New Study - Transgender myth exposed - a mental disorder.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Basically. A male brain that thinks it is female will come to resemble some tiny sections of the female brain that pertain to self-identification. A similar situation exists for a part of the interstitial area of the anterior hypothalamus, where sexual orientation between males and females express a dimorphism. Lesbians come to resemble males, and homosexuals, female. Mind you though - it always "in between" the norms of each sex.

Thanks for your response. I've been curios about findings of structural differences in the brain for a while now. In the past; its most often seemed to me like the notion that behavior, habits of thinking, experience and the like could alter brain structures and chemistry were ignored in preference to the notion that differences in brain structure or brain chemistry were the cause of a given condition.

I guess to put it simply, it seemed to me, that the default position was that differences in brain structure/brain chemistry were causative rather than symptomatic, and of course they could be both, or neither, and etc.

But am I seeing the beginnings of a more balanced perspective on such things now?

a reply to: imwilliam

In the past; its most often seemed to me like the notion that behavior, habits of thinking, experience and the like could alter brain structures and chemistry were ignored in preference to the notion that differences in brain structure or brain chemistry were the cause of a given condition.

It is the most insane thing - this idea of a 'single causality'. The fact is, it's bidirectional: the structure/function of your brain probabilistically biases a certain behavior when in a certain context. What reflexively "arises" is what "won" - in Darwinian selectionist terms - as the "shortest path of resistance".

I got to tell you, in studying the brain, it can sometimes feel like I've taken the red pill, while living in a world with people who, in the most real sense possible, do not get that they are a naturally occurring process in nature that follows impressively predictable laws or rules. It's beautiful - and by no means does understanding ourselves in terms of the particulate organization of our physiology (atoms, molecules, tissues, etc), from the "bottom", to the "top", devalue the meaning of our existence.

Bottom means thermodynamics and the nature of physical matter. We are actually a completely naturally occurring form. "Top" refers to the role consciousness has played, at least as far back as back as a million years ago, in shaping its own emergence, albeit, with continuous reference to the body's dynamical 'signing' through affects/feelings, which our mind is either able, or unable to respond to - itself a function of the social context.

Point is, we have a lot of power over how we work, but we still, nevertheless, are subject to fundamental constraints which have to be respected. An astronaut in space, for instance, is accustomed to accepting the necessity of wearing a suit. This in effect, is an example of knowledge that results from an understanding of difference and the problems it creates (no oxygen, no atmosphere, temperature differences = death). The suit is an emergent property of that understanding, and acceptance, that if Humans want to move through space, they need appropriate outfits to offset the hazards imposed by that environment.

Thus, the body imposes the environment on the mind: what it says goes, and we either respect it and listen, or we dissociate/disavow it and make our life less than coherent.

But am I seeing the beginnings of a more balanced perspective on such things now?

Yes. The bidirectional causality perspective is the more reasonable one. To think that context and other people - their responses, ISN'T causally relevant is to dabble in mysticism. Humans are dynamical systems with predictions about how the environment works. Our body's "prediction" - or default preference, is to connect, which is itself a basic function of the tendency of information to grow and systems to complexify.

Now, imagine a situation where you develop in a home where your brother always bullies you - because of his jealousy - and because of parental preoccupation with work, no one is there to act as a 'negative feedback' upon your brothers bullying. As a baby, you would begin feeling that people - a generalized knowledge - are scary, which would itself be a function of your amygdala's increased influence/presence in determining how you self-organize to the environment.

A brothers bullying would then be transformed through subsequent experiences with others into a generalized 'sensibility' - a "body-belief" which says "they want to hurt you, so hide". Who hasn't seen the socially awkward person that we ourselves cannot help but feel awkward in observing? Their bodies express their fear, trepidation and discomfort. They' radiate a discomfort - a weirdness, which is nothing more than a weaving of mind and world - a sad one - into a Human being. Our minds are irreducibly relational 'cultures' of our innumerable interactions with Others, from gestation in our mothers womb, to the present moment, nothing has happened that doesn't have a basis in the "field" - from the "low" informational level of ecological constraints like Earth features - temperature, pressure, oxygen content, and an absence of toxic substances - to relational expectations of 'being recognized' as an agent with needs, which one hopes will be acknowledged. What is hatred but the misplaced awareness of the anger one feels towards a world that doesn't support kindness i.e. the ability to recognize other peoples needs?

I feel as though science should be left out of this. Because after all the transgendered or not saying that they are biologically a man or a woman ,that is what they're trying to change. No it seems to me that their main argument is that they possess a soul and that soul has a gender that is Opposite of the body that it is inside of. So philosophy and religion I guess would be better suited to discuss such an idea.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I feel as though science should be left out of this

Science, in Latin, means knowledge. So knowledge should be left out of this?

No it seems to me that their main argument is that they possess a soul and that soul

Yes. This is where the delusion lies - that the "soul" is somehow apart from the brain/body.

Feelings are in the body, no? So when the person says, "I feel", they are essentially sourcing something not just in their body, but in their midbrain, brainstem, insula, and forebrain - the different areas of the brain that generate knowledge about feelings.

The issue is suggestibility. Their beliefs aren't their own - but something they heard spoken or asserted by others. It's the irrational conviction - with no basis in science - knowledge about reality - that this primitive assertion is subverting. It's not real! And furthermore, because we are mimetic creatures, saying it is real affects how other people understand themselves.

See the issue? It propagates an illusion/delusion with no basis in reality.

a reply to: Astrocyte

It's beautiful - and by no means does understanding ourselves in terms of the particulate organization of our physiology (atoms, molecules, tissues, etc), from the "bottom", to the "top", devalue the meaning of our existence.

I'm not there yet, I'm not sure I'll ever get completely there, but I am much closer than I was even a year ago.

Point is, we have a lot of power over how we work, but we still, nevertheless, are subject to fundamental constraints which have to be respected.

Do you think someone who is gender dysphoric could be successfully treated if the treatment was structured with the intent to alter the structure of the brain? So I'm talking about something akin to Bettelheim's notions about myth or some other, perhaps ritualistic, component that would slowly, gently, and over time bend the structures and pathways in their brains?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: SBMcG

Pretty odd that some people believe that it's a choice. I mean who really want to be a woman? Seriously think about it. That's like believing that straight guys can choose to be gay.

You cannot compare the incidence of homosexuality with a mental disorder like gender dysphoria.

You don't have to "treat" homosexuality. Gender dysphoria requires a clinical diagnosis and subsequent treatment.

a reply to: imwilliam

Do you think someone who is gender dysphoric could be successfully treated if the treatment was structured with the intent to alter the structure of the brain

That's the basic approach by most therapists today - the knowledge that certain therapeutic methods/approaches acts upon different areas of the brain. Indeed, sometimes a neurocognitive dysfunction can deeply interfere with social/emotional processing, and so the latter issue cannot be resolved until the former issue is addressed.

There is ALWAYS, however, a way to transform an aberrant structure/function, inasmuch as Human minds are predicated on the premise of relational symmetry - or shared intentionality (self/other equivalence), a 'heartful' way of being, patient, understanding (i.e. making sense of your own feelings in relation to the others response) will in fact, help consolidate a new sense-of-self.

Ritual is very important - and particularly "potent" because of the inclusion of music, rhythm, and other people - which together mobilizes the generation of a field with tremendous transformative power. That said, not everyone can metabolize something that large - and need small steps before they graduate to such an energetically transformative process.

a reply to: SBMcG

To me, they're both in the dissonance category - both with a basis in relational experience, but of course the latter is a far more severe transformation.

Doctors finally telling the truth most sane people already knew. TV is what is causing this mass epidemic of gender confusion. The highest rates of alleged transgenderism is in the nations with the highest rates of television access. Mind control is real, and programming targets the youngest most impressionable minds for confusion.

The poorest nations with very limited television access have the lowest rates of this confusion. Literally one in a million or less.

I just want to put my (long) 2 cents in.

As a person who grew up biologically female, I ended up resenting it as I grew older. It got worse when I hit puberty. When I discovered that I might classify as "transgender" I thought, "Aha! So I'm not the only one!!" I was excited.
I obsessed over it for several years. I even planned to go through the therapy. But living under my parents roof (and still not old enough to move out) it was impossible. They didn't support me. They kept telling me I'd grow out of these weird feelings I was having. And I didn't believe them.

Fast forward.

Other problems came up in my life that prevented me from being able to afford therapy and all those other things that transgenders usually want. And honestly, I believe it was probably fated to be that way. I dropped the idea that I wanted to be transgender when I came to the brutal realization that no matter how much therapy, hormones, and surgery you get, it's all fake in the end. You will never truly be the opposite sex through such artificial measures. It depressed me but I'm someone who always wants the genuine thing. I don't like settling for imitation.
At the time I just prayed that in my next life I was born a male instead.

I am now going on 30 and I can honestly say that I am glad that my parents didn't support my crazy ideas in my youth. Like the doc said in the original posting, some of us grow out of it. A lot of the confusion comes from discovering who you are and growing comfortable in your own skin. Some will stick to the transgender narrative even as they grow older, but there are many of us who will grow out of it and when we do we will thank those who, at the time, prevented us from making a big, life-altering, mistake.

So to those who blindly push for acceptance and encouragement of the transgender movement, I advise caution. Especially when it concerns small children. It is easy to plant an idea into a child's head and confuse them. Children are still discovering who they are and are susceptible to outside influences. It is only with age that comes the knowledge and wisdom that is required for us to make our own life-altering decisions. Having someone else push and encourage these life-altering decisions can turn out to be fatal in some cases.

a reply to: CannedCanary

I really hate your comment is buried 21 pages in because I believe everyone who has participated in this thread should read your account.

Thanks for sharing!

So is everyone in this thread ok with psychologists assessment of people with oppositional defiant disorder? or the proposed Orthorexia nervos. With people wanting to eat healthy.

But don't you worry, being born a man and your brain telling you you're a woman is completely natural and worthy of praise.

People truly are the most gullible, malleable things I've ever seen. All that's needed is an idea that aligns with the way you think and people will just buy right into it.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: SBMcG

To me, they're both in the dissonance category - both with a basis in relational experience, but of course the latter is a far more severe transformation.

My “expertise” -- such as it is -- is 25 years behind the times (I have an M.A. in Psych). But back when I was current on this stuff, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria was almost always accompanied by acute major depression, or just as often generalized anxiety, and less often borderline schizophrenia.

Back then, clinicians were still unsure whether it was the chicken or the egg – did the depression or other diagnosed ancillary disorder cause the GD or the other way around?

The presence of major depression (generalized anxiety, borderline schizophrenia) would rule out the disorder falling into the “dissonance” category because depression is clearly chemical in nature and dissonant disorders – at least in my time, were considered completely cognitive in nature.

Again, before I go off on another long-ass post, I said my piece here…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: CannedCanary

Thank you for sharing that -- it was quite interesting.

Male brains are said to be larger even at equal height due to bone structure differences. The peaks of human intelligence are mostly populated by males, even honest leftist intellectuals admit this.

Females can keep up with the larger male brain to an extent due to them having more white matter likely due to hormonal effects. A male brain exposed to female hormones will likely have both more gray matter as well as more white matter, increasing likelihood of outclassing females at intellectual feats.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray-Intelligence In Men And Women Is A Gray And White Matter, sciencedaily

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I feel as though science should be left out of this. Because after all the transgendered or not saying that they are biologically a man or a woman ,that is what they're trying to change. No it seems to me that their main argument is that they possess a soul and that soul has a gender that is Opposite of the body that it is inside of. So philosophy and religion I guess would be better suited to discuss such an idea.

No the claim is that the brain is different, it is possible for example a receptor for certain hormones being mutated in the precursor cells of the brain, would impede their effects on the brain. The thing is the social expectations of women and men could easily mostly be reversed. In some countries men wear skirts.

Behaviorally, you could change pretty much every expectation for any particular gender(women could have short hair and pants, men long hair and skirts). Bathrooms could even be unisex, making that a nonissue.

Being attracted to men or women, that is separate from gender, so that is also a nonissue.

So the issue centers mostly on being too focused on the social rituals expected of men and females, and also on having a certain physical body, particularly one that cannot be obtained without technological assistance.

Most females don't want to look manly and old, so that does create an issue as without early hormone therapy, you're most likely going to end up manly and old if started later on in life. Females transitioning to males, do end up sometimes pretty much indistinguishable even without early hormone therapy, a feminine looking man is something society accepts, and if hormones are used the facial hair and muscles can do a good job of masculinizing.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Is this really still a thread?

So you have a psychologist judging biology. Biology is at the root of this loss of understanding you are facing here. If a child is born with the wrong balance of male/female chromosomes then that child will in fact have female psychical traits. Therefore a child growing up may feel as it reaches teenage years that it certainly notices its gender is leaning towards one. This is not a psychological standpoint for children or adults of this position, it is biological. However, there is some that are not directly effect by their biology and therefore these individuals can see their choices grown from environmental stimulus, parents being gay, having gay friends or mixing with people who are very open about being just whoever they want to be. This openness to a young mind or adult allows them the environment to live how they wish to live not how they was born.

The sad fact is, there is a mixture of lost minds in who they really are and psychical traits burnt into their DNA. This, is why some people such as yourself, deem it psychological. Your only talking about those not born with changes to their chromosomes. Your talking about those changing themselves due to environment.

End of this thread.

a reply to: BlackProject

Not one thing you said in your post is scientifically accurate. In fact, if you were to intentionally go out of your way to make sure that everything you had to say about this subject was completely wrong, you couldn't have done a better job.

I actually laughed out loud at your assertion gender dysphoria is caused by "the wrong balance of male/female chromosomes". Truly funny...

NOT "End of thread"...

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bone75

Left-handedness was harmful back then due to society frowning on it.

Interesting that nobody replied to this post of mine.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bone75

Left-handedness was harmful back then due to society frowning on it.

Interesting that nobody replied to this post of mine.

What kind of reply were you expecting?

The extremely common occurrence of left-handedness (about 10% of Humans) has nothing in common with the extremely rare (about 0.008%) mental condition of gender dysphoria.

originally posted by: jkm1864

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Do you understand that a psychologist has absolutely no business making a statement in a professional capacity about biology, don't you?

I mean, psychiatrists and psychologists practice soft science. They are simply not qualified to make such a judgement about biological matters, because most individuals in that field lack knowledge of biology, except as is specifically regards their work. You also understand, I assume, that where matters of identification of sexual or gender issues are concerned, a biologist, a geneticist, would be far better placed than any soft science, roll neck sweater type ever is, to comment from an informed position?

Sex is determined by Your chromosomes at a cellular level and no amount of wishing will ever change that fact.

DUh but you are missing the whole point. We all know your SEX is determined by chrosomal/dna but what you ar enot realizing is sometimes the mental part is the opposite. GENDER isnt the same as SEX. Sex is the body itself but not the brain. Gender is in the brain.