[Controversial] The Scientific Evidence Regarding HBS

[phoenixvtam]

The HBS movement cites recent research on the hypothalamus as definitive "proof" of their assertion that transexuality is a physical intersex condition. Divorcing myself from the issue and speaking purely as a scientist, this is either ignorant or dishonest because the papers they cite are in fact only preliminary pilot studies.

The 1997 study by

Comments

[br0k3nt0y]

excuse my total ignorance here, but I for one would welcome a "nature" involvement in the argument. We have countless people crying foul at the inclusion of GID in the DSM-IV, yet we do not want a biological cause either? for my last Psychology class I actually wrote my term paper on the biological cause of Transsexuality and referenced that particular journal article. I was actually excited to know that there may be a physical basis for my choices in life, and that this would give me a stronger ground to argue from when confronted with people who claim "I chose this life". Part of the forced acceptance of homosexuality in society is the fact that we can no longer claim it is all in the head, with biological causes and a sort of pre-determined from birth factor going on.

So I guess my question is this: Why do you not welcome this news, that transsexuality may in fact be biological in nature?

[aylira_tesayon]

The issue is with the fact that HBS advocates tend to want to draw a very very narrow line around what a "transsexual" can be, excluding the reality of other transgendered states, excluding the genderqueer/etc., excluding those who identify as transsexual but don't want surgery for whatever reason, even excluding those who are not straight in their actual gender (transdykes like me need not apply). Its the fact that they are exclusionary that bothers us, not the identifying of a biological/nature basis

[aki_no_kaze]

well, lets look at it another way... what if SOME transwomen (cause there was only one transman in any of those studies, and a study of one isn't really something you can count) have this brain thing, but some dont.

what if I did, and you didnt.

i would have my rights protected, access to healthcare and the like... and you would be labeled as little more then a delusional < insert your birth sex here >.

until they can show that a physical cause shows up in ALL transpeople, using it as a diagnostic tool, or a way in which to define who gets rights and who doesn't is a horrible idea.

[danaelaurm]

Which also could extend to lilyth's homosexuality metaphor...
After all, if it becomes something testable, then whoever doesn't show the phenotype becomes possibly mentally ill, for any kind of sexual variation issue.

[justanormalgirl]

Neurological differences are a possible cause but I still think it's more psychological and social.

I live with a 2 year old and a 4 year old. I couldn't imagine the 2 year old being trans, of having any way to express that or any concept of what that means. We're still working on colors... The 4 year old, yes, I can believe that. He has an obsession with trains and he can tell you every character in Thomas the Tank Engine (including all the minor ones I've never heard of) and all about different types of trains and such

[justanormalgirl]

(cont.)

When I was 20 and my dad found out I was on hormones finally, he was actually crying. He said we should have dealt with this three and a half years prior when I came out as trans. But there was still hope, I could still go through a program to make me not gay anymore (I did, it's called a "sex change" :-P). But he also said that I was not old enough to make a decision like this. I implored him, "So should I wait another three years? Will I be old enough then? When exactly am I old enough to make this decision?" "Never." came the reply. But I was at 20, I was at 16, I would have been at 12 or even 8. I knew who I was and I wouldn't regret being able to live that way. That's what I say to those who criticize parents of trans kids.

I know I'm rambling. I don't think it's a clear-cut biology thing but it must be something. That's why I chalk it up to Fate or God. It's not that God made a mistake (as goes the cliche), just that I don't understand His purpose. I'm not a mistake, I'm a human being. Just like

[shemale]

iawtc

[tinamou]

It would be interesting. I believe the reason the existing study was done on preserved brains is that the region in question is extremely tiny and buried deep in the brain, where current scanning techniques are not sensitive enough to measure. You're right, though--if brain scanning technology were to improve, a study like that would help sort out the effects of hormones from the pre-existing brain structures.

[dale62676]

As a future epidemiologist, this is the most maddening thing about published research studies taken out of context. With a small sample population (as in these studies), you are less able to generalize to the larger population. Well, ofcourse you can try to (like HBS folks seem to be) but you'd be an asshat. Just like the TV news: "This just in, breathing air gives you cancer!"

[justanormalgirl]

there is a big problem with that. how do i know that whatever differences exist in the brains of those transsexuals studied are in my brain? i don't. certainly, i don't think i could say that simply by the fact that i have gender issues... the inference is far too strong.

[kathygnome]

What exactly are the HBS people claiming? And is this a random claim from Jill and Joe on the internet or did someone write a pseudo-paper on the subject or is there an "official" HBS position?

I've slogged through the Zhou and Kruijver studies and while the sample size is small, they are pretty conclusive on the matter that there are physical differences between trans and non-trans populations irregardless of birth sex or hormone treatment status and that those physical differences match perceived sex. I was actually quite shocked as I had dismissed the studies before I actually read them.

In the end, whether transsexuality is a pathologized or non-pathologized condition and whether it's regarded as a purely psychological or medical-psychological condition is entirely political.

[danaelaurm]

And is this a random claim from Jill and Joe on the internet or did someone write a pseudo-paper on the subject or is there an "official" HBS position?

More or less, all three.
There was a preliminary etiology hypothesis statement, but it had (and still mostly has) nothing to do with it.

They did write a pseudopaper (well, no peer review, not even published outside the www, I guess it doesn't count really), and there have been a number of random Jill and Joe. And a few well known trolls.