of Lawrence, that the most likely
explanation for the transsexual brain BSTc findings,
are the result of the influence of hormones which the
transsexuals were taking (1).

In summary, Lawrence's critique (1) of the
transsexual brain studies, and the BSTc is unfounded.
Likewise, her statement that there "is no longer any
reason to postulate anything more complicated", is
misconstrued, since her "simplicity" is being diluted
by omissions of pertinent reports as well as data.
What actually is subjective "reality" by many
therapists or researchers, need not exclude relevant
laboratory research. Thus, Lawrence's contention that
"Zhou et al. were clearly mistaken" and
"as were Kruijver et al...", in regards to the effect
of hormones the transsexuals took on their BSTc
size(1), as well as the like position of Hulshoff Pol
(4), is a "straw-man" argument.


Here is the full article, which deconstructs all the points in the article you presented.

http://www.genderhealth.net/library/italiano1.htm