Is Transsexualism in the genes?

[BenBurch]

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...stions-answers

Quote:

...researchers based at Australia's Prince Henry's Institute this month released the results of the largest ever study of transsexual genetics, which compared the length of the androgen receptor (AR) gene in 112 male-to-female transsexuals and a control group of 250 "normal" men. The gene—which is known to make circulating testosterone less effective at signaling, circulating, and just generally doing its thing—turned out to be longer in transsexuals. Less-potent testosterone could, in turn, affect the development of the brain in the womb, "under-masculinizing" it and making it more structurally similar to a female brain. ...

I know quite a few Transsexual people, both MTF and FTM and they all say they never felt like they were the sex they were born with, from their earliest awareness.

This may go a long way towards explaining this!

[casebro]

No subject group of homosexuals?

[MattC]

Originally Posted by casebro

No subject group of homosexuals?

I was thinking the same, but ultimately the study seems to concern itself with transsexuals rather than homosexuals. Upon reflection, the study seems to concern itself more with cross-gender transformations rather than any sort of sexual preference.

~ Matt

[BenBurch]

Indeed they are quite different groups.

[INRM]

I thought there was a difference in the size of a hypothalmic/thamic structure called the Stria Terminalis?

Of course it's a tiny structure so it's imaged in autopsies, but if it's a different size, chances are there's genetics involved that determined how big it was going to get, also the shape of the structure...

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by casebro

No subject group of homosexuals?

Gender identity and sexual orientation are entirely different issues.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by INRM

I thought there was a difference in the size of a hypothalmic/thamic structure called the Stria Terminalis?

Of course it's a tiny structure so it's imaged in autopsies, but if it's a different size, chances are there's genetics involved that determined how big it was going to get, also the shape of the structure...

I think that discovery is now considered bad science. Seems there is no natural cut off point, so size is subject to the whimsy of the scientist. And the scientist in question is homosexual, with a vested interest in proving "we're born this way". And there has been no replication by others. I think.

So, okay, trannys are never-quite-males, and gays just can't help loving other males. I guess I can see the distinction. Still, doing the same test to a group of 100 gays could give valid insight. Like maybe gayness has it's vagaries too? How many gays are "testosterone receptor challenged"? Don't injections of additional testosterone change some gays? Just like the hormone I inject (insulin) helps with my insulin receptor problems of type II diabetes, maybe there is type I and II gayness? Basically, it's called pharmacogenetics, medicine to suit your genetic variances.

Flame away, I'm suggesting the possibility that some gays can become more normal, in opposition to the gay-stream mantra that "we can't help being who we are".

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...stions-answers



I know quite a few Transsexual people, both MTF and FTM and they all say they never felt like they were the sex they were born with, from their earliest awareness.

What could that possibly mean?

[Silly Green Monkey]

That as soon as they learned the difference between male and female, perhaps when they learned how males and females are differently treated, they knew they weren't the one they felt was right?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by casebro

I think that discovery is now considered bad science.

Hardly. What is bad science is the often heard suggestion that the discovery brings science closer to determining a cause for transsexuality or that it is proof that transsexuals are born with a specific size of bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. Neither of which was presented in the original research other than a hypothesis.

Quote:

Seems there is no natural cut off point, so size is subject to the whimsy of the scientist.

Nonsense. Just because there is no natural cut off point does not mean the size of a part of a person's body can't be measured, averaged for that group and compared with the average of another group. And that's what happened here. Dick Swaab didn't claim that all women and all MtF transsexuals have smaller bed nuclei than all men. There is in fact a huge overlap. Many men have small ones, many women have large ones; the only thing the research proves is that there is an average difference in size between the two groups, and MtF transsexuals tend to have on average bed nuclei similar to women.

Quote:

And the scientist in question is homosexual, with a vested interest in proving "we're born this way".

I don't think his homosexuality is his main interest in proving this. Dick Swaab has a very brain centric view of neurology and deterministic view of behaviour.

Quote:

And there has been no replication by others. I think.

Saying that there has been no replication by others can be quite damning for scientific research, but only if others have tried to replicate the results and failed. In this case, virtually no one has tried. It should come as no surprise to anyone who understands how difficult the research was. Diagnosed transsexuals are rare, people who donate their bodies to science are also rare.
It is not an easy task finding the bodies of diagnosed transsexuals who willing to donate their body to science and who are also dead, and who have died in a way that this particular part of their brain can be studied. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that very few researchers have even tried this sort of research.

Add to that the fact that the result is not particularly controversial. I don't think anyone with any knowledge of neurology finds it surprising that in people who identify as women and chose to live as women have some parts of their brains that have developed on average similar to the average of that of women. It is perhaps more surprising that it is just true of such a small part of the brain.

[T.A.M.]

I will plead a little ignorance here, wrt the exact terminology, but in the article, is the definition of a "Transsexual" given? Are we talking men who have gotten rid of their male genitals etc..., men who are undergoing hormone therapy to do so, or simply any many who feels they are suppose to be a woman?

What details I do not get from the article, which I would like to know, are:

In the group of TS, were any of them, or all of them, or none of them on Estrogen therapy, and if so, was their any difference in the gene length between the groups (while unusual for external hormones to affect the actual genetics, I imagine it might be conceivable, particularly if we are talking about the length of the AR gene). As well, was the definition of "Transsexual" so specific that all of them had to have their testes removed, or could they simply have them shrunk via hormone therapy, or not at all.

Ben, is there access to the actual medical journal article/study anywhere? This is the closest I can get, and you have to have a membership (which I do not) to get full access.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...86c4e6dcf93c86

TAM

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by casebro

Flame away, I'm suggesting the possibility that some gays can become more normal, in opposition to the gay-stream mantra that "we can't help being who we are".

I'm not flaming your idea, I just wonder why you consider it a more noble goal than, say, finding a way to make everyone's hair more normal by getting rid of blonde.

[T.A.M.]

Though this is a little off topic, I guess the question that begs from casebro's comments, is,

"Why should they become more 'normal'?"

and as to the alleged "gay mantra" of "we can't help being who we are." I would reply,

"Why should you have to worry about 'helping' who you are."

Live and let live, I always say.

TAM

[Kilaak Kommander]

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm suggesting the possibility that some gays can become more normal, in opposition to the gay-stream mantra that "we can't help being who we are".

Conversely, what if it were proven that it were possible to make some normals become more gay? A cure for heterosexuality, if you will.

Actually, I don't think casebro's idea is all that bad. What about those who've been born homosexual or transsexual, but don't want to be? Should they spend their lives trying to convince themselves that they are proud of who they are?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander

Conversely, what if it were proven that it were possible to make some normals become more gay? A cure for heterosexuality, if you will.

Actually, I don't think casebro's idea is all that bad. What about those who've been born homosexual or transsexual, but don't want to be? Should they spend their lives trying to convince themselves that they are proud of who they are?

Exactly. The whole point of individual freedom is the right to make you own, individual, choice. I'm sure, given the technology, some gays would want to be less so, some would prefer to become flamers. Same would hold true for heteros.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Hardly. What is bad science is the often heard suggestion that the discovery brings science closer to determining a cause for transsexuality or that it is proof that transsexuals are born with a specific size of bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. Neither of which was presented in the original research other than a hypothesis.

Nonsense. Just because there is no natural cut off point does not mean the size of a part of a person's body can't be measured, averaged for that group and compared with the average of another group. And that's what happened here. Dick Swaab didn't claim that all women and all MtF transsexuals have smaller bed nuclei than all men. There is in fact a huge overlap. Many men have small ones, many women have large ones; the only thing the research proves is that there is an average difference in size between the two groups, and MtF transsexuals tend to have on average bed nuclei similar to women.

I don't think his homosexuality is his main interest in proving this. Dick Swaab has a very brain centric view of neurology and deterministic view of behaviour.

Saying that there has been no replication by others can be quite damning for scientific research, but only if others have tried to replicate the results and failed. In this case, virtually no one has tried. It should come as no surprise to anyone who understands how difficult the research was. Diagnosed transsexuals are rare, people who donate their bodies to science are also rare.
It is not an easy task finding the bodies of diagnosed transsexuals who willing to donate their body to science and who are also dead, and who have died in a way that this particular part of their brain can be studied. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that very few researchers have even tried this sort of research.

Add to that the fact that the result is not particularly controversial. I don't think anyone with any knowledge of neurology finds it surprising that in people who identify as women and chose to live as women have some parts of their brains that have developed on average similar to the average of that of women. It is perhaps more surprising that it is just true of such a small part of the brain.

As I recall the tempest that ensued Swab's anouncement, his idea was so easily poked full of holes that his job would have been at stake, except that he was already moving to another position. It is the obviousness of his bad science that makes replication attempts unheard of. But I'm depending on my memory, of mainstream news, of what, ten years ago?

I don't usually make jokes about peoples names, but are you saying that Dick Swab is a gay scientist? Who woulda thunk it. Anybody want to start a thread about how names affect lives? Particularly occupation or other preference?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

That as soon as they learned the difference between male and female, perhaps when they learned how males and females are differently treated, they knew they weren't the one they felt was right?

I really can't make sense of that. The op said they never felt they were the sex they were born with. It suggested that there is perhaps a biological difference between males and females which accounts for this. But we are who we are: so if being born male and feeling like they feel is not male, then what else can it possibly be? That is what male is for them, by definition. If we are talking about biology then they have a "y" chromosome and a penis: and later they have male secondary sexual characteristics. That is male. So far as I can tell anyway.

Then you suggest that we are not talking about biology but rather the social construction of gender. But this is the worm ouroborous, surely. Whatever they observe of different treatment they will be treated as male in their formative years. So it will form them. So they cannot be female. in any meaningful sense.

Not sure if I have explained my difficulty well but that is the best I can do

[Bikewer]

Apparently transexuals suffer severe distress over the fact that they perceive themselves to be of the wrong gender. "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" is the common description of the feeling.

Often, this begins at a very early age. Young children, too young to have much of a societally-conditioned notion of gender, will strongly object to playing with gender-specific toys, or wearing appropriate clothing.

The condition occurs with both sexes, but seems to be more common among males.
Males sometimes report feeling that their external genitalia is repugnant and seems "alien" to them. There have been cases of self-mutilation among these people.
Causation has been mysterious; it's known that all fetuses "start out" female, and those with the chromosome set to become male are "masculinized" during development.
This process is complex, and variations in hormone levels in the mother's blood during critical junctures may cause problems.

At least, that's been looked at. A genetic component would be very interesting.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Fiona

What could that possibly mean?

That's just how they explain it. "Gender Dysphoria" is I believe the clinical term.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by casebro

Exactly. The whole point of individual freedom is the right to make you own, individual, choice. I'm sure, given the technology, some gays would want to be less so, some would prefer to become flamers. Same would hold true for heteros.

lol

So like a volume button, switching a hetero man from Captain Fenix (Gears of War) to Pee Wee Herman, or a gay man from Rupaul to the gay guy next door?

"Well Doctor, we'd like our son to have a deep lisp free voice, but with a flare for fashion and interior design!"

Sorry folks, I could not resist the little bit of stereotype humor

TAM

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by casebro

As I recall the tempest that ensued Swab's anouncement, his idea was so easily poked full of holes that his job would have been at stake, except that he was already moving to another position.

And yet he continues to work for the same institutes he did then, doing similar sort of research.

Quote:

It is the obviousness of his bad science that makes replication attempts unheard of.

Maybe you can give some examples how his research is "bad science". If it is so obvious that it is, it should be easy enough to disprove his findings.

Quote:

But I'm depending on my memory, of mainstream news, of what, ten years ago?

More like 15. I don't know what you saw in the news back then, but either you misremember or you saw some serious strawmen.

Quote:

I don't usually make jokes about peoples names, but are you saying that Dick Swab is a gay scientist?

Yes, he's gay. He's also an atheist and a materialist and some other things that are irrelevant to the quality of his work.

Quote:

Anybody want to start a thread about how names affect lives

First of all, he is called Swaab with a double A. Second, I doubt he or anyone else around him gave his name a lot of thought for most of his life since he's Dutch and in Dutch neither his first nor his last name have any sexual connotations.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Fiona

So they cannot be female. in any meaningful sense.

They can be 'female' in the way they identify themselves and with which socially constructed gender role they identify with.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

"I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" is the common description of the feeling.

It is a description that is becoming less common, though. An increasing number of transsexuals have started embracing a transgender identity.

Quote:

Young children, too young to have much of a societally-conditioned notion of gender, will strongly object to playing with gender-specific toys, or wearing appropriate clothing.

That makes no sense. If they don't have a notion of gender, how would they know which toys are gender-specific and which clothes are appropriate?

[Silly Green Monkey]

From watching other children?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Apparently transexuals suffer severe distress over the fact that they perceive themselves to be of the wrong gender. "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" is the common description of the feeling.

Yes. Similarly many homosexuals suffered severe distress for related reasons: less so now though it is still a problem. The search for a genetic basis for this orientation has been much longer and much more intense: yet there is no conclusive evidence for it at all, so far as I am aware.

Quote:

Often, this begins at a very early age. Young children, too young to have much of a societally-conditioned notion of gender, will strongly object to playing with gender-specific toys, or wearing appropriate clothing.

Yes. But then gender-specific toys are uninteresting to a great many children and indeed the characterisation of some toys as gender specific is in itself questionable. We go to enormous lengths to force people into one of two "sexes" with a huge number of markers they must conform to: the effort itself shows this is not an easy thing to do: else why would we bother? The need for us to have precisely two sexes is rather curious, is it not?

Quote:

The condition occurs with both sexes, but seems to be more common among males.

I think that is what the evidence shows if the interpretation of it is accepted. I also think that now girls have a lot more freedom and flexibility that boys do because there is little negative association in girls wearing trousers and playing with guns: there is still some and there is strong pressure about other forms of behaviour but it is not quite so pervasive as it is for boys. If this is about forcing people to perform gender in particular ways which they are not comfortable with then more boys than girls being unhappy with it is precisely what I would expect, for those reasons

Quote:

Males sometimes report feeling that their external genitalia is repugnant and seems "alien" to them. There have been cases of self-mutilation among these people.

Question is how did that come about and why? Many women also find their sexual characteristics unacceptable to them and there is an enormous industry based on that. It is not the same and I am not suggesting that it is. But it has this in common: society is defining behaviour quite rigidly and it is strongly tied to those characteristics. It is not all that surprising that these obvious sources of the pressure which is misery making will get tied to the misery itself

Quote:

Causation has been mysterious; it's known that all fetuses "start out" female, and those with the chromosome set to become male are "masculinized" during development.
This process is complex, and variations in hormone levels in the mother's blood during critical junctures may cause problems.

At least, that's been looked at. A genetic component would be very interesting.

That is all true. What I am suggesting is just that we are not male/female with a few mistakes in between: we are a spectrum. It may be that if we did not impose gender on so many aspects of life where it is irrelevant; if we allowed people to develop and behave as they choose in more areas of life; then the tragic consequence of a desire to mutilate oneself to conform to that stereotypical world view might diminish. Gays used to suffer a lot of self loathing in relation to their sexuality and that also led to some tragedy. Less so now. That is because of a change (slow and uncertain but a change nonetheless) in society's attitude in the direction of acceptance. Perhaps such a change in relation to the performance of gender for other groups would not have the same benefits: but I would like to see us try it, and it seems more fruitful to me than looking for "causation": for what will we do with that information even if it exists?

[Bikewer]

I'm in full agreement. If there's one thing my self-study of human sexuality has shown me, is that it's never a binary either-or situation.
Although the "bell curve" got a lot of flak from the book that came out years ago with somewhat racist tones, it's still a valuable method of showing the continuum of human behavior in many different areas.
Among homosexuals, you'd have full-time, 100%, never-looked-at-a-member-of-the-opposite-sex types on one end, to full-time heterosexuals on the other, who never had a stray moment of even curiosity
In between, a wide spectrum, ranging from the occasional "gay" thought to perhaps youthful experimentation to "had an affair once" to "I occasionally have a little fling"....
And so on and so on.
This applies to most other aspects of sexuality as well. All of the various sorts of kinkiness that are called "paraphilias" at their extreme are merely turn-ons at a lower level.

Big difference between "hey, sexy boots" to "I can only perform if the woman is wearing sexy boots" (or "doing" the boot itself....)

There was a book out a few years ago talking about the well-observed but seldom discussed phenomenon of "sissy boys"; young males who are quite effeminate. As I recall, the author strongly suspected both genetic and developmental involvement.

[Lonewulf]

Oooh boy, one of these topics.

If anyone wants to do research using an anonymous source on weird sexuality, feel free to PM me. Don't pretend to be surprised at weird stuff, though.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I really can't make sense of that. The op said they never felt they were the sex they were born with. It suggested that there is perhaps a biological difference between males and females which accounts for this. But we are who we are: so if being born male and feeling like they feel is not male, then what else can it possibly be? That is what male is for them, by definition. If we are talking about biology then they have a "y" chromosome and a penis: and later they have male secondary sexual characteristics. That is male. So far as I can tell anyway.

Sex is not binary. It can be, and often is, but a person's sex chromosomes can be X, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, and so on. A person's sexual organs can be partly between male and female. In total, these conditions are somewhat rare, but not unheard of. I enjoy keeping up with the role playing game and medical website of an XYY pathologist with a nice article retorting the idea that XYY people are "super" masculine.

A person's sex can be shades of gray. Is an XYY person more man than man? Is an X person more woman than an XXX woman? (No XXX jokes, please.)

Quote:

Then you suggest that we are not talking about biology but rather the social construction of gender. But this is the worm ouroborous, surely. Whatever they observe of different treatment they will be treated as male in their formative years. So it will form them. So they cannot be female. in any meaningful sense.

Sure they can have a female gender identity. I'm not sure if the changing nature of gender roles is why I don't quite follow you, or the easy time I have divocering gender from sex, but maybe I need you to clarify a little.

[volatile]

Whilst this is interesting, I think the most pertinent question is "Does it matter?".

[sthomson]

casebro is either a particularly odd form of troll, or s/he believes that our gender presentation is the same thing as our gender identity or sexuality - that all gay men are flaming; in other words, that all gay men, genetically, have a set of specific stereotypical characteristics, such as a lisp and a love of fashion. By examination, we can agree that this is patently false, as there are many openly gay men who do not lisp, watch sports, fix lawnmowers, and all those other manly masculine things. Of course, this belief is tied to the idea that ALL gender presentation is hereditary. That women genetically love to shop, or whatever the pet CNN.com article is that week.

Furthermore, casebro seems to be unaware that a transsexual person can also be gay or straight.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I will plead a little ignorance here, wrt the exact terminology, but in the article, is the definition of a "Transsexual" given? Are we talking men who have gotten rid of their male genitals etc..., men who are undergoing hormone therapy to do so, or simply any many who feels they are suppose to be a woman?

What details I do not get from the article, which I would like to know, are:

In the group of TS, were any of them, or all of them, or none of them on Estrogen therapy, and if so, was their any difference in the gene length between the groups (while unusual for external hormones to affect the actual genetics, I imagine it might be conceivable, particularly if we are talking about the length of the AR gene). As well, was the definition of "Transsexual" so specific that all of them had to have their testes removed, or could they simply have them shrunk via hormone therapy, or not at all.

Ben, is there access to the actual medical journal article/study anywhere? This is the closest I can get, and you have to have a membership (which I do not) to get full access.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...86c4e6dcf93c86

TAM

I don't know. I'll ask around.

[Delvo]

I'm not getting something about this. If there's a diminished effectiveness of testosterone in general in these people, as it seems to say, then that should show up in other physical traits that would have easily been detected long ago, because they're also linked to testosterone. Then the discovery that a low effect from testosterone was behind transsexuality wouldn't be much of a discovery, and if any articles were written about it at all, it would be odd for them not to mention the various other testosterone-based physical traits that were already known to have been linked with transsexuality all along. On the other hand, if the reduced effectiveness of testosterone only applies to this part of brain development and not other body parts, then not only does the article seem to say the opposite of the actual discovery, but also some explanation of why other parts of the body are unaffected is needed.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Causation has been mysterious; it's known that all fetuses "start out" female, and those with the chromosome set to become male are "masculinized" during development.

This is not accurate. We all start out neutral and almost all of us get either masculinized or feminized. In the disorders in which the sex-determining system doesn't work right, indeterminate traits develop because there is neither masculinization nor feminization.

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

a person's sex chromosomes can be X, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, and so on. A person's sexual organs can be partly between male and female.

There are also disorders in which XX doesn't develop into a female or XY doesn't develop into a male despite the chromosomes being normal... for example, when some other gland like the adrenals secretes something that's a bit too similar to a sex hormone, or when the hormones are normal but the body's cells respond to them abnormally.

[Bikewer]

I took the phrase "starts out female" from a layman-geared book I'd read some time ago.

The Wiki article provides a more accurate description:

(Wikipedia)

"Defeminization and masculinization are the differentiating processes that a fetus goes through to become male. From this perspective, the female is the default path for a developing human being in that gene actions that are eliminated and that are necessary for formation of male genitalia lead to the development of external female genitalia."

So, "default path" rather than "starts out" would be a better description.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Fiona

What I am suggesting is just that we are not male/female with a few mistakes in between: we are a spectrum. It may be that if we did not impose gender on so many aspects of life where it is irrelevant; if we allowed people to develop and behave as they choose in more areas of life; then the tragic consequence of a desire to mutilate oneself to conform to that stereotypical world view might diminish.

It's my understanding, though, that transsexuals do not necessarily see the stereotypes as bad, any more than every non-transsexual does. In other words, it's not just that a boy wishes it were socially acceptable to wear skirts. The main reason he wants to wear skirts is because he knows he's a girl, and that's what girls do in his society.

Changing society so that both sexes wear skirts would solve that problem, but it wouldn't get to the heart of the issue for him, which is the fact that he still knows he's a girl (or in the opposite case, a girl knows she's actually a boy). And regardless of how accepting of gender-neutrality a society is, there will always be some differences between genders and, I hope, an allowed spectrum of behaviors among women from girly-feminine to super-tomboy (however those categories are expressed in society).

But there's that same spectrum among transsexuals, and not every one would be happy living in the neutral or tomboy part of the spectrum. Some women like to dress and behave the way society defines as "feminine," and that holds true for transsexual women-born-male also.

And, of course, for transsexual men-born-female also. Not every one would naturally gravitate toward being a metrosexual, any more than every man-born-male does, no matter how accepting of effeminate or gender-neutral men society became.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I'm not getting something about this. If there's a diminished effectiveness of testosterone in general in these people, as it seems to say, then that should show up in other physical traits that would have easily been detected long ago, because they're also linked to testosterone. Then the discovery that a low effect from testosterone was behind transsexuality wouldn't be much of a discovery, and if any articles were written about it at all, it would be odd for them not to mention the various other testosterone-based physical traits that were already known to have been linked with transsexuality all along. On the other hand, if the reduced effectiveness of testosterone only applies to this part of brain development and not other body parts, then not only does the article seem to say the opposite of the actual discovery, but also some explanation of why other parts of the body are unaffected is needed.

That is part of what I was trying to say: and much better expressed. Thanks