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.

Yes language is a good one.

What I do think can happen, and this is a pet theory I have based on loose evidence from what transsexuals report as the their early experiences and from what I’ve heard about other body disassociation disorders, is that when the mapping of the body happens in neurological development, there is a glitch when mapping the reproductive system.

That is not to say that the brain “thinks” it should have different genitals than it does, no. Just that it doesn’t recognize the body part as part of the body like if you scan an item on a till and it doesn’t come up because it’s been inventoried wrong.

I hear over and over, “my body just felt wrong and that around the age of three I “realised” that I should have been a girl/boy”. Developmentally this makes sense as it correlates to when children start having an awarenees of their bodies and how they are the same/differ from others and it is a logical (albeit erroneous) conclusion that if you feel your body is “the wrong one” than maybe you should have had the kind that looks different. However, this is not the same as feeling like the opposite sex. It’s a thought born from a faulty application of childish logic.

There are other disorders where the brain/body connection is faulty or developmentally delayed and I think some gender dysphoria has a biological basis in the brain in the same way as those conditions do, however it is not and can never be the wrong brain in the wrong body.

Being born in the wrong body.

Let's take a look at this phrase. For what it's worth I think this phrase is at it's core misogynistic.

Only women can give birth. For centuries women were punished for having given birth to a child of the wrong sex, famously Anne Boleyn.

Science now tells us that it is the sperm that determines the sex of a baby. Though google sex determine sperm and you will get 'gender' apart from this nugget.

In the XY sex-determination system, the female-provided ovum contributes an X chromosome and the male-provided sperm contributes either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome, resulting in female (XX) or male (XY) offspring, respectively. Hormone levels in the male parent affect the sex ratio of sperm in humans.

So if women alone were able to reproduce in an immaculate conception, the result would be female. From this it therefore could be argued that Jesus is trans gender - good luck with that.

The other problem with being born in the wrong body is that it is a religious and an ideological concept rather akin with babies being born with original sin. It's as if personality and the persona exists before conception. This is clearly nonsense. When did this person exist?

My grandmother gave birth to my mother, in turn she gave birth to me. Whilst in her mother's uterus, my mother's ovum were formed. Whilst in my mother's uterus, my ovum were formed. My two daughters formed their ova whilst in my uterus. This is biology. It's fascinating and mind blowing, but isn't up for philosophical discussion.

As a post script I also grew a penis inside me. However, neither I nor his father, can determine the quality or amount of sperm that he might produce.

I agree and don't agree with you.

I don't buy this "born into the wrong body" thing either but I don't agree with your reasoning. Many/most mammals and all apes show distinct behavioural differences based on sex. These differences are not the results socialization or artificial constructs, they are innate, the result of a complex interaction bw hormones and brain (and hormones shape the brain). Male and female brains are not the same in most mammalian species and I really, really doubt that they are in humans. So I do think you get male brains and females brains, just not that this determines whether you are good at science, or like high heels. But the interaction bw hormones and brain development means that you can't get a woman's brain in a man's body, or vice versa. If you develop as a male, with male hormones, your brain is, by definition, male. And the same for females of course.

These differences are not the results socialization or artificial constructs, they are innate, the result of a complex interaction bw hormones and brain (and hormones shape the brain). Male and female brains are not the same in most mammalian species and I really, really doubt that they are in humans.

They are not innate. It's nonsense to suggest this. A newborn boy baby is no different in behaviour than a newborn girl baby. I know this from experience. Nor did that boy kick more whilst in my uterus - in fact he hated sports and doesn't watch football.

Socialisation begins the minute a child's sex is revealed via a scan.

Puberty has an influence on the sex characteristics, both primary and secondary, of a human. Nothing more and nothing less.

Slightly off track...but when did it become common to have scans that showed the baby's sex? When my (now middle aged) dcs were born we had no idea what sex they would be beforehand and of course no one else did either. So there was no chance of even subconsciously imprinting on the foetus our stereotypes of "gender". The baby was born without having any boy or girl traits and its personality developed with no preconceptions or expectations.

Did, I wonder, the pink/blue obsession and all the attendant crap about boy things and girl things take off about the time that scans were available to tell you what sex you were carrying months before they were born? Certainly, when my dds were growing up in the 1970s/80s this obsession about boys' things and girls' things/colours/toys/activities etc. were nowhere near as prominent as they are now.

If I were a kid now or my dds were I fear that our personalities and love of stuff normally associated with boys would have meant some people querying whether we were trans? In fact were were all "tomboys" (hate that word) and we all grew up straight.

Not sure what I'm trying to say here: maybe trying to make a connection that isn't there....

I had a scan for my first born in the early 90s but I wasn't allowed to know the sex as it was against the rules in the hospital I went to: for both my daughters, Royal Free Hospital. I was told the sex of my son but only after I told them I had two daughters. Different hospital and region.

My sister did not have scans for either of her pregnancies in the 80s. However, she is now a very proud grandmother and knew the sex of the baby on the announcement of the pregnancy! A girl.

My son was born in a different decade and century as well!

Puberty has an influence on the sex characteristics, both primary and secondary, of a human. Nothing more and nothing less.

That is why puberty blockers are put in place. To stop the sex characteristics, primary and secondary, from developing. Neither puberty nor the blockers have an overriding influence on the development of the skeleton though - that seems to be mainly genetic, with a touch of social class (wealth and influence) and socialisation involved .

So you think male lions act different to female lions because why placemats? Because patriarchy?

There are statistical, not absolute, differences in male and female brains, the most obvious being overall size.

Men’s brains are statistically larger (this, before anyone objects, not meaning more intelligent; I can’t remember the name of the literary genius who was later discovered to have had a brain the size of a dog’s) - but that doesn’t mean a man with a brain smaller than the average male brain is a woman.

Nor is it the case that statistical differences in individual structures of the brain make one brain male and another female.

There are no distinct anatomical differences between a male brain and a female brain that you can point at and say, that’s a male brain and that one’s a female brain.

There’s no brain equivalent of a antlers or a peacock’s feathers or, indeed, a penis: just statistical variations.

Say you have a brain region called Shatner’s bassoon and it’s typically the size of a wallnut in men and a grape in women.

‘Typical’ just means there’s a ‘normal’ distribution in sizes and wallnut and grape represent the mean for each sex.

But a normal distribution also means that you will have a variation in sizes.

Some men will have a Shatner’s bassoon the size of a golf ball and very rare men will have one the size of an apple. Some will have one the size of a grape or even (in very rare cases) the size of a ballbearing.

This does not mean men with a Shatner’s bassoon the size of a grape - the typical size for a woman - is actually a woman. Nor does it mean the minority of women with a Shatner’s bassoon the the size of a wallnut - or even an apple - are actually women.

So unless someone discovers a component in the brain that is exclusive to either sex, pointing to statistical differences between, say, a trans woman’s brain and another man, doesn’t make them a woman,

It just means that they have a brain represented by the tail end of the distribution curve.

(NB. ‘Normal’ is just a mathematical term, it’s not a judgement.)

I think the pink/blue thing is about money.

In the 70’s and 80’s there was far less stuff to buy full stop. Disney princesses had certainly been around for a long time, but I can’t remember any Disney Princess merchandise.

Bugger. Meant:

Nor does it mean the minority of women with a Shatner’s bassoon the the size of a wallnut - or even an apple - are actually men.

Must remember to read through before posting...

Because baby male lions develop into adult male lions. Post puberty they develop testicles and a penis. They spray and stink. Perhaps the latter should be applied to all male mammals? Barbarian

Post puberty they develop testicles and a penis

Mmm, not a biologist are you?

Neither puberty nor the blockers have an overriding influence on the development of the skeleton though

Really? My experience is that boys and girls are similar heights until puberty and then boys hit puberty and grow about a foot in a month.

I can see that their eventual height is governed by genetics, but how would they reach that without going through puberty?

Isn’t early puberty supposed to reduce height? (which is also one of the reasons that blockers were originally prescribed?)

I was desperately proud of my sleeping beauty soap and my Snow White soap but that's all I can remember.

Wiped the bubbles off them and put them to 'bed' after use till they eroded away....

BiologyIsReal

Certainly, when my dds were growing up in the 1970s/80s this obsession about boys' things and girls' things/colours/toys/activities etc. were nowhere near as prominent as they are now.

I actually think it was down to the much greater focus on savvy marketing techniques. There were always girls clothes and boys clothes, but in the late 1980s there was a fashion for "unisex" baby and toddler clothes. I remember this very well, because I was pregnant with DD1 in 1990, and I remember going into Next and marvelling at all the gorgeous unisex baby clothes. However, it wasn't long before one chain after another switched to very highly differentiated boy/girl clothes. It was obvious that one shop got the idea, and the others realised it was more profitable and fell in line. I really enjoyed clothes shopping for DD1, and I watched it happen. By the time dd2 was born (1998) you couldn't find anything for a girl that wasn't either pink, or had a little heart or flower on it somewhere. The whole point of this, of course, was to sell more clothes, by cutting back on hand-me-downs within the same family. Same thing with boy's clothes: suddenly boy's clothes even for babies were in nasty muddy colours, because parents would see those as boyish, with sharp-toothed predators on them instead of rocking horses and trains.

And once toy marketers saw this, of course they got on the bandwagon as well. Because it means they can sell more toys, if parents can't just buy Lego, but have to buy both boy's and girl's lego. Etc Etc.

Pouch of Douglas, or Douglas pouch.

www.revolvy.com/page/Recto%252Duterine-pouch

Only, ONLY, ONLY females have this.

I preferred the dwarfs to Snow White. Fortunately such socialisation didn’t stunt my growth. This should be a relief to anyone who’s kids are obsessed with Minions.

Really? My experience is that boys and girls are similar heights until puberty and then boys hit puberty and grow about a foot in a month.

No they don't. Not all boys will do this. Many will, but not all.

Try having a wee chat with Tom Cruise about this.

Most men will be in the 5'10/11 range, unless they have had excess access to high protein foods, been in sports since they could walk or probably, genetics (usually the mother is tall).

For a moment I thought you meant the Douglas pouch was a region unique to the female brain.

Tom Cruise is 5’7. That makes him well within the normal range for American men (abverage 5’9).

I’ve never understood why he’s considered freakishly short just because he isn’t Clint Eastwood (6’3) or John Wayne (6’4). It’s they who are the statistical outliers.

As regards mammalian brains, I raise you neuroplasticity. The thing about human brains is how we all manage to do pretty much the same stuff, despite being bathed in different hormones. Genitalia, anatomy, muscles, all different, but brains pretty much the same. We are not like zebra finches, where males sing, females don't and the male finch brain is totally different as a result:
www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150916-these-animals-are-male-on-one-side-and-female-on-the-other
Language, social stuff, both sexes do all that. There really isn't a terribly good evolutionary reason, frankly, that would support vastly different mental capabilities for males versus females. Same smarts despite different hormonal environments, that would be what I would expect to see. Not sexed brains because of hormones.........