Links and a few points and summary are adequate. I don't read walls of text and they are a massive clutter to the flow of the forum. And they are against forum rules.
And all it says anyways is more data is needed. You don't have to pollute the page with the entire thing just to say that.
Hmmm. Give them what they ask for and they still complain. I'll take your points here for future reference. Thanks.
It hasn't escaped me though that I more often than not see you make unsubstantiated statements without links or references. Hmmm...
That means we have seen how the brains of transgender people more resemble the sex of their identity than the sex of their birth
Here's a thought....structurally, from what I've read on the matter
, the brains of males and females are a mosaic of similarity with consistent overlap in the general population. There are some observed differences such as brain size and cortical thickness but again these are not absolutes. Under the microscope its not easy for pro's to determine male from female brains. MRI studies have shown the variations in male/female brains to have plenty of latitude either way.
What makes a male a male and female a female seems to point back to biological inputs from the inhabited body.
Saying that a transgender person simply has the wrong brain in the wrong body is a woefully insufficient explanation of the problem. How do you tell that they resemble the sex of their identity more than their birth sex identity when there's such grey areas in identification? Not to mention subsequent altering influences as maturity develops in the organism. Seems once again some studies are too quick to jump to conclusions.
I'm gonna give you just one study and it's abstract, bare with me.
Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic Daphna Joela,b,1, Zohar Bermanb , Ido Tavorc , Nadav Wexlerd , Olga Gabera , Yaniv Steind , Nisan Shefia,b, Jared Poole , Sebastian Urchse , Daniel S. Marguliese , Franziskus Lieme,f, Jürgen Hänggif , Lutz Jänckef , and Yaniv Assafb,c a School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel; b Sagol School of Neuoroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel; c Department of Neurobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel; d School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel; e Max Planck Research Group for Neuroanatomy & Connectivity, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; and f Division Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland Edited by Bruce S. McEwen, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, and approved October 23, 2015 (received for review June 4, 2015)
Abstract:
... Documented sex/gender differences in the brain are often taken as support of a sexually dimorphic view of human brains (“female brain” or “male brain”). However, such a distinction would be possible only if sex/gender differences in brain features were highly dimorphic (i.e., little overlap between the forms of these features in males and females) and internally consistent (i.e., a brain has only “male” or only “female” features). Here, analysis of MRIs of more than 1,400 human brains from four datasets reveals extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed. Moreover, analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our findings are robust across sample, age, type of MRI, and method of analysis. These findings are corroborated by a similar analysis of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors of more than 5,500 individuals, which reveals that internal consistency is extremely rare. Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.
I'm tired of laymen not educated in the field acting like their opinion is just as valid as those who have actually studied the subject,
I wonder, how do you determine on here who the laymen are? What is the criteria to be considered a layman? Is it simply those who disagree with you? If they don't see the subject the same way you do are they merely ignorant fools? Under educated morons?
And don't be so quick to dismiss laymen. History is rife with those considered to be "laymen" who've made very important contributions to humankinds knowledge. Not to mention those professionals in one field making accidental discoveries in other fields they would be considered laymen in.
a subject that doesn't actually concern them but does concern the well being of someone they probably dont even know.
Again, how do you determine which subjects actually concern which people and which don't? For instance I've got homosexual, and bisexual friends and cousins. I'm very concerned for their welfare. Does that count?
And you feel confident because you've had two low level courses. I have a degree and professional experience.
? I wasn't giving you a comprehensive list of my educational experience.
That's great that you have a degree and professional experience. I'll take your word for it. You didn't say what your degree was in or your experience though.
If you have knowledge you should share it. You've been given an opportunity in these forums to exercise your gifts by disseminating that knowledge to those who may benefit by it. Like the laymen that frequent these forums. If you have wisdom even better because then you'll have the patience and understanding to do just that without insult.
And for personal reasons, schooling, professionally and clinically I've very likely read and studied and learned vastly more about this than you have and everyone else wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Surely you see how your going against your own criteria here when you've demanded verification, links, and confirmation from others here but expect others to take your word for it. Just realize while your unique in "your" experience, your not unique in having experience.
This sounds like you're emotionally invested in this subject but you can't possibly know how much others are as well.
From what I've read of your posts so far, that schooling, and professional/clinical affiliation has biased your reasoning as much as any layman would fall prey to.
And guess what? Kids need experimented on. The field of medicine in general is woefully under informed on this subject (most meds are tested on adult men).
I'm not sure how to take your tone here. I don't think we should blindly experiment on our kids just hoping for a good or useful outcome. I believe the Nazi's had a similar approach to experimentation. I'm sure though that the field of medicine will be fully informed once you get through with it. I'm teasing you. Lighten up.
Try to have a nice day.
