Some evidence that some men can have "women's" brain

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

So a TIM just linked me to another article that they say proves that brain sex is real and that women can be born in men's body linking me to this article here

Now I remember in the Gender Critical subreddit back before it got closed down, a woman told me that certain online news sources should not be trusted because a good many of them are "pop science" and based more on theory than straight up fact and she gave me a list of science sites to avoid and I can't remember if "The New Scientist" was considered "pop science". The biggest issue I see with this article is that it claims that some Neuroscientist studied some postmortem brains of 6 TIMs and claims he found correlation and similarities in "cis" women's brains but yet ironic how there is no picture of the scans. No image proof of this so called similarity. And then of course how he doesn't take into account that ingestion of drugs can also alter the brain aka taking years of HRT can affect the brain as well since these TIMs. And then of course factoring other things like Homosexuality or developmental disorders like NPD, Autism, Asperger Syndrome, etc.

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a silly idea. Is it possible to find such similarities in brains between tims and actual women but not between other groups of men and actual women, such that this becomes a defining characteristic of what a woman is, and such that the genitals and reproductive function of their bodies will somehow not be the defining characteristic? Brains are very elastic, consider what brains of musicians or monks compared to the general population, and epigenetics shows that so much about the insides of our bodies can be changed. To make "man" and "woman" anything other than reproductive categories of people is just silly. These are not "identities", but physical realities.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

It's not men's brains we worry about, it's the body they use to hurt us that we care about.

I just had a vision of a man's brain in a jar. Nope. Not frightened.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Right but then they just try to twist it and say that thinking that men are violent is sexist and that transwomen are not men so women have nothing to worry about (thinking back to the Stef Sanjiati video that Magdalen Berns responded to "Why Do you Hate Transwomen")

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Statistics from every country on Earth prove that men are vastly more violent than women, and then ask them "What is a woman? No circular definitions allowed"

But really, I wouldn't waste your time on TiMs. Concentrate on the majority of people, who aren't buying this bullshit. The fact that you, a gay man, aren't buying it either, gives normies the cover they need to pushback on trans' demands.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right and then when you ask them to do that, they either refuse to answer or use the whole "A woman is whoever identifies as one" or some crap like that and uh yeah, they just prove your point.

Yeah I think you're right that TRAs are not worth the breath because nothing is ever good enough for them so it's best to get with the people who aren't buying the bullshit and reminding them that they aren't going crazy lol.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you really want to help, get on Twitter ( make an anonymous account if need be) and push back on trans demands activists and CORPORATE nonsense.

Having watched the trajectory of how the British feminists saved their rights, I think a good portion of the success was because they used Twitter to hound companies and celebrities, etc., who spouted gender nonsense.

As a gay man, you're part of LGBTQ+++ whatever, so use that as cover to speak out. You would be helping other gays as well as women if you did.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Actually I've kinda been doing that this year. I made a second Twitter and I've been commenting on Gender Critical type posts in the explore feed. I've already gotten into two scuffles with TIMs and I was seeing the extent of how deluded they really are lol.

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Please go for the corporations and organizations (the ACLU, for instance) tweeting gender nonsense. Twitter is not the real world, but for whatever reason, corporations seem to think it is, so please keep it up.

Thanks!

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll keep it in mind but will try not to dive too much into it. I'd like to keep my sanity lol.

[–]hmimperialtortie 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just shot back to that moment in Young Frankenstein about “Abby Normal’s” brain. 😄

[–]jelliknight 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was a great online discussion of this but i know i'll never find it so i'll try to summarize from memory.

A) there is not much of a difference between mens and womens brains in structure or function. The few things that are genuinely different between the sexes (e.g. total brain size) are not different between men and TIMs.

B) There are small differences in brain function related to sexual orientation and as a lot of trans are also gay any study which doesn't control for this is worthless.

But more importantly:

C) If all brains are a mixed bag of characteristics, we would expect TIMs to have more 'feminine' brains and TIFs to have more 'masculine' brains. They've just got cause and effect backwards. You're comparing TIMs to "cis" women, not to women, so you're skewing your results before you even start. Assume that the brains of both sexes are equally on a simple spectrum from masculine to feminine. Then exclude the most "masculine" 10% of women (TIFs) and the most "feminine" 10% of men (TIMs) from the control groups. Now you're artificially created a difference in the average between the two sexes that didn't really exist, and when you compare the TIMs you'll find they of course have more in common with the women, while the TIFs have more in common with the males. That's the same criteria you used to pick the groups and subjects in the first place.

D) In order to argue that TIMs have lady brains you have to say "All women have X brain type, while all men are born with Y brain type. And when a man is born with X brain type it means - " record scratch you've undermined your starting assumptions. At best what these studies are doing is confirming that the brains of males and females both exist on a spectrum with at least some overlap between the sexes. Which...duh.

E) If it was possible to use a brain scan to tell someones identity it would be required before undergoing transition, and those without proof of "ladybrain" would be denied hormones and surgery. The same way if my cancer test comes back negative I don't get chemo anyway just on my say so. They can't have it both ways, it's either a physical condition or a spiritual belief.

F) Brains are plastic. If you take half of all kids and teach them engines and the other half baking, don't be surprised if you can pick up some small average difference between the groups. TIMs are typically forcing themselves into the same female stereotype role that is forced on all women and girls, so it's not weird if they share some small average difference in a particular trait.

And all of this is besides the point. I'm not saying a TIF can't genuinely feel girly inside his brain, I'm saying that doesn't matter one little bit to anything. He's still a man.

[–]diapason 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't buy it. But even if there were to be irrefutable proof found that TiMs have "feminine brains" or something, I still don't see why that should mean we need to scrap our existing definition of "woman"(and its equivalent in every other language on earth, most of which do not even have a separate word for "female") that we've been using without incident since the dawn of time in favor of a redefinition to include certain biological males (who would not be instantly identifiable as "women" either!).

It's pretty obvious that the way other people treat someone is based on external factors, since there's no way we can peer inside someone else's mind or do a quick brain scan of them before our prejudices kick in, so even in this hypothetical future where TiMs have somehow been irrefutably proven to have 'ladybrains' there would be no reason for them to have a place in feminism other than strictly as allies or for "women's rights" to directly affect them. And even if they were proven to have 'ladybrains', lesbians and straight men would still never be attracted to them!

So I really don't know why any actual proof that could potentially be found (lol I doubt it will, I don't think it exists) for TiMs having "women's brains" or TiF's having "men's brains" would be relevant to anything at all, besides just making it possible to screen gender clinic patients to verify that they're "actually trans" before setting them on course to transition

[–]Skipdip 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What I have heard is that due to neuroplasticity you can’t really say there is a definitive ladybrain. Because you can’t separate it from socialization. The difference would have to be shown at the infant level to show sexed brain differences. Plus, what’s the end point on this? Each individual person gets a brain scan at 18 and by that is assigned a gender? What the TIM is arguing is that gender identity is determined by biology which is counter to what the TRAs say anyway.

I’m pretty sure I saw some study that confirmed blanchards typology vía brain scans of homosexual transsexuals vs heterosexual trans.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Because you can’t separate it from socialization.

There are so many studies showing prenatal and infant difference in brain structure by sex I wouldn't even know where to start. Even more that specifically study the effect of prenatal hormones non developing fetal brains.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are so many studies showing prenatal and infant difference in brain structure by sex I wouldn't even know where to start. Even more that specifically study the effect of prenatal hormones non developing fetal brains.

In humans? Really? Can you link to some of these studies?

I know that many papers have been written about sex-linked differences in brain structures of males and females of different animal species in utero and in infancy, and based on this many have theorized that marked sex differences exist in human brains in utero and infancy. I also know a ton of papers have been written speculating about the effect of prenatal (sex) hormones on human brain development too.

But your claim that "there are so many studies showing ... I wouldn't even know where to start" suggests these theories have been proven in human beings time and again. Is this really true? If so, how has the research been done?

Wouldn't this sort of research involve a whole lot of invasive testing of human fetuses to determine and measure their hormone levels at various stages in their development, and to ascertain that the hormones are reaching/affecting the brain? How would such testing be ethical? What mother (and father) would agree to this?

CVS (which I've had) and amnio come with known risks that are small but still significant enough that no one has these tests without there being a legitimate, proven medical reason. These tests also do not involve the fetus directly: CVS involves taking a piece of the placenta, and amnio involves taking amnio fluid. What's more, such test are done one and only one time in a pregnancy.

How could it be justified to do invasive testing on fetuses in utero again and again - not to benefit the health of the fetus or mother, but so scientist could see if a theory might or might not be true?

Moreover, wouldn't such research additionally necessitate that the same fetuses and infants who've had their hormone levels tested through invasive procedures repeatedly in utero also be subjected to MRI brain scans again and again in utero and after birth to chart exactly how their brains are developing and changing?

What mother (and father) would agree to that?

I know that fetal MRIs now can be done, and are done - but this is only in cases where an ultrasound/sonogram has revealed that a fetus already has brain abnormalities, or genetic testing has shown the fetus is likely to develop brain abnormalities.

How would subjecting fetuses and and newborns to repeated MRIs to test a theory pass an ERB? What parents and doctors would consider this ethical and would be A-OK with it?

From the Society for Pediatric Radiology (notice that most of the studies referred to are on other animals, not humans; and none discuss cases where either animal or human fetuses have been given repeated MRIs during the course of development):

Fetal Safety

The initial safety issue is that of exposure of the fetus to the static magnetic field [1,2]. Numerous animal model studies are present in the literature. Some have shown general deleterious embryonic effects such as upon development of embryos, delay and reduction in hatching rates, fetal loss, decreased crown rump length (CRL); additional studies have demonstrated organ specific disturbances in the development of the chick cerebellar cortex and murine eyes [3-8]. Other animal studies have shown no such embryonic effects, including a study using human fetal lung fibroblasts [9]. There are no studies in the literature that have reproducibly proven a deleterious biologic effect by static magnetic fields on human tissue [2,10]. While in vivo studies are understandably lacking, Kanal et al, in a survey of nearly 1500 pregnant MRI staff, found no statistically significant adverse pregnancy outcomes including fertility with exposure up to 4.7T [11].

Another safety issue is that of exposure of the fetus to excitatory radiofrequency energy and its inherent potential for tissue heating. Inherent to this issue is the potential teratogenicity of fever to the developing fetus [12]. A parameter for safety that is used is the specific absorption rate (SAR), defined as a measure of the rate of energy absorption by the body when exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic field. The FDA and other international agencies have published SAR limits for whole body and local body, but it remains uncertain as to if the fetus should be considered a part of the mother or a separate individual. In one study, use of T2 HASTE, the foundation of fetal imaging, produced no significant temperature increase in the fetal brain or amniotic fluid of a pig model. And in a pregnant model, in normal mode at 1.5 T and 3.0T, the calculated temperature increase and SAR limits were found to be within a safe range [13,14]. There is however a report in the literature using a similar pregnant model where using maternal SAR limits may not protect the fetus from overexposure [15].

Another common safety concern is that of the use of rapid time varying electromagnetic fields (MR gradients) raising two issues: exposure to the gradients themselves and the acoustic noise created by the gradients. Limited research is available on isolated exposure to gradients, none of which have shown adverse effects with in vitro cellular studies [16,17]. More significant literature exists regarding high levels of acoustic exposure. Recent literature suggests that high levels of repeat sound exposure during pregnancy may produce low birth weights, shorter gestation and hearing loss [18]. The FDA limits sound intensity to 140dB in the MRI suite. The exact degree and frequency of sound attenuation as a function of gestational age is not known. Some level of sound attenuation however does occur in utero with attenuation more significant at higher frequencies offering the fetus some protections [19-21]. Exposure of the fetus to MRI at 1.5T in the second and third trimester has not been associated with hearing abnormality in several studies [22-25].

And finally, numerous studies evaluating longer term outcomes have also demonstrated no abnormalities in functional outcomes and birth weight for children exposed to in utero MRI [11,22,23,25-27].

https://www.pedrad.org/Specialties/Fetal-Imaging/Fetal-MRI-General-Information#38201347-safety

Finally, can we really assume that research done on brain development in other animals such as chickens is applicable to humans? I thought the unusually large size of the human brain - and its distinctive aspects and "superior" capabilities - relative to our overall size compared to other animals was sorta key. And that the unusually large size of the human brain, and thus head, as it develops in utero is why human childbirth is so difficult and painful. Other female mammals don't go through the same arduous labor and birth that humans do, coz they don't have to pass through their cervixes, vaginas and labia such big-headed beings as we humans do.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wouldn't this sort of research involve a whole lot of invasive testing of human fetuses to determine and measure their hormone levels at various stages in their development

Post natal MRIs (carried out for other reasons) and some autopsy studies on pre term infants. Lots of amnio fluid tests are done for other reasons and this kind of research gets tacked on. If you were worried about ethics.

Finally, can we really assume that research done on brain development in other animals such as chickens is applicable to humans?

Never seen it done in chickens. Monkeys, rats mice and guinea pigs yes. Not sure how the childbirth thing would make a difference since boys and girls both GI through it. All the evidence is that the mammals have the same kind of response as us.

This kind of research in other mammals, particularly primates, probably is relevant to humans.

Googled a few, human studies. I've refrained from putting in the autopsy study.

Fetal Testosterone Influences Sexually Dimorphic Gray Matter in the Human Brain

In human males, we show that variation in fetal testosterone (FT) predicts later local gray matter volume of specific brain regions in a direction that is congruent with sexual dimorphism observed in a large independent sample of age-matched males and females from the NIH Pediatric MRI Data Repository.

Prenatal and pubertal testosterone affect brain lateralization

Organizational effects of fetal testosterone on human corpus callosum size and asymmetry

Prenatal sex differences in the human brain

The effects of prenatal sex steroid hormones on sexual differentiation of the brain

Sex differences in functional connectivity during fetal brain development

Sex Specific Alterations in Preterm Brain

Associations of age and sex with brain volumes and asymmetry in 2–5-week-old infants

Neonatal brain structure on MRI and diffusion tensor imaging, sex, and neurodevelopment in very‐low‐birthweight preterm children

Early androgen exposure and human gender development

Prenatal and postnatal hormones effects on the brain

Prenatal testosterone and gender-related behaviour

There's more on pdf, but pasting those links is a bit of a faff on my phone.

[–]Skipdip 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you are arguing there is a single male brain and female brain? You think each person should get scanned and assigned... like what’s the end game on this

[–]anonymale 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

New Scientist is generally ok, I find. The studies that article mentions also rely on the assumption that gendered behaviour is innate, which is also a vital assumption for TRAs. As FlippyKing says, silly idea. Gina Rippon, professor of cognitive neuroimaging, has written an accessible book, Gender and Our Brains, which explores this area. I haven't read it yet, but it's likely to be more up to date and less palatable than that article to your TIM. Here's a review.

Contrary to what early coverage of brain imaging technology claimed, neuroscientists no longer believe that specific types of activities and aptitudes are dealt with solely in discrete parts of the brain. Instead, the brain is a network of networks. It is also extremely “plastic,” constantly changing to reflect whatever its owner experiences and does...It makes no sense, Rippon argues, to speak of brains as fixed organs when they can be changed literally at will.

Much of the rest of Gender and Our Brains describes how exquisitely sensitive to social input the brain is—especially in infancy and childhood—and how pervasively gendered that input is. “A gendered world will produce a gendered brain,” she writes.

[–]GConly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So, Ann Lawrence, well known transwoman researcher into this, wrote an article pointing out the issues with the Swaab paper.

A Critique of the Brain-Sex Theory of Transsexualism 2007

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Critique-of-the-Brain-Sex-Theory-of-(-2007-)-By-Lawrence/bd96cf1011a7a1de90c524335fdd15663ee977c2

Most obvious was that the sample size was tiny, but probably most relevant was that particular area of the brain doesn't differentiate until puberty, which wasn't known 25 years ago when the paper was written. Meaning this couldn't be the cause of gender dysphoria in kids.

Second big problem... Although the medical records said they weren't on estrogen, transexuals scoring off prescription estrogen via the contraceptive pill was bog standard, so it was rather naive of Swaab to assume they weren't exposed to estrogen.

Third big problem. 25 years later and no one managed to replicate Swaab's results. Always a major sign the research was a wash out.

While looking for the article Lawrence wrote... Their wiki page has been stripped of their published articles. Some TRA trying to kill a dissenting voice I bet.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While looking for the article Lawrence wrote... Their wiki page has been stripped of their published articles. Some TRA trying to kill a dissenting voice I bet.

Well now that definitely is suspicious isn't it? Yeah you're probably right about some TRA wanting to conceal it.