Science on what makes people trans

[Distractable]

Is there really 'early research to show that the levels of androgens &/vs oestrogens in the mother during pregnancy can result in a trans child & that those mechanisms & pathways override the child’s sex chromosomes' as I've seen claimed online?

Scientific Mumsnetters! Please help! Is this really a thing?

If we lived in a society where males and females wore the same clothes and roles were not prescribed based on sex how would a trans person indicate they were trans?
Trans has been created by society. No other explanation makes sense. Hoe does the infant child know that, in this society and at this time, pink indicates girl? They don't. Society/parents are teaching them that

@SamphiretheStickerist

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

This. And you have to read it carefully, to see all the 'maybe' words and to undertsand that the authors are expounding on possibilities according to their personal focus. This is an opinion piece based on teh research.

www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53500-y

This is the research published in Scientific Reports and the Limitations ection needs to be read carefully

Limitations of this study
A primary limitation of this study was that it included only 30 subjects, though this does constitute a larger sample size than the majority of prior studies utilizing WES to study gender dysphoria. It is for that reason that we consider the above findings to be preliminary in nature. We acknowledge that for any conclusions to be drawn regarding the extent to which a specific genetic variant contributes to gender dysphoria, segregation and in-vitro analysis will be essential. However, we felt that it was important to report this preliminary data to provide a new framework (i.e. consideration of variants affecting sexually dimorphic brain development) for gender identity research. We continue to enroll new patients and will continue to report significant findings as they become available.

In addition, we are unable to characterize the extent of the majority of subjects’ transition processes, as this information was not collected as part of the enrollment process. However, we did make certain that each subject met the clinical criteria for gender dysphoria before enrollment. Moving forward, we may include questions assessing the timing and extent of transition as part of the enrollment process. Finally, this study was limited in that whole exome, rather than whole genome, sequencing was utilized to identify variants. This was primarily due to cost, and may be addressed in the future as the cost of whole genome sequencing continues to fall.

...

Though these neurodevelopmental pathways have not been characterized in humans to the degree that they been described in animals, we believe that genes involving these pathways constitute a reasonable avenue for investigation into the genetic contribution to gender dysphoria in humans.

They are basically saying "This is interesting and worth a further look"

I have been meaning to start a thread about this article for a while, as this exactly my line of work. I was hoping I could even run a 'control' analysis but I have not had the time to do it yet.

I review similar papers frequently and I cannot believe this was accepted for publication - there are extremely basic details missing that make the results meaningless. There is no way this was reviewed by a geneticist.

I'm in the middle of packing to go away, but I will try to come back with a more detailed explanation if anyone is interested.

Do these findings also change if you control for sexuality? or have they controlled for it already?

God only knows! It's a complicated bit of reearch but, even if you only half understand their paremeters, you could drive a bus through things they slide over, fuzz out a little or omit.

But that's what science is. One paper isn't proof. A body of evidence is needed (and no, Lia Thomas ain't that body). From my perspective this sort of investigation is repeating some old work, pre the Human Genome and all sorts of facilties, gadgets etc. It will be interesting to see if they come up with the same results as the 'Gay Gene' research of the 80s or find a new angle.

But what it won't find is a measurable difference that can be pointed at as the root cause of 'being trans'. How do I know that? Because they have not done so for many things that are materially evident - real! Take freckles. Their is a gene that 'often' causes people to freckle. But not always and never if they stay out of the sun. It is not 100% causal and always needs an external factor.

And that's the very best, at a stretch, if we are really going to push it evidnce for there being a 'Gay Gene'. There are any number of genes that could combine to influence sexuality. But, as they are only evident in, at the very most, 25% of the rather large cohort, almost half a million gay people surveyed, they are not causal.

Interestingly - and this is where the current research on 'ebing trans' is looking - five specific genetic sites are associated with same sex attraction, one is associated with smell the others with sex hormones.

The smell one is the focus of another study into 'Being Trans' - I may have written a longish post on it someweher here when A N Other insisted that there was a genetic cause.

However, together those 5 sites accounted for less than 1% of same sex attraction. Leaving most experts with the conclusion that it is impossible to predict sexual behaviour via the genome. 'Being Trans' will be no different. Because it is just another human behaviour. One that has been with us forever and won't be going away. It is simply part of the human condition. A consequence of everything we are, everything we experience, feel, say, do.

No more spangly and important than having bunions!

@IamAporcupine I have to admit I was surprised it was published and that Scientific Reports is peer reviewed!

Please do come back and bore me to death with detail. As you can see (hopefully), I have just enough knowledge to ask some of the right questions but not enough education in genetics to understand the depths.

Every time I read anything these days, I read it with the lens of 'whose fault does it appear to be'.

In this instance, it would seem as if it is again, all the women's fault. Them and their pesky womb washes.

Thank you, Samphire, that's so interesting.

IamAporcupine, I'd love to hear more.

Yes please @IamAporcupine

Oh my, the pressure is on now

I must admit I have not spent much time on the discussion yet. I was mainly shocked by the way the (lack of) findings were presented. I will refresh my memory on the plane, and report back!

What makes people trans?

The Internet mostly.

I don't think it really matters does it?

Gender Dysphoria does exist. People do have it. What we need is a recognition of the different routes and life experiences that lead to these feelings, that some people find these feelings disappear when they go through puberty, that some people retain those feelings and can manage them without living as if they are the opposite sex, and that others find being able to present to others as the opposite sex is the best way for them to manage those feelings (whilst also being informed of the implications of life -long medication and surgery).

We also need to recognise that the current definition of trans is now so all-embracing that it is essentially meaningless.

And of course to recognise the importance of Sex and sex-segregated services and spaces when needed for safety, dignity and fairness.

This is really interesting. So many clever vipers here. My science brain is very very rusty, but I did think that it was a massive stretch to say that trans identity is likely to be able to be proved scientifically when there's no such proof for people being gay.

It matters in the sense that falsely inflated scientific claims are being made to prop up gender identity ideology. I agree with everything else you say.

@whitecreambluejug

I don't think it really matters does it?

Gender Dysphoria does exist. People do have it. What we need is a recognition of the different routes and life experiences that lead to these feelings, that some people find these feelings disappear when they go through puberty, that some people retain those feelings and can manage them without living as if they are the opposite sex, and that others find being able to present to others as the opposite sex is the best way for them to manage those feelings (whilst also being informed of the implications of life -long medication and surgery).

We also need to recognise that the current definition of trans is now so all-embracing that it is essentially meaningless.

And of course to recognise the importance of Sex and sex-segregated services and spaces when needed for safety, dignity and fairness.

I agree with Ereshkigalangcleg that it matters in the sense that bad science is being used to justify gender identity ideology, and we need good science and to generally be well informed and armed with rihgt information to argue properly. But otherwise, I couldn't agree more.

Same here, I agree with what you say @whitecreambluejug, but I do think it matters. I have always seen these articles come up as a proof that 'trans people exist' but that's about it.

I don't think that gender ideologists really want to get to the biological roots of what 'being trans' is, as that would a) need a clear definition (is it the same as GD?) and recognition of the different sub-cohorts (male/female, age groups, etc), and b) might result in a proper diagnostic algorithm (be it MRI scans, genes, biomarkers etc).

Ah, this sort of stuff is fine by TRAs all the while it’s vague and airy-fairy. If some solid physical or neurological cause was discovered they’d drop the science like a stone because then there would be the possibility of diagnosis via tests rather than the feelings free for all we have currently.

Another issue that does not seem to attract the research it should is the strong correlation in young people with autism.

There's lods of really current research into that @flyingbuttress43

Stats include the common measure: people with autism are 6 times more likely to experience some for of gennder dysphoria.

Somewhere, and typically I can't find it again, there is a longitudinal study mapping how this was expressed 20 - 30 years ago. I think some of the case studies/quotes on the Autism Society page sums it up - older people now find the label "non binary" a comfort. Younger peple want and need more health care and support with this.

If you can get past the 'cis' and other uses of language, this piece has a good explanation of where research is at.

www.spectrumnews.org/news/largest-study-to-date-confirms-overlap-between-autism-and-gender-diversity/