Scientists please gather round

[GenderApostate]

www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17563-z.pdf

Would any of you like to unpick what is claimed in this study ? 🙂
Prick News are all over it 🙄

One of the trans groups differed from men on insular volume iirc although not bilaterally (?)

But yeah, mostly they didn't differ from men.

It's quite a disingenuous headline from Penis News because their readers and idiotic brain dead commenters (the comments are a total shit show) will interpret that as "trans women are women and born that way!". When actually the fact they are likely to have a neurological condition isn't exactly a surprise, and that's all it says.

Yup. Headline should have been : transwomen completely different from women, may be depressed

parietal wrote - "most studies that look for sex differences should have sample sizes around n=100 per group, but I guess that is hard to find for trans samples"

There are (allegedly) more than 300,000 transgender males in the UK alone. The transgender population of Brazil (where the study was conducted) is several times larger, so I'm not convinced they would have been difficult to find, to enable a larger sample size.

I noticed that the study stated "human brains cannot be classified into two distinct categories of “male brain” versus “female brain”.

Being non gender conforming in a patriarchal society = depression

On the small sample size point, small p-values are frequently found with small sample sizes because the presence of one outlier is sufficient to cause group differences.

I personally hate p-values anyway. The interpretation of a p-value is basically the likelihood of finding a result that extreme or more extreme given that the null hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis being "no difference between the groups". And why

Were the results of the scans interpreted by someone who did not know the group of the person they were interpreting (single blind)?

Also, my very basic understanding of neural imaging (this is not my area) is that software interprets the results from the scan, and makes a composite image, and performs an estimate. This requires specialist software, and the interpolations etc performed in the software will create a margin of error of measurement. I do not know what that margin of error is. I also do not know whether that error introduces a non-random bias into the results.

300000 Trans Males in the UK ? Why have only 3200 got a GRC then?

Surely if that figure is true then a GRC is completely unecessary ?

GIRES claim there are 650,000 trans people in the U.K. This is based on extrapolating from an assumption (I think based on other research in Holland) that they are 1% of the population.

Of that 650K only 30000 have sought medical treatment for gender dysphoria.

Of that 650K only 30000 have sought medical treatment for gender dysphoria.

This is what we should demand the government commission research into before allowing self ID.

Do any of those people (outside of those with a GD diagnosis) have commonality? Are there differing motivations to why they identify as trans? What are those motivations? What is influencing such a rise in non dysphoric trans identified individuals?

How can they make any reasonable judgement without the information?

So only 10% of those treated go on to get a GRC ? 27000 people can’t be arsed to get a GRC but they want laws changed to accommodate them

"We found lower global brain volumes
and regional GMVs in a large portion of the posterior-superior frontal cortex in the cisgender women
group than in the TTW and cisgender men groups. Additionally, both transgender groups exhibited
lower bilateral insular GMVs than the cisgender women group."

Now this isn't my area but it reads very much as if anything, TIMs brains are different to female brains and I would read it as evidence TIMs are not women...females have lower GBVs and GMVs than both TIMs and males. I.e. females show different imaging than males, be they trans or not.

Why us Penis News all over this?

It also identifies differences in brains between TIMs without and with hormonal treatment - thank you again for evidence that chemicalizing young children is a terrible idea.

Recent PN article with references to study results:
(extracts)
1."After all, gender isn’t binary and children don’t need to segregated into one gender stereotype or the other – especially since children will often reveal their gender early on in their lives, with a study in February showing that the way a kid as young as five speaks can indicate where they are on the gender spectrum"

2 "Earlier this month, a new study showed that a brain scan can reveal someone’s true gender.

Both the physical content and actions of a subject’s brain can show that they are transgender, even before they’ve started puberty, the study indicated.

Conducted by Dr Julie Bakker at the University of Liège’s Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology, the study backed up research from March which showed that trans people are born that way.

Bakker explained in her study, titled Brain structure and function in gender dysphoria, that the scans’ results corroborated subjects who reported having gender dysphoria.

“We found that hypothalamic responses of both adolescent girls and boys diagnosed with gender dysphoria were more similar to their experienced gender than their birth sex,” she wrote.

The professor said that this “supports the hypothesis of a sex-atypical brain differentiation in these individuals.”

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/28/this-transgender-guys-friends-threw-him-an-incredible-viral-gender-reveal-party/

Or
"People have a range of understanding themselves and expressing themselves in terms of sex-based stereoptypes, regardless of their biological sex"

...but if they find a trait in a male brain then it just proves that that trait is in male and female brains, that's it.

These studies (and there are a lot of them) are the among the reasons that scientists who study trans people believe it to be a biological phenomenon.

"27000 people can’t be arsed to get a GRC"

It's suprisingly difficult to get one. Mine cost well over £500. The thing itself only costs £140, but then there are doctors letters etc. If your diagnosis was given by a doctor who has now retired, you need a new one and the gender psychiatrists charge about £250 per hour. Fortunately, mine was still valid, but I know one trans woman who has spent £1700 so far on hers.

And then there's the paperwork. Mine took 6 months to compile and filled a box file.

Hence why we want self-declaration.

Hi WAKAME not sure if you're new to MN / FWR? Have you read the thread?

Erm...most anything involving people is biological as we are biological. Mental health issues are still biological at some level?

I'm familiar with Wakame from other sites.

These studies (and there are a lot of them) are the among the reasons that scientists who study trans people believe it to be a biological phenomenon.

If transgenderism is biological, this does not mean that you have the brain of the opposite sex. That is how you may choose to frame it. Others do not. I don't think the evidence suggests that, it's purely an ideological view.

At some level it must be biological. However that does not mean it is something people are born with. It does not mean that it is not influenced by society. And it certainly does not mean that transwomen are women.

YY, Midgebabe.

Neuroscience assumes a materialist philosophical position, i.e., that mental phenomena are instantiated in biological tissue and can therefore be studied through techniques such as fMRI.

If you take this position, it implies that literally everything you think and feel is 'biological'. If you don't, then logically MRI evidence is surely irrelevant or inadmissible anyway?