Oh no, it's a thread about trans issues made by John Dule

[Wikipedia delenda est]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.   

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.       

There were cadaver studies late last century. Since then there have been a number of MRI and SPECT studies comparing brain structures and brain blood flow on living humans. This century has also seen gene-linked identical/fraternal twin studies and hormone receptor response studies. Most of the studies are small, but they consistently point to biological differences in some of the trans population.

I don't suggest that these techniques would identify one's gender as an absolute. But for some transgender individuals medical techniques may be able to provide a biological explanation for their gender. I think having biological evidence to augment psychology could be helpful for some, and one shouldn't be compelled to take a test if it wouldn't be helpful.

What about the fMRI study on a dead fish, which calls into question many of these MRI brain blood flow tests done on living humans?

[muon2]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.   

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.       

There were cadaver studies late last century. Since then there have been a number of MRI and SPECT studies comparing brain structures and brain blood flow on living humans. This century has also seen gene-linked identical/fraternal twin studies and hormone receptor response studies. Most of the studies are small, but they consistently point to biological differences in some of the trans population.

I don't suggest that these techniques would identify one's gender as an absolute. But for some transgender individuals medical techniques may be able to provide a biological explanation for their gender. I think having biological evidence to augment psychology could be helpful for some, and one shouldn't be compelled to take a test if it wouldn't be helpful.

What about the fMRI study on a dead fish, which calls into question many of these MRI brain blood flow tests done on living humans?

My reading of the article is that it points out the importance of proper analytical techniques on fMRI, just like any other scientific measurement. It also points out the role of false positives and false negatives in measurements, especially when improperly analyzed.

From the linked article:

Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats.

Are you suggesting that because we get false positives and negatives on COVID tests, we should discard COVID tests entirely?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.   

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.       

There were cadaver studies late last century. Since then there have been a number of MRI and SPECT studies comparing brain structures and brain blood flow on living humans. This century has also seen gene-linked identical/fraternal twin studies and hormone receptor response studies. Most of the studies are small, but they consistently point to biological differences in some of the trans population.

I don't suggest that these techniques would identify one's gender as an absolute. But for some transgender individuals medical techniques may be able to provide a biological explanation for their gender. I think having biological evidence to augment psychology could be helpful for some, and one shouldn't be compelled to take a test if it wouldn't be helpful.

What about the fMRI study on a dead fish, which calls into question many of these MRI brain blood flow tests done on living humans?

My reading of the article is that it points out the importance of proper analytical techniques on fMRI, just like any other scientific measurement. It also points out the role of false positives and false negatives in measurements, especially when improperly analyzed.

From the linked article:

Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats.

Are you suggesting that because we get false positives and negatives on COVID tests, we should discard COVID tests entirely?

No, but unlike the COVID tests a substantial number of these fMRIs were done not according to proper statistical procedure:

The authors note that at the time the poster was presented, between 25-40% of studies on fMRI being published were NOT using the corrected comparisons.

The study was in 2009, and I'd assume most of the MRI studies you cited in your OP were done before then, so my point still stands.

[muon2]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.  

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.      

There were cadaver studies late last century. Since then there have been a number of MRI and SPECT studies comparing brain structures and brain blood flow on living humans. This century has also seen gene-linked identical/fraternal twin studies and hormone receptor response studies. Most of the studies are small, but they consistently point to biological differences in some of the trans population.

I don't suggest that these techniques would identify one's gender as an absolute. But for some transgender individuals medical techniques may be able to provide a biological explanation for their gender. I think having biological evidence to augment psychology could be helpful for some, and one shouldn't be compelled to take a test if it wouldn't be helpful.

What about the fMRI study on a dead fish, which calls into question many of these MRI brain blood flow tests done on living humans?

My reading of the article is that it points out the importance of proper analytical techniques on fMRI, just like any other scientific measurement. It also points out the role of false positives and false negatives in measurements, especially when improperly analyzed.

From the linked article:

Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats.

Are you suggesting that because we get false positives and negatives on COVID tests, we should discard COVID tests entirely?

No, but unlike the COVID tests a substantial number of these fMRIs were done not according to proper statistical procedure:

The authors note that at the time the poster was presented, between 25-40% of studies on fMRI being published were NOT using the corrected comparisons.

The study was in 2009, and I'd assume most of the MRI studies you cited in your OP were done before then, so my point still stands.

Three points.
1) I actually didn't reference fMRI. I referenced MRI which is used in an entirely different way than fMRI.
2) The blood flow study I was thinking of used SPECT not fMRI.
3) In general the studies I'm thinking of are from up to 2016. I read a technical review article around that time and I admit my thoughts are influenced by it. I'm open to reading more recent review articles if you can point me at them.

Edit - This is from the discussion section of a 2016 review article in the International Review of Psychiatry:

Although the number of studies examining the brain of people with GI [gender incongruence] is still low, they have taught us that brain phenotypes for FtM and MtF seem to exist, and provided evidence for the role of prenatal organization of the brain in the development of gender incongruence. Future studies should focus on different developmental trajectories (persisters versus desisters; early versus late onset of GI feelings) and should also examine the role of sexual orientation.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I'm quite late to this thread as I almost never touch this board, but upon reviewing it I feel that I have a few thoughts to add to the discourse:

Sometimes this goes even further into overtly spiritual or religious rhapsodes about the phases of the moon, blood magic, the sea, etc. etc., anybody who's ever had a serious conversation with a Dianic Wiccan will know what I'm referring to (although non-transphobic women sometimes hold some of these beliefs as well).

While I hate Dianic Wicca as much as the next self-respecting trans person, I do believe that there's a spiritual component to my gender identity. Ecofeminist ideology and its spiritual cognates such as the Reclaiming movement are bigoted miscalculations based on the conflation of psychosocial aspects of the gender divide with supposed innate sexual differences, but I personally feel that nature is part of my self-expression and connected with femininity in that regard, and that feminine creative power need not be restricted to its physicality. This isn't an uncommon concept, as, as I have mentioned on this forum before, many ancient instances of proto-transgender identity are tied to religious practice.

I don't really care about whether my gender role is masculine or feminine, and ultimately it's a very mixed bag and always has been since well before my gender identity was something that I ever consciously pondered. Hence I consider myself non-binary. My femininity stems from the physical dysphoria of desiring the body that I'd have if my Y chromosome were obliterated and replaced with the other, and my closer affiliation to what is generally considered the feminine experience as well as my preference of being considered part of feminine groups. The non-feminine part of my identity could be considered vaguely masculine, or a void, or a liminal nature spirit; I'm not really concerned with what it exactly is as long as it's recognized that I don't fit the schema of the feminine perfectly.

I'm not particularly concerned with whether there's a supposed biological basis for being transgender. Frankly, it strikes me as irrelevant and technocratic, and another means of enforcing proscriptive norms. All should feel free to identify with whatever combinations of "gendered" traits that they feel are a part of themselves, until the dated idea of a prescribed gender role is abolished by fluidity. I hope that, despite my general skepticism of technologies alienating us from ourselves, future advancements may allow us to more accurately sculpt bodies that represent us.

Classifying trans issues as a disorder or not is a bit of a strange semantic point; being trans isn't itself a disorder anymore, but the distress that it causes should be classified as such to allow for medical treatment.