Study that proves that Transgenderism is real (Supposedly)

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I didn't click on the link because I've seen these kinds of arguments before multiple times and I don't think there is anything new that can be added to their side of the argument. The first bullet point you provide I think is enough: "The examination of the brains of six 'Transwomen' who were postmortem and how an area of their brain was closer to that of a woman." What meaning we draw from this data, assuming the data stands up and is reproducible and that anyone else looking at these six brains would see what is claimed (I doubt it actually), should be very limited. Six brains is not a lot to go on, so at best the only conclusion one could draw is the often seen "more research is needed". But, one area of their brains makes me want to look at the brains as a whole and see if there are more areas that correlate to their sex, and if those correlations are stronger than the closeness to women's brains claimed. Also, how much variation is there in women and men and in these six brains in those areas singled out by the authors?

Now, if all these hurdles are cleared, what is left? Does this constitute a new and more accurate way of figuring out who is a woman and who is a man? What makes these parts of the brain "gendered" or sexed in away that ignores chromosomes such that genitals and gamates and the manner in which the body was designed for reproduction are less accurate in saying what a man or woman is?

What does it mean to say these six transwomen are more like women in these areas of the brain? It is obviously starting with the conclusion, because you can not draw their conclusion just looking at the claims made about the data. If this were the 1950s, would a male chef's brain be more like a woman's because both are stuck in the kitchen? Or, conversely was Julia Child the first Transman because she was a chef and not 'just' cooking for the family? Musicians brains are different than non-musicians: what does that make them? All these brain arguments are weak before we deal with the elasticity of the brain.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Right and you're not wrong. But also these Transwomen like I mentioned in the post were deceased and most likely lived a life pumped full of HRT which at the end of the day is still a drug and it's been shown that drugs can affect the brain's physical structure. Why don't they ever in these studies ever use pre-HRT people and actually show photo MRI evidence of these supposed similarities?

And exactly, there are many other outside factors that formulate the brain as you explained with musicians and chefs (or even dancers and mathematicians).

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

Also, I'd like to know more about the brains of the women these men's brains were compared to. Did they include post-menopausal and elderly women's brains in the comparison pool? Women who've had their ovaries removed prior to menopause and have gone decades without taking any HRT?

Fact is, TIMs who take estrogen are trying to mimic the estrogen levels of women in their peak reproductive years, not women who've passed through and are long beyond that stage. What's more, TIMs who take high level estrogen tend to continue it at the same levels in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - until death. Whereas most women who live a full life span will spend the last 35 or more years of life with estrogen levels that are tiny or non-existent compared to what they were during the approximately 40 years between menarche and menopause, ages 11-51.

If you compared the estrogen levels of TIMs like Jenner, Pritzker and the recently deceased Morris to the estrogen levels of women their own ages, the TIMs' estrogen would be vastly higher in every case. Coz women in their late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s don't customarily take vast quantities of estrogen the way these men do - most women of these ages nowadays take no HRT at all. Even when older women have sound medical reasons for estrogen supplementation - such as chronic UTIs, or pelvic pain due to vaginal atrophy - the health risks of longterm estrogen supplementation to women mean physicians won't prescribe estrogen to elderly women in either the doses or pill form that is customarily prescribed to TIMs of any age just for asking no matter the health risks to them. At most, an older woman nowadays will get a prescription for a very low dose topical cream for the urethra or vaginal suppositories - and then usually only for a limited time period. Double standard much?

[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your point about their artificial hormone levels is an excellent point, definitely not one I thought about till I read yours. If I had included it in what I typed it would remind me too much of this: https://youtu.be/_CO0H70tATE?t=215 (an attempt by these two violinists to show how a lot of the work of female composers ended up in the catalogs of male composers)

Musicians are supposed to have very different, and recognizable, brain structures. But, that is from training and due to the brain's elasticity and no one is born that way. My idea about chefs is just reflecting on that cooking is a behavior and not innate.

I think we know why they don't do any good, real, studies: it's all BS. The humanities should have called out Butler on all her BS long ago, the I suspect most in those fields feared "there, but by the grace of God, go I."