You can't be 'born in the wrong body'

[Charliethefeminist]

A lot of people watching Butterfly still think it's possible to be 'born in the wrong body'. I wanted to start a thread to explain why it is impossible.

Being 'born in the wrong body' would have to mean there were such things as 'male' and 'female' brains and that it's possible for these to be in an opposite sex body.

Take 'male'. There would have to be a certain thing about the brain that would make it specifically 'male' and that female people don't ever have. Call it Trait M.

Firstly, no such trait M has ever been discovered. No such trait M has ever been described. No such trait M can ever be defined or named, even by the most ardent and medically qualified transadvocates. No such trait M can be found on a brain scan.

This is because male and female people (when male and female are used in the biological sense) can and do share every and any brain trait. There are no brain traits that are unique and exclusive to either sex. That means the 'male' brain and thd 'female' brain don't exist.

The reason we use the words male and female in the first place is to describe biological sex. There is no point to the words otherwise, and if they are taken away from reproductive role, there's no word to describe people with the same reproductive role.

It's clear that male people share personality and style traits right across the spectrum from David Sylvia to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Females share personality and style traits across the spectrum from Ariane Grande to Lea DeLaria.

Transgender people themselves prove that there is no such thing as a male brain in a female body and vice versa. There can be a male brain with personality and style traits across a vast spectrum, but the brain remains male.

Naturally then, society needs to accept once more that men can wear sparkles, pink, high heels and make up, they don't have to say they're a woman to do it. We used to, and we should do again. Especially when it comes to kids.

OK that's it.

"It’s like a map of the body spread across the cortex. "
No, I really don't think it is. Because saying that makes it sound as if there is a 'body map' sitting waiting in the brain, already to go as soon as the nerves from the body join up with it. Except this is a false analogy as far as I can see. If you look at children developing with hearing loss, for example, sensory deprivation can lead to developmental abnormalities. So, the brain develops alongside the 'body' it is connected to, and the bit that does genitalia develops alongside the actual genitalia. It isn't AFAIK that an innie genitalia bit of brain 'mistakenly' occurs alongside an outie bit of brain. What we know about neuroplasticity AND what we know about brain development shows their is a false divide here being made between brain and body. It's not like trying to plug a mini-USB lead into a micro-USB socket...............

it accepts that people's conscious experience is their reality

Not like that it doesn’t. Science says that we all experience things through our own senses. But it also says there’s an objective external reality and that people’s perceptions of it are not always accurate.

There is a condition that leaves people totally unable to see any colour (there’s an island in the South Pacific where the gene is extremely common.) sufferers have a different perception of their visual surroundings. The trees remain green however - they don’t literally live in a monochrome world.

And if those sufferers insisted that discussion of the sunset was literal violence we’d say they were crazy. If they insisted on damaging everyone else’s eyesight in the name of equality we’d say they were dangerous.

For those who do believe in separate souls and souls being reborn into bodies, the general thinking is that souls are neither male nor female and the same soul is born into both male and female bodies during different incarnations as part of the soul's learning process. So still can't be born into the 'wrong' body.

Agree with vmisa. Brains are plastic.

Also, in children with severe autism their behaviour will be exactly the same - ie they're not at all tuned into the world socially. So not socially conditioned, or much less receptive to that conditioning.

I do find it interesting that in schools for moderate learning difficulties there is a much higher percentage of boys to girls; there must be more developmental delays or tendencies to learning difficulties on the Y chromosome.

Ekphrasis, I think it's more that because they have only one copy of the X chromosome, they are more vulnerable to mutations on that chromosome than women are - with 2 Xs, the good one can make up for the flawed one. This is true for all genetic disorders that are more prominent in males than females.

I'm reminded of the Steve Martin film, 'the man with two brains'.

there must be more developmental delays or tendencies to learning difficulties on the Y chromosome

I wonder if it's rather than there aren't two copies of the X chromosome, so no handy redundancy to cover anything lacking when things do go wrong?

(Not a geneticist.)

" It isn't AFAIK that an innie genitalia bit of brain 'mistakenly' occurs alongside an outie bit of brain. What we know about neuroplasticity AND what we know about brain development shows their is a false divide here being made between brain and body."

Mis-typed, should have said:
"It isn't AFAIK that an innie genitalia bit of brain 'mistakenly' occurs alongside an outie genitalia. What we know about neuroplasticity AND what we know about brain development shows their is a false divide here being made between brain and body."
I think the thing today that intrigued me was reading about cochlear implants (i.e. the brain gets an input that previously it didn't), and also things like how the brain does really clever stuff when damaged. What happens when people have strokes which impair, for example, their motor control in their hands, yet they can still SIGN fluently (which means a different part of the brain, the language part takes over). All of which says to me that brains and their development are jolly clever and neuroplasticity seems to be a strong component. Which is rather different to the compartmentalized way that we commonly understand and design human-designed structures. Evolution is smarter than that!

Thanks MonsterSister and kesstrel, I now remember reading about that.

No, I really don't think it is. Because saying that makes it sound as if there is a 'body map' sitting waiting in the brain, already to go as soon as the nerves from the body join up with it. Except this is a false analogy as far as I can see.

I didn’t claim the map came first, I just pointed out it exists and that it has been known about for decades.

Posted too soon! Meant to add that the map persists even when a body part is lost - hence phantom limbs. When I mentioned foot fetishes earlier I was thinking of a suggestion VR Ramachandran made. He’s a neuroscientist who is perhaps most famous for his treatment of patients with phantom limbs which involved ‘tricking’ the brain into perceiving the limbs where still there with mirrors and allowing the patient to ‘relax’ the non-existent limb by releasing tension in the one still present.

"I didn’t claim the map came first, I just pointed out it exists and that it has been known about for decades."

I understand that. I just think the very picture of such a 'map' has been used (many years ago I recall this argument being made to me by a transwoman in fact) to suggest the hypothesis that they had the 'wrong' map installed for their actual body. It gets around the arguments about female brain/male brain and having to define WHERE they are supposedly different, and instead suggests that it's perhaps more of a software issue...............

But whether the argument is old-style 'wiring' one (old ideas of actual wiring mixed with some current (no pun intended!) ones of white matter tracts based on MR imaging, those pretty coloured brain wiring pictures), or the software/hardware more modern PC-style arguments, it's still arguments based on analogies and a false brain/body separateness/dichotomy.

Also, John McLean made a good point in one if his filums that the abrehamic religions/ cultures tended to be more misogynistic thus more gendered and somewhere else I've read that in cultures where there's more of a sex/gender role divide, you're more likely to get groups of trans type people. Pointing towards yet more social influence on all this.

Also, I've tried pointing this out before - in the book Afluenza, the author explores the impact of media and advertising on mental health and the need to have more. There's some direct correlations of exposure to advertising and mental health. A notable case was an island/s which didn't get tv till relatively late on (eg 70s/80s iirc ) - prior to this there were no cases of anorexia and extremely low mental health issues if any. Within a decade anorexia cases starred to be seen and worsening mh. (I'm vaguely outlining this - it's been a long time since I read it)

My point is that how we view our bodies and how we feel about our bodies and how our brains feel and how we see ourselves interacting with society are extremely sensitive to external stimuli from an early age, but also at any age while growing up. If brains are still growing and developing at 24 and still need some help by then (eg counselling, trauma therapy) certain things become very deeply seated and a part of us (I've had experience of this personally actually).

The Y chromosome contains very little genetic information bar sex so the above explainations are correct.

My girls have asc/pda. They are very vulnerable to social conditioning, not less so (which is likely why there are higher rates of trans kids with asc verses the normies coming forward) but they don’t get the manipulative bullshit that goes with it. Tell them we don’t hit and they don’t, tell a lot of savvier kids that then they will do it when no one is looking. The world is much more black and white for my kids, so the girls sign on the toilets is something they will apply to all people, including a male janitor going into clean or 2month old baby boy in a sling. That’s the same reason so many kids with asc seem to be at risk from the trans aganda, they are quickly influenced socially into girls like pink verses boys like blue, so if the boy with asc likes pink he buys that means he must really be a girl.

For a long time my girls didn’t seem influenced by sex role stereotypes, not sure if that’s just because they were always at home or because of their asc. Once they were in nursery it slowly took hold, now it seems embedded, which I think is big part of their asc. The clear lines and rules give them reassurance and comfort in a world that is otherwise confusing and overwhelming to them. They seem to take solace in choosing ‘girls’ toys so that they won’t get swiped off them by boys (and it does tend to be boys who are let away with stealing toys because ‘boys will be boys’ and so they keep repeating the behaviour) or that going to their ‘girls’ activity like dancing will mean they can predict that it’s only girls in the class (and it tends to be at this one small class we use). While I would hope they can develop a greater understanding of how these are unfair and unreasonable expectations of the sexes pushed onto us and not intrinsic elements of being either female or male I also don’t mind that currently their ‘boys are bad and girls are good’ logic gives them a coping strategy for their anxiety (stick with the girls) or a way to understand the world that isn’t far off really- males do pose much greater risk to them than females and boys shouldn’t be in the girls toilets is something I’m ok with them screaming, it’s clearly a good rule to know within this current climate.

Sorry for typos!

www.amazon.co.uk/Affluenza-Oliver-James/dp/0091900115

I wonder if it's rather than there aren't two copies of the X chromosome, so no handy redundancy to cover anything lacking when things do go wrong?

Two X chromosomes would mitigate the effects of errors on one chromosome, reducing the risk. It’s why men are more prone to X-related conditions such as colourblindness and haemophilia.

It’s one of the possibilities why there appear to be more autistic boys than girls. (Others including under-diagnosis, of course). More controversially it might explain why there are more men at the tails of the IQ distribution curve (more geniuses but also more with learning difficulties) while the mean IQ is the same across the sexes.

I'm sorry vmisa, that must be tough. I mean very non verbal children with autism. Extremely limited in any communication or social interaction.

Vmisa, I agree that more Socially able children with autism are more prone to social conditioning as it provides clear structures; I've only ever met / taught children who were gender non conforming (or extremely gender conforming) who were also autistic. Of course, they're also extremely vulnerable too.

They are very verbal. Many kids (girls more commonly) can be very verbal but still have severe asc. A lot of the diagnostic criteria for asc, Adhd and a number of other developmental disabilities are geared towards the way asc presents in males. Males get a considerably higher chunk of any psych funding- the rates of schizophrenia are fairly similar in each sex for example yet the vast majority of inpatient and out patient funding goes to men.

Ah I see I misunderstood I thought you were saying my girls weren’t verbal. It’s a huge myth that verbal kids with asc mean Hugh functioning and thankfully those unhelpful labels are no longer used.

However I’ve worked with kids with asc of a wide spectrum, and those less verbal or assumed to be more severely effected are often still very vulnerable to social conditioning, it just presents differently. I worked with a lovely women with asc and rhetts who was as conditioned to fear men as any of the rest of us are, no mistreatment with in her history just instinctively knew that we must not anger someone who can hurt us.

But whether the argument is old-style 'wiring' one (old ideas of actual wiring mixed with some current (no pun intended!) ones of white matter tracts based on MR imaging, those pretty coloured brain wiring pictures), or the software/hardware more modern PC-style arguments, it's still arguments based on analogies and a false brain/body separateness/dichotomy.

I don’t think structural analoges between areas of the brain and areas of the body support any duality unless the body and the brain were somehow made of different stuff.

It’s not wise for trans supporters to embrace the idea of structural differences between male and female brains either since any claim to matarial differences can be empirically tested and therefore risk debunking. If a man believed he had a brain structure corresponding to female anatomy that could be tested in a way that ‘feeling’ like a woman cannot.

And as I mentioned above, that brain structure isn’t prior to the body part anyway. You don’t develop a brain structure corresponding to a vagina first and then grow a vagina. They develop alongside each other, not independently, and it’s as impossible for the brain to develop structural analoges for the body of the opposite sex as it is to develop a brain structure corresponding to wings.

They are better off with Male and female souls which, since they don’t exist, are not open to observation.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Not sure how to make it clicky, what are your views on this?

They are very verbal. Many kids (girls more commonly) can be very verbal but still have severe asc.

I’m very verbal, I have some difficulty with social interaction, and I have quite severe sensory issues. I know people on the spectrum who are non-verbal but who have almost no sensory issues. Unlike sex, it really is a spectrum.

The last thing a TRA is going to want is an objective test for gender dysphoria. That would blow self-ID out of the water and put diagnosis back into the hands of medical gatekeepers.

In any case, what would the point be of testing babies? So we know whether to dress them in pink or blue? To know which toys to let them play with or take away?

Sorry v crossed wires, and very hard to generalise of course.

I've just noticed that there isn't 'the differences in presentation' that's recently been widely (and rightly so) shared re girls with autism when they're very severely affected; non or very low verbal/ communication ability both receptive and expressive. (I've taught in a special school for around 12 years). As you say, more able (but still needing the sen school environment) tend to be very gender conforming. My niece is but when I watched her play with dolls it wasn't 'play' as other girls would. She'd line them up and tell you their ages.

Having said that, I taught a lovely lad last year whose family clearly discussed stereotypes frequently and he'd frequently talk about how it's was fine for boys to like xyz etc. But it was clear this was openly and frequently discussed at home; he had an older sister I believe.

Thinking about it further, I'm seeing more boys in who the asd is difficult to see under the general stereotype talked about for boys. I simply say this to further illustrate there really isn't a boy or girl's brain; or the 'extreme male brain theory.'