Gender identity: Crazy/delusional?

[Syne]

Neuroplasticity is not a cause of structural changes in the brain. You are once again using big words you don't understand, and that is confusing you.

Neuroplasticity accounts for changes to the brain caused by behavior, experience, or environment.

The behavior, experience, or environment - whatever the hell you mean by that - accounts for the changes in the brain. The brain's capability to change and be changed, structurally, by such influences, is what you are calling neuroplasticity.

Glad we agree. The capacity for change accounts for those causes effecting change.

 

[Randwolf]

Glad we agree. The capacity for change accounts for those causes effecting change.

Of course it does Syne. The ability for water to change phases is what causes ice and steam - temperature has nothing to do with it.

 

[spidergoat]

Can also be the brain adapting to differing levels of sexual hormones, the internal environment.

 

[Syne]

You said that DNA should be the sole factor which determines one's gender (for official government purposes), denying both the science of gender and the plasticity of social definitions of gender.

I don't deny the self-reported, subjective sense of identity. Do transgenders have the DNA of a third gender? No. Does the science show them to be born with transgender brains? No. Are social definitions anything but fad (argument ad populum)? No.

Can also be the brain adapting to differing levels of sexual hormones, the internal environment.

Can be, or has scientifically been demonstrated to be? Sex hormones act on the brain's development in utero, yet we don't have studies showing new born brains predict transgenderism.

Glad we agree. The capacity for change [neuroplasticity] accounts for those causes ["behavior, experience, or environment"] effecting change.

Of course it does Syne. The ability for water to change phases is what causes ice and steam - temperature has nothing to do with it.

Either you're agreeing too, or not parsing English too well, I see. I just differentiated capacity from cause, but you seem to be insisting on a stupid straw man reflecting nothing that was actually said.
Here, let me spell it out for you. The capacity of water for phase change (the capacity of the brain for neuroplasticity) accounts for/facilitates temperature (behavior, experience, or environment) causing a phase change (brain structure change). Without the capacity, there would be no accounting for how the causes effect the change. Unless, of course, you prefer magical thinking to science.

 

[spidergoat]

Can be, or has scientifically been demonstrated to be? Sex hormones act on the brain's development in utero, yet we don't have studies showing new born brains predict transgenderism.

Science has ruled out psychological causes for most forms of transgenderism. Therefore, the cause must be biological. This is often how these things go, it used to be thought that autism had a psychological cause until they could see that autistic brains were atypical. The same thing seems to be happening now.

 

[Syne]

Science has ruled out psychological causes for most forms of transgenderism. Therefore, the cause must be biological. This is often how these things go, it used to be thought that autism had a psychological cause until they could see that autistic brains were atypical. The same thing seems to be happening now.

Where the science ruling out psychological causes? Are psychological causes the only contributor to neuroplasticity? No? Then how can it be concluded it's wholly biological?

"Transgender" refers to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth. "Gender identity" refers to the basic conviction of being a man, woman or other gender (e.g., bigender, genderqueer, gender questioning, gender nonconforming). "Sexual orientation" refers to one’s sexual attraction, sexual behavior and emotional attachments to men, women or both.
- http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/11/psychology-transgender.aspx​

Sounds all psychological to me.

 

[iceaura]

I just differentiated capacity from cause

No, you just assigned a causal role to capability. That's a confusion you've been trying to sell for a few pages now.

The capacity of water for phase change (the capacity of the brain for neuroplasticity) accounts for/facilitates temperature (behavior, experience, or environment) causing a phase change (brain structure change).

It doesn't account for the phase, or the phase change.

Do transgenders have the DNA of a third gender? No. Does the science show them to be born with transgender brains? No.

Transgenders have the DNA appropriate for transgenders. Humans are not born with clearly gendered brains at all, as far as anyone knows.

And you are losing track of whatever argument you were trying to make about gender identity - as we see shortly thereafter:

Sounds all psychological to me.

Because you forgot about neuroplasticity already, the big word having served its purpose as noise.

 

[Capracus]

And?
Historically, clinicians labeled transgender people as heterosexual or homosexual relative to their sex assigned at birth. Most transgender people find this offensive, and prefer to define their sexual orientation relative to their gender identity.

To avoid confusion and offense, the terms "gynesexual" and "androsexual" are sometimes used to describe attraction to women and men, respectively.
...
Some transsexual people maintain a consistent orientation throughout their lives, in some cases remaining with the same partner through transition. In other cases, their choices in sexual partners may change after transition.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexualityThere are lesbian trans women and gay trans men.

So in other words a trangender’s sexual orientation is inconsequential to the discussion, and there was no useful purpose in citing Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner as an example.

Genetic men always have a physical advantage over genetic women, as illustrated recently in Texas girl's wrestling.

Actually the HS wrestler in Texas was a girl transitioning to a boy, and her strength advantage was likely due to her hormone regiment. But even with the increased testosterone, her level was still considered within an acceptable range for competition. So yes, XX women on steroids can have an overwhelming physical advantage over other women in a bathroom or locker room setting. But then again natural women in superior physical condition can have a significant advantage as well.

Not sure what the non-sequitur about guns and drugs is about, but there's already laws against that. Cis women have taken video of other women in locker rooms, and faced criminal charges for doing so.

You claimed that transgender women with penises to be a threat to other women because of their perceived strength advantage, yet XX women with physical and tactical superiority, and or impaired mental states, can pose a greater danger to other women than a transgender armed with a penis.

If it’s criminal activity in these setting that worries you, why only focus on a minor aspect of it? Why not screen all female users of restrooms and locker rooms for weapons and intoxication? Maybe post some armed guards as well? Or take an NRA tack and require all women to carry firearms and stand their ground.

Are you really advocating trans rights, or just wholly unisex facilities?

I’d say unisex facilities would be a worthy goal as well.

Neuroplasticity accounts for changes to the brain caused by behavior, experience, or environment. And those similarities to desired gender have not been shown to exist from birth, as they would if they were wholly genetic.
It's not surprising that behaving as another gender for years would approximate that gender's brain structures, due to neuroplasticity.

Neuroplasticity occurs in the brain throughout one’s entire existence, which includes development in the womb. The brains of trangenders are likely conditioned in the womb to states resembling their perceived genders.

In a study of 250 genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia who were raised as females, 95% identified as females in adulthood and 5% identified as males or with gender dysphoria, which is at least 10 to 20 times more frequent than in a control population for female-to-male transgenderism.2 "This suggests that prenatal and early postnatal androgens play some role in gender identity development," Dr. Rosenthal said.

https://www.endocrineweb.com/profes...arch-role-biology-gender-identity-development

In these cases when gender identity was biologically fixed at birth, subsequent social conditioning afterwards was not a major determinate regarding their eventual gender affinity. So it would be reasonable to assume that transgenders who identify at a young age have been similarly conditioned from birth.

 

[Syne]

No, you just assigned a causal role to capability. That's a confusion you've been trying to sell for a few pages now.

Straw man, otherwise show where you obviously misunderstood what you were told. You even quoted me as saying "changes to the brain caused by behavior, experience, or environment" in post #135. You're obviously backpedaling to this straw man because you've been caught misrepresenting the science.

It doesn't account for the phase, or the phase change.

Without the capacity for such change there is no such change. That's so simple even you should be able to understand it.

Transgenders have the DNA appropriate for transgenders. Humans are not born with clearly gendered brains at all, as far as anyone knows.

And you are losing track of whatever argument you were trying to make about gender identity - as we see shortly thereafter:

Science denier. Testosterone in utero (comparable to that of a 25 yr old man) very much does differentiate newborn male and female brains. Look it up....or just keep making a fool of yourself with your ignorant and misinformed bare assertions.

Sounds all psychological to me.

Because you forgot about neuroplasticity already, the big word having served its purpose as noise.

Yeah, neuroplasticity changes due to behavior. Or did you already conveniently forget that part? Or are you claiming all behavior is now biological?

So in other words a trangender’s sexual orientation is inconsequential to the discussion, and there was no useful purpose in citing Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner as an example.

Only if you've so quickly and easily, or conveniently, forgotten that we were also discussing the repercussions in shower rooms.

Actually the HS wrestler in Texas was a girl transitioning to a boy, and her strength advantage was likely due to her hormone regiment. But even with the increased testosterone, her level was still considered within an acceptable range for competition. So yes, XX women on steroids can have an overwhelming physical advantage over other women in a bathroom or locker room setting. But then again natural women in superior physical condition can have a significant advantage as well.

You're right, and that trans boy did have an advantage, even over girls in superior physical condition, due to testosterone. So just imagine the advantage she would have over average women, and how much more of a physical advantage a genetic male would have over the average woman. You can't dismiss a greater threat by citing a lessor one....unless you're naive or intellectually dishonest. That's like saying no one should fear bees because I'm not allergic to bee stings. It's garbage as reasoning.

You claimed that transgender women with penises to be a threat to other women because of their perceived strength advantage, yet XX women with physical and tactical superiority, and or impaired mental states, can pose a greater danger to other women than a transgender armed with a penis.

Bare assertion. Support that claim.

If it’s criminal activity in these setting that worries you, why only focus on a minor aspect of it? Why not screen all female users of restrooms and locker rooms for weapons and intoxication? Maybe post some armed guards as well? Or take an NRA tack and require all women to carry firearms and stand their ground.

I always advocate for women to legally arm themselves, as that's the only true equalizer. Genetic men are orders of magnitude more dangerous than any woman, and crime statistics bear that out.

I’d say unisex facilities would be a worthy goal as well.

Including shower rooms....for your daughter? In high schools?
Or are you a predator?

Neuroplasticity occurs in the brain throughout one’s entire existence, which includes development in the womb. The brains of trangenders are likely conditioned in the womb to states resembling their perceived genders.

In a study of 250 genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia who were raised as females, 95% identified as females in adulthood and 5% identified as males or with gender dysphoria, which is at least 10 to 20 times more frequent than in a control population for female-to-male transgenderism.2 "This suggests that prenatal and early postnatal androgens play some role in gender identity development," Dr. Rosenthal said.

https://www.endocrineweb.com/profes...arch-role-biology-gender-identity-developmenthttps://www.endocrineweb.com/profes...arch-role-biology-gender-identity-development

https://www.endocrineweb.com/profes...arch-role-biology-gender-identity-development
LOL! So genetic females identified as female 10 to 20 times more than FtM transgenders? That illustrates the strength of genetic sex, even over congenital disorders, compared to average transgenders (with only later-life biological correlates due to neuroplasticity).
https://www.endocrineweb.com/profes...arch-role-biology-gender-identity-development

In these cases when gender identity was biologically fixed at birth, subsequent social conditioning afterwards was not a major determinate regarding their eventual gender affinity. So it would be reasonable to assume that transgenders who identify at a young age have been similarly conditioned from birth.

That is a biased conclusion, not supported by the facts. You're talking an obviously cherry-picked example (10 to 20 times more likely to identify as their genetic sex) and generalizing it to the control population it is contrasted with. That is about as backasswards as you can get.

 

[iceaura]

Without the capacity for such change there is no such change. That's so simple even you should be able to understand it.

That doesn't account for the change.

Science denier. Testosterone in utero (comparable to that of a 25 yr old man) very much does differentiate newborn male and female brains

But as we see, that is not enough to set the gender of the brain of even a young child, let alone an adult after puberty. Hence the thread topic.

Yeah, neuroplasticity changes due to behavior. Or did you already conveniently forget that part? Or are you claiming all behavior is now biological?

1) Some behaviors and their effects on the brain are biological rather than psychological.
2) More factors than behavior change the brain.

So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it.

 

[iceaura]

Only if you've so quickly and easily, or conveniently, forgotten that we were also discussing the repercussions in shower rooms.

Actually, the repercussions of forcing transgender girls to do things like shower with adolescent boys have been among the issues front and center in this entire matter, for everybody involved. Suicide rates from bullying, for example, have not been overlooked.

 

[spidergoat]

Science denier. Testosterone in utero (comparable to that of a 25 yr old man) very much does differentiate newborn male and female brains. Look it up....or just keep making a fool of yourself with your ignorant and misinformed bare assertions.

Although there are statistical correlations of brain structure with gender identification, there is no such thing as a "normal" brain for a particular gender.

Scans prove there’s no such thing as a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...eres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

 

[Syne]

That doesn't account for the change.

That's a sad equivocation. I used "accounts for":

account (verb) - to furnish a justifying analysis or explanation —used with for couldn't account for the loss​

As opposed to the noun:

account (noun) - a statement or exposition of reasons, causes, or motives​

You cannot deny neuroplasticity is necessary to the explanation of such brain structure changes, and since I listed specific causes ("behavior, experience, or environment"), it's clear I differentiated between cause (account as a noun) and explanation (account as a verb). You're obviously just equivocating definitions because you have no argument left.

But as we see, that is not enough to set the gender of the brain of even a young child, let alone an adult after puberty. Hence the thread topic.

You're simply ignoring neuroplasticity changes since birth...and the actual science.

1) Some behaviors and their effects on the brain are biological rather than psychological.
2) More factors than behavior change the brain.

1) And?
2) And?
Where have either of those been disputed?

So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it.

You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological". Saying transgenderism "sounds all psychological" says nothing about neuroplasticity in general, because neuroplasticity accounts for more than transgenderism. You're basic reasoning skills just really aren't up to the task.

Actually, the repercussions of forcing transgender girls to do things like shower with adolescent boys have been among the issues front and center in this entire matter, for everybody involved. Suicide rates from bullying, for example, have not been overlooked.

Suicide rates among transgenders far surpass those of any similarly bullied, socially rejected, or even actively oppressed group. So bullying alone does not account for it.

Although there are statistical correlations of brain structure with gender identification, there is no such thing as a "normal" brain for a particular gender.

Scans prove there’s no such thing as a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...eres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

From that article:

"The team looked for variations in the size of brain regions as well as the connections between them. In total, the group identified 29 brain regions that generally seem to be different sizes in self-identified males and females."​

Self-identified means there were no controls for genetic sex. And if you look at the actual study, they don't mention any methodology for determining the genetic gender of the subjects in their datasets. Just sloppy, agenda-driven science.
And remember, one study is only a finding. It takes many verifying studies to establish a conclusion. But you don't even have to take my word for it:

In their widely publicized paper, Joel et al. (1) make
two empirical claims about sex differences in features
of the human brain: (i)“...internal consistency [in in-
dividuals’sex-differentiated brain features] is rare”
(p. 15472) and (ii)theamountofoverlapinsex-differen-
tiated features of male and female brains “undermines
any attempt to distinguish between a ‘male’and a
‘female’form for specific brain features”
We argue that claim iis based on faulty methodology,
and claim ii is misleading if extended to overall sex
differences in brain structure.

In regard to claim ii, Joel et al. (1) did not conduct
analyses (e.g., discriminant analyses) designed to test
how well various brain features predicted participants’
sex. Performing such analyses on the data of Joel et al.
(1), we found that brain features correctly predicted
subjects’sex about 69–77% of the time (2). Moreover,
the multivariate overlap of female and male distribu-
tions based on the same variables was moderate (42%
on average), and certainly not so large as to invalidate
the idea of overall sex differences in brain structure.

As for claim i, the definition of “internal consis-
tency”Joel et al. (1) use is so extreme that, in realistic
conditions, it can only generate results consistent with
their hypothesis.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298590520_Joel_et_al's_method_systematically_fails_to_detect_large_consistent_sex_differences
​

Or: http://cogprints.org/10046/1/Delgiudice_etal_critique_joel_2015.pdf
Or debunking the "spin": http://economicsdetective.com/2015/...ng-evidence-of-male-female-brain-differences/
And those are just on the first page of Google results.

 

[iceaura]

Suicide rates among transgenders far surpass those of any similarly bullied, socially rejected, or even actively oppressed group. So bullying alone does not account for it.

So?

"1) Some behaviors and their effects on the brain are biological rather than psychological.
2) More factors than behavior change the brain."

Where have either of those been disputed?

Where you said it was "all psychological". I quoted you.

You're simply ignoring neuroplasticity changes since birth...and the actual science.

I am specifically pointing to both, to illustrate the falsity of your contention that people are born with clearly gendered brains that match their sex organs. They aren't.

You cannot deny neuroplasticity is necessary to the explanation of such brain structure changes,

As is somatoplasticity. And organic chemicoplasticity in general. So?

"So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it."

Saying transgenderism "sounds all psychological" says nothing about neuroplasticity in general, because neuroplasticity accounts for more than transgenderism. You're basic reasoning skills just really aren't up to the task

Quoted for elegance - it's the comment about reasoning skills that makes it art.

 

[Syne]

So?

Trying to ignore facts again?

Where you said it was "all psychological". I quoted you.

Not about neuroplasticity. So you lied.

I am specifically pointing to both, to illustrate the falsity of your contention that people are born with clearly gendered brains. They aren't.

Science denier.

As is somatoplasticity. And organic chemicoplasticity in general. So?

Then show science demonstrating comparable changes due to these.

 

[iceaura]

Trying to ignore facts again?

The question was: "So?". The context was your sequential claims that
1) others have been ignoring the problems of trans women showering with people {false, as noted}
2) bullying does not account for all of the large extra suicide risk run by trans folk {So?}

Try answering it.

Not about neuroplasticity.

Yes, about neuroplasticity . That's what you were talking about, or trying to (you still seem to have no idea what it is), and I quoted you.

Then show science demonstrating comparable changes due to these.

You're the guy trying to show changes "due to" (earlier: "accounted for", "caused by", etc) such factors as somatoplasticity, neuroplasticity, chemicoplasticity, and the like - not me. I think you're using big words you don't understand.

 

[Jeeves]

Apparently, the science is inconclusive and/or not universally understood. And,
as Pascal isn't here to defend himself, I propose a new wager:
Suppose all or most or some of the people who claim to be other than the gender they appear to be are either telling the truth or deluded - then -
- accepting them as they claim to be would be an act of tolerance and kindness, prevent some injustice, and do no harm, while
- denying everyone the freedom to designate their own gender/sex/orientation/self-presentation would be unkind, unfair, bigoted and potentially harmful.
So, why not just pretend you're okay with it, until you are okay with it?

 

[Randwolf]

So, why not just pretend you're okay with it, until you are okay with it?

Fake it til you make it?

Because that would prevent Syne and his wingnut pals from enforcing God's will. Can you imagine? What a travesty it would be - how do you expect the fundies to have equality without superiority?

Really now...

 

[Jeeves]

Uh, sorry; what was I thinking .... ?

On the other hand, though, how sure are we that God isn't responsible for all those equivocal gender identities? Or that He can't manage the bathroom question without help?

 

[Syne]

Apparently, the science is inconclusive and/or not universally understood. And,
as Pascal isn't here to defend himself, I propose a new wager:
Suppose all or most or some of the people who claim to be other than the gender they appear to be are either telling the truth or deluded - then -
- accepting them as they claim to be would be an act of tolerance and kindness, prevent some injustice, and do no harm, while
- denying everyone the freedom to designate their own gender/sex/orientation/self-presentation would be unkind, unfair, bigoted and potentially harmful.
So, why not just pretend you're okay with it, until you are okay with it?

Does accepting the delusions of a schizophrenic help them? Is it a kindness?
Is it kind to enable a lifestyle that overwhelmingly has the highest suicide rate, well beyond that of any other bullied/oppressed group?
And who is denying their freedom of self-presentation? I've said, repeatedly, that they have always used the facilities of the sex they can pass as, without anyone batting an eye.

So your "wager" is a false dilemma. We don't have to enable potential mental illness, nor do we have to deny them their free expression.
Neither of which really inform basically mandating unisex facilities by law.

Fake it til you make it?

Because that would prevent Syne and his wingnut pals from enforcing God's will. Can you imagine? What a travesty it would be - how do you expect the fundies to have equality without superiority?

Really now...

Has nothing to do with god and everything to do with rational examination of the available evidence. But I can see why you'd feel the need to stereotype and demonize anyone who might risk putting a crack in your little bubble. The bubble where feelings are more important than facts.