About transgender people, from a neuro-biologist who knows what they are talking about

[First1There]

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ  

"The Neuro-biology of Trans-sexuality: by Prof. Robert Sapolsky" or 'Lecture 15: Human Sexual Behavior I' of Stanford's 'Introduction to Behavioral Biology'

Many members of the forum get unusually agitated on transgender people, like if they were a cudgel to beat or to be beaten with.

Many members of the forum need to know what someone who knows what they are talking about looks and sounds like.

[First1There]

Some quotes from the 6 min video

(T)his was a studydone by some superb neuroanatomists looking at transsexuals and what they showed was very interesting which was very very reliably and a very powerful effect what you would see in their large large sample size of transsexuals brains postmortem was people would have this part of the brain the size not of their sex that they were born with but rather of the sex they insisted they always actually were.  

(T)his was a landmark study fabulously well done and controlled and replicated once since then showing that what transsexualism used to be thought of is that people who think that they're a
different gender than they actually are. What this study suggests is what transsexual is about is people who got the wrong gendered body and these are people who are chromosomally of one sex in terms of their gonads, they're of that sex in terms of their hormones, they're of that sex in terms of their genitalia, and their secondary sexual characteristics they're of that sex but they are insisting that's not who i really am. This part of the brain agrees with them.  

[Hypothetically] you are a guy with a penis and you get a certain type of penile cancer and what's often done is your penis is excised, that is cut off, and about 60 percent of men who have had to have their penises removed because of cancer there wind up getting phant-phantom penile sensations - which I don't want to know about - what you see though is when you take transgendered individuals who go from male to female, in other words, as part of it having their penises removed, (a) zero percent rate of penile phantom sensation suggestion being that there is something much more normal in that case than when a penis is being removed for cancer.  

[progressive85]

It is ultimately all leading to the mysterious science of biology, and "Who are we to judge it?"

We lash out at LGBTQ people because we don't understand them.  Maybe if we could learn more about the science behind why we are who we are it will go a long way in creating a more understanding, more accepting, more enlightened society.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

IIRC part of the lower rates of phantom dick syndrome among patients of vaginoplasty is that the nerves remain mostly intact, though the fact that most of them didn't want one to begin with certainly doesn't hurt.

[Del Tachi]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way." 

[First1There]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way."  

From a comment on the video

It's so interesting how people will immediately write off one of the most prominent neurobiologist's in the world because they disagree with him, while at the same time, pretending they only believe what the science says.

[vitoNova]

No need for an explanation.

"Non-binary", LGBTQX, trannie, or whatever-people will ALWAYS statically exist within any biological species.

This has been true since our distant fish ancestors first walked on land, and will be true a billion years from now as our descendants colonize the stars.

Don't really understand why this is even a debate, tbh.

[Del Tachi]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way." 

From a comment on the video

It's so interesting how people will immediately write off one of the most prominent neurobiologist's in the world because they disagree with him, while at the same time, pretending they only believe what the science says.

Science is not a monolith.  Scientists spend most of their time arguing and debating one another, and the same "science" often implies contradictory things.  Your mistake is stretching conclusions from the work of one guy to imagine a scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

[HisGrace]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

If the "brain sex" concept is a scientific fact then feminists are anti science for insisting that traditional gender roles are socially constructed and should be purged from academia like young earth creationists. The same people who argue studies like this are settled facts will say the exact same behavior is learned social behavior when a cis person does it. If even feminists and trans activists can't figure this discrepancy out I don't know they expect anyone else to.

[First1There]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way." 

From a comment on the video

It's so interesting how people will immediately write off one of the most prominent neurobiologist's in the world because they disagree with him, while at the same time, pretending they only believe what the science says.

Science is not a monolith.  Scientists spend most of their time arguing and debating one another, and the same "science" often implies contradictory things.  Your mistake is stretching conclusions from the work of one guy to imagine a scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

About the Bold

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-010-9668-7
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MHRJ-05-2014-0015/full/html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0008417416635346
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/#fb_Bar_2016
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-015-0398-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645301300348X?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515302241?via%3Dihub
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19359705.2011.581195
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920

I think it is you who has an imaginary idea of scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

[Del Tachi]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way." 

From a comment on the video

It's so interesting how people will immediately write off one of the most prominent neurobiologist's in the world because they disagree with him, while at the same time, pretending they only believe what the science says.

Science is not a monolith.  Scientists spend most of their time arguing and debating one another, and the same "science" often implies contradictory things.  Your mistake is stretching conclusions from the work of one guy to imagine a scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

About the Bold

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-010-9668-7
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MHRJ-05-2014-0015/full/html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0008417416635346
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/#fb_Bar_2016
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-015-0398-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645301300348X?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515302241?via%3Dihub
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19359705.2011.581195
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920

I think it is you who has an imaginary idea of scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

What kind of gish-galloped post is this?  Each of these studies is measuring a different outcome of interest (i.e., suicidal ideation, sexual function, occupational performance, etc.) and the interventions vary, too.  What in any of these studies supports the determinative and reactionary notion of "brain sex"?  LOL

[First1There]

Ah, the "brain sex" nonsense again...

The study with the postmortem brain slides is bunk for one major reason:  you can't infer causality.  Our brains are plastic, they morph and change as we age and grow.  Cut out your eyes and the region of your brain responsible for processing images will atrophy and die.  Stop living as a man/woman, and the part of your brain that governs those functions will decay, too.  There's no indication that their brains were any different before they transitioned, that they "were born that way."  

From a comment on the video

It's so interesting how people will immediately write off one of the most prominent neurobiologist's in the world because they disagree with him, while at the same time, pretending they only believe what the science says.

Science is not a monolith.  Scientists spend most of their time arguing and debating one another, and the same "science" often implies contradictory things.  Your mistake is stretching conclusions from the work of one guy to imagine a scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

About the Bold

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-010-9668-7
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MHRJ-05-2014-0015/full/html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0008417416635346
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/#fb_Bar_2016
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-015-0398-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645301300348X?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515302241?via%3Dihub
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19359705.2011.581195
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2012.736920

I think it is you who has an imaginary idea of scientific consensus that neatly conforms to your worldview.

What kind of gish-galloped post is this?  Each of these studies is measuring a different outcome of interest (i.e., suicidal ideation, sexual function, occupational performance, etc.) and the interventions vary, too.  What in any of these studies supports the determinative and reactionary notion of "brain sex"?  LOL

Yeah, it's a variety of issues on purpose. On all these things these studies show that the self-reported satisfaction of the surveyed transgender people improved. Here's the meta-study.

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

I'm not interested in brain sex as brain sex. I'm interested in transgender people living there lives like normal people.

Here's the one page summary.

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PDF-Trans-well-being.pdf

If you think you know more than 52 studies, be my guest.

[Wiswylfen]

That there is a biological basis for gender is by this point beyond dispute, regardless of attempts to dismiss it as 'determinative and reactionary' which are more indicative of far-left radicalism finding its way to the right than anything else. This does not conflict with neuroplasticity—which is also by this point beyond dispute—in any way.

[MarkD]

"The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as if they are the same." -- Tigner v. Texas
I have only two disputes with that statement: 1) the Constitution does not protect "things," it protects people, and 2) racial equality was absolutely the intended purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, here is the way the statement should have been written: "With the exception of racial equality, the Constitution does not require human characteristics which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as if they were the same."

[Samof94]

I mean, it is obvious that trans people are real. On the other hand, transitioning between "races"(except maybe changing your personal label if mixed race) is not a thing regardless of what Rachel Dolezal says.

[First1There]

I mean, it is obvious that trans people are real. On the other hand, transitioning between "races"(except maybe changing your personal label if mixed race) is not a thing regardless of what Rachel Dolezal says.

Yeah.

(This next sentence is not specifically talking to you Samof94, just everybody in general)

But I don't want to make this a thread on race, I made it on transgender people, so I don't want a big derail from the topic, especially since race is touchy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Basically: Of the many parts of the brain with *average* differences between men and women there are a few where trans people line up more, on average, with their identified gender than their natal sex. 

[Samof94]

I mean, it is obvious that trans people are real. On the other hand, transitioning between "races"(except maybe changing your personal label if mixed race) is not a thing regardless of what Rachel Dolezal says.

Yeah.

(This next sentence is not specifically talking to you Samof94, just everybody in general)

But I don't want to make this a thread on race, I made it on transgender people, so I don't want a big derail from the topic, especially since race is touchy.

I know, but my point was that trans people are very, very real.