One for the biologists

[TigerDrankAllTheWaterInTheTap]

Just seen a link to this on Twitter. Newly published journal article. Can anyone who's equipped give an opinion on it in due course? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165284 A TRA is claiming that it provides neuroscience evidence of why some people are transsexual (their word - I can only see the abstract so I don't know how it's defined). I'm not equipped to evaluate research like this but I know there are regulars here who are. I'd be genuinely interested to know if there is any good scientific research on gender dysphoria.

(By their word I mean the authors' word.)

(By 'their' word I mean the authors' word.)

a homogeneous population of 549 early onset androphilic MtF transsexuals versus 728 male controls, and 425 gynephilic FtMs versus 599 female controls.

This is key. This is about homosexual trans people. Heterosexuals are not being looked at here. Also "early onset". I guess that's why they use the term "transsexual".

Not a biologist but have some understanding.

The paper is open access, anyone can see it. Follow the Elsivier link.

Out of curiosity, why would it matter if trans has a biological or genetic cause? Is it to help people understand the feelings of transpeople?

It does nothing to suggest that their sex is different.

As Ereshkigal says, this says nothing about late-transitioning males who have fathered several children and want to stay married to their wives.

We applied three inclusion criteria to this population: early onset of GD (before puberty), being androphilic (MtF) or gynephilic (FtM) and aged between 18 and 47 years old at enrollment. With these criteria 39 MtFs and 1 FtM were excluded.

Not qualified to comment on the biology.

Direct link to full article
www.psyneuen-journal.com/article/S0306-4530(18)30535-3/fulltext

First thought is that ‘early onset’ is only meaningful if there’s a ‘late onset’ to contrast it with - and according to TRAs gender dysphoria is a lifelong condition.

How are TRAs promoting this research reconciling it with their opposition to ROGD?

I don't know, @Midgebabe. I get a bit nervous when people start looking for neuroscience evidence of same sex attraction because I can't see what purpose it serves and it creates a risk of abuse - homophobic parents getting genetic analysis done as early in pregnancy as possible so they can terminate a pregnancy if the 'wrong' genes are found. I think I feel similarly about this.

However, I've also seen how transactivists misuse intersex conditions, attempting to muddy the waters by suggesting that sex is a spectrum and so forth. Cherrypicking articles and misrepresenting the content. So if this one gets mentioned over and over again I'd find it helpful to have an informed response to it to refer back to.

One thing I do recall from previous discussions about this kind of thing - if all the subjects are same-sex attracted how can the researchers differentiate between differences in the brain caused by being gay and differences caused by being transsexual? The control group here were not picked because they were gay. They were picked to match characteristics of the general population.

Of course, the study was started a decade ago before the incredibly recent surge in people identifying as transgender.

(Thanks for the direct link.)

I think if there was proof a biological basis for transgenderism TRAs would oppose it.

Having an objective test is the last thing they want.

A brain scan, blood test or - since we are talking about hormones here - a urine test would render self-ID obsolete.

Want to use the women’s bathroom? Okay, piss on the stick first - let’s see if the lines turn pink or blue.

Can’t help with the detail.

It does not claim Nor show that sex is a spectrum. It is focussing on identifying commonality among people with gender dysmorphia. In fact it carries out this analysis by considering the two sexes separately.

It does add evidence to the idea that aspects of your genes will affect your personality.

Since we already know that personality and cognitive capabilities are a spectrum, well gee whiz.

There are probably genetic indicators also for anorexia for example. Wonder if they are similar?

Yes I get uncomfortable with understanding the genetic markers for everything. I think some people will try to use it for bad purposes, to try and do people down or as a basis for genetic engineering of the human race.

I don't think they've thought that far ahead Aspie. At the moment some definitely suggest transgenderism has a biological basis. The suggestion is that though their bodies appear male there is a physical developmental issue which masks their true female sex (and vice versa). They are therefore entitled to physical treatment for their physical condition and should be treated as members of the female sex in terms of access to female spaces.

So instead of a simple, easily observable sex differentiation for which we have centuries of evidence about the real differences and the practical implications thereof, they would prefer to focus on a much more subtle, complex definition of the differentiation of our species and then expect that the observed sex based differences must transfer naturally and without modification to their more obscure classes

Hum.

However, all subjects in our study fulfill the definition of transsexuals stated in DSM-IV-TR: all felt a strong and persistent identification with the other sex, and expressed a strong desire for a social transition from male to female or female to male that involved somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and, in most, genital surgery.

From the selection criteria - this is the only reference I can see to cross-sex hormone treatment: a strong desire for. It's not clear to me whether any of the subject were taking hormones, and I'd want to ask the question "do cross-sex hormones modify these genes, or expression of these genes, in any way?" I think perhaps there's something interesting here, but I'm not convinced you can take it to the "this is the biological basis" conclusion.

As ever, a group of detransitioners would have created a further interesting control, because I don't think we can begin to detangle the possible physical programming from the societal influences otherwise.