Using all the terms to make it so, doesn't make it so (syndrome, remission etc). The only thing being copied that we currently know about is the behaviour and narratives and these are culturally influenced. There may one day be found distinct aetiologies or propensities but these clusters of attributes aren't a distinct essence that is s…
Using all the terms to make it so, doesn't make it so (syndrome, remission etc). The only thing being copied that we currently know about is the behaviour and narratives and these are culturally influenced. There may one day be found distinct aetiologies or propensities but these clusters of attributes aren't a distinct essence that is some true property of transness. Rather along with environment this complex may predispose someone to particular behaviours and towards narratives that exist in the culture. These narratives change over time and vary among individuals.
There are plenty of studies which have been strongly indicative of organic aetiologies and a prominent Professor of Psychobiology has told me personally that he considers my work to be 'good scholarship and clear thinking.' Also that 'of course' he agreed with me so don't try and gaslight me into doubting myself.
If you have access to studies, which are the most compelling and can you share them? I have skimmed this article but I don't have access to the sources quoted. Im already concerned it doesn't mention that in many studies the trans person may be taking cross-sex hormones which affects brain structures. And it bypasses mentioning homosexuality or effeminate/masculine external characteristics, which are alternative reasons for difference that overlap with people adopting a trans persona. Also, were these studies blinded? Have they been replicated by other groups? Neuroimaging studies for example routinely fail replication. People have long sought this kind of aetiology (previously it was to find homosexuality) so I'm surprised that if this was definitive it hasn't become mainstream. Aren't you?
Trans is a cultural manifestation that changes over time. Even if brain differences exist it doesn't prove 'trans', it might show that some people predisposed to trans have certain brain features.
A lot of psychiatric observation includes an obsessive element, and some trans could also be explained by conditioning through paraphilias.
Send me what you consider the best study and I will look into it.
I don't know if you're suited to scientific work if you accuse any challenge to your position as 'gas lighting into doubting yourself' You seem perfectly happy to confidently assert your unassailable truths. Why do you get a privilege to do this but others are gas-lighting?
I have read your linked stack. I disagree with your presentation of Hirschfeld but will put that in your stack when I compose it if comments are open.
Edit: the sensitivity to steroids by Lindstrom is a case in point. Nothing is mentioned about homosexuality which shows the same result. If trans FTM show the same behaviour with regards to pheromones as biological women doesn't this point to a homosexual response, by definition, despite the subjects claiming non-homosexuality?
I have linked the review study by Milton Diamond which has a number of papers. There is a separated twin study in there somewhere which is strong evidence and then beside this there is the Ramachandran study on neural body mapping.
I made the comment about gaslighting because you have already made up your mind and are determined that I should doubt myself without knowing anything about me.
I don't need the approval of some random person on the internet. Besides my own life experience, research and personal therapy I have the approval of not only one but actually two Emeritus Professors of Psychology for my book and the hypothesis I propose. I may be wrong, I may be right, but my hypothesis is coherent and testable, which is more than can be said for some of the accusations that are laid against transsexuals who have been quietly living their lives in peace before the transgender movement muscled in and claimed to be us.
A simple truth is that post-Butler transgenderism has blinded too many to the neurological research that had accrued prior to her ideology and now everyone had got into the 'It's all functional' mindset, which it isn't, even when they don't agree with her on the rest.
I have already offered some critiques of the review you offered, including the pheromone pointing to some kind of homosexuality by definition. Also a review is useless unless you examine sources.
To understand the issues we need a consistent frame but a plague of sexology is that theories are offered that change with the times.
I contend the best frame for trans is that is a culture bound syndrome enabled through technological developments and insights around biology and hormones. The born in the wrong body was already established before Hirschfeld by people like Richard von Krafft-Ebing who used it in relation to homosexuality. The advent of new surgeries and the discovery of hormones then gives rise to the transsexual.
As you note this moves into transgenderism which adopts a different trans theory.
I think overall that many people share elements of a kind of identity disorder. For some reason and various potential aetiologies, these people become obsessed over an idea of their identity.
In terms of medicine if you have any sense of normativity then you have to agree, all else being equal, it is better not to seriously modify the body with hormones and surgeries for something that is situated in the mind of a person. It's also unclear if transsexual understanding and treatment helps everyone.
Now as you note many people discard the trans medical model (truscum), inadvertently pointing out the culture bound nature of the whole thing.
Benjamin and Hirschfeld had quite different ideas about transsexuals and their own presentation of their patient narratives is heavily influenced by their own ideas. Notably Benjamin was a quack who seemed to desire fame, Hirschfeld was hawking a testosterone treatment and had inconsistent theories.
One of the things I note when looking into this is how rigid some interlocutors are. I contend that wrapping your own identity into a particular theory is a very bad start to understanding the issues. My bias as noted above is towards a non-controversial medical normativity as well as copious evidence of the influence of culture in understanding and framing these issues.
Using all the terms to make it so, doesn't make it so (syndrome, remission etc). The only thing being copied that we currently know about is the behaviour and narratives and these are culturally influenced. There may one day be found distinct aetiologies or propensities but these clusters of attributes aren't a distinct essence that is some true property of transness. Rather along with environment this complex may predispose someone to particular behaviours and towards narratives that exist in the culture. These narratives change over time and vary among individuals.
There are plenty of studies which have been strongly indicative of organic aetiologies and a prominent Professor of Psychobiology has told me personally that he considers my work to be 'good scholarship and clear thinking.' Also that 'of course' he agreed with me so don't try and gaslight me into doubting myself.
Here's Dr Milton Diamond on transsexualism as an intersex condition https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2015to2019/2016-transsexualism.html
My book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Gender-Postmodernism-Trans-Identity/dp/1914208811/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30RJ7RPMXPI22&keywords=the+war+on+gender&qid=1654197847&sprefix=%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1
If you have access to studies, which are the most compelling and can you share them? I have skimmed this article but I don't have access to the sources quoted. Im already concerned it doesn't mention that in many studies the trans person may be taking cross-sex hormones which affects brain structures. And it bypasses mentioning homosexuality or effeminate/masculine external characteristics, which are alternative reasons for difference that overlap with people adopting a trans persona. Also, were these studies blinded? Have they been replicated by other groups? Neuroimaging studies for example routinely fail replication. People have long sought this kind of aetiology (previously it was to find homosexuality) so I'm surprised that if this was definitive it hasn't become mainstream. Aren't you?
Trans is a cultural manifestation that changes over time. Even if brain differences exist it doesn't prove 'trans', it might show that some people predisposed to trans have certain brain features.
A lot of psychiatric observation includes an obsessive element, and some trans could also be explained by conditioning through paraphilias.
Send me what you consider the best study and I will look into it.
I don't know if you're suited to scientific work if you accuse any challenge to your position as 'gas lighting into doubting yourself' You seem perfectly happy to confidently assert your unassailable truths. Why do you get a privilege to do this but others are gas-lighting?
I have read your linked stack. I disagree with your presentation of Hirschfeld but will put that in your stack when I compose it if comments are open.
Edit: the sensitivity to steroids by Lindstrom is a case in point. Nothing is mentioned about homosexuality which shows the same result. If trans FTM show the same behaviour with regards to pheromones as biological women doesn't this point to a homosexual response, by definition, despite the subjects claiming non-homosexuality?
I have linked the review study by Milton Diamond which has a number of papers. There is a separated twin study in there somewhere which is strong evidence and then beside this there is the Ramachandran study on neural body mapping.
I made the comment about gaslighting because you have already made up your mind and are determined that I should doubt myself without knowing anything about me.
I don't need the approval of some random person on the internet. Besides my own life experience, research and personal therapy I have the approval of not only one but actually two Emeritus Professors of Psychology for my book and the hypothesis I propose. I may be wrong, I may be right, but my hypothesis is coherent and testable, which is more than can be said for some of the accusations that are laid against transsexuals who have been quietly living their lives in peace before the transgender movement muscled in and claimed to be us.
A simple truth is that post-Butler transgenderism has blinded too many to the neurological research that had accrued prior to her ideology and now everyone had got into the 'It's all functional' mindset, which it isn't, even when they don't agree with her on the rest.
I have already offered some critiques of the review you offered, including the pheromone pointing to some kind of homosexuality by definition. Also a review is useless unless you examine sources.
To understand the issues we need a consistent frame but a plague of sexology is that theories are offered that change with the times.
I contend the best frame for trans is that is a culture bound syndrome enabled through technological developments and insights around biology and hormones. The born in the wrong body was already established before Hirschfeld by people like Richard von Krafft-Ebing who used it in relation to homosexuality. The advent of new surgeries and the discovery of hormones then gives rise to the transsexual.
As you note this moves into transgenderism which adopts a different trans theory.
I think overall that many people share elements of a kind of identity disorder. For some reason and various potential aetiologies, these people become obsessed over an idea of their identity.
In terms of medicine if you have any sense of normativity then you have to agree, all else being equal, it is better not to seriously modify the body with hormones and surgeries for something that is situated in the mind of a person. It's also unclear if transsexual understanding and treatment helps everyone.
Now as you note many people discard the trans medical model (truscum), inadvertently pointing out the culture bound nature of the whole thing.
Benjamin and Hirschfeld had quite different ideas about transsexuals and their own presentation of their patient narratives is heavily influenced by their own ideas. Notably Benjamin was a quack who seemed to desire fame, Hirschfeld was hawking a testosterone treatment and had inconsistent theories.
One of the things I note when looking into this is how rigid some interlocutors are. I contend that wrapping your own identity into a particular theory is a very bad start to understanding the issues. My bias as noted above is towards a non-controversial medical normativity as well as copious evidence of the influence of culture in understanding and framing these issues.
Edit:typos