There was a pitch. You just missed the ball. You first. There is plenty of research indicating that levels of testosterone/oestrogen affect gender behaviour, but not the other way around. Think this one through. You are saying that behaving like a girl will reduce testosterone, increase oestrogen and re-wire the person's brain to be like a girl's: David Reimer had his penis and testes removed, was given female hormones, was named a girl, put in a frilly dress and given dolls and treated like a girl. he was girlified as much as you can possibly girlify someone. It didn't work. Kind of blows your theory out of the water. The brain always wins. That's the point. With both transgendered people and normal individuals. I'm not saying they are 'normal'. They have a birth defect that needs to be fixed. But since we cannot re-wire the brain, we end up having to rewire the body. Nothing else works.
What stopped David Reimer from becoming a girl? well as i said: "In the case of David Reimer, there is one BIG very important thing that was not present, and i'm sure you know it all too well! The boy didn't embrace the idea of being a girl, he wanted to be a boy. The brain has a very big say as to what happens in the body, and in his case, the brain won." This prooves that behaving like a boy, thinking like a boy etc was enough, even tho they did all they could to alter him into a her. So when you say: "There is plenty of research indicating that levels of testosterone/oestrogen affect gender behaviour, but not the other way around Think this one through. You are saying that behaving like a girl will reduce testosterone, increase oestrogen and re-wire the person's brain to be like a girl's" I say David Reimer is part of the evidence that behaving & thinking like a boy increases testosterone, reduces oestrogen. So he is actually keeping my theory afloat! PROOF IT'S NOT MY THEORY, BUT FACT ^ from about 3/4 down the page more proof how mood & situation affects hormones even in rats my sources, plus alot more for example, extra testosterone does this you know Nexxo, you know the brain always wins when it really wants to, you know will power is a powerfull thing, but you claim that: "There is plenty of research indicating that levels of testosterone/oestrogen affect gender behaviour, but not the other way around. Think this one through. You are saying that behaving like a girl will reduce testosterone, increase oestrogen and re-wire the person's brain to be like a girl's" Are you serious? you honestly do not believe the brain can make more testosterone if someone does "boy" things like boss people around, or build a tree house, or win a drag race, etc, all the stereotypical "manly" things? I kind of expect that you would know this very well
It's very difficult to separate cause and effect though. Perhaps those with a higher testosterone are those who choose to go and build a treehouse? A correlates with B, this does not mean B is the cause of A. Proving causality is very important, and intrinsically quite difficult to prove for something like this. Unless you do something like hypophyseal venous sampling from a human who's instructed to 'think manly thoughts'. Good luck getting ethical approval for that one I don't know, someone may have done it. But I would be inclined to think it's something Nexxo would probably have considered and looked up before making his claim.
I think you are grasping at straws. You conveniently forget that he was doused in female hormones for one, and more significantly, that he started out with a boy brain in the first place. No surprise that you get a boy at the end. As Tomm points out, the research quoted there demonstrates a correlation, not a directional effect. I mean: Does aggressive and dominant behaviour result in higher levels of testosterone? Or are those women with higher levels of testosterone more likely to commit violent crime and take aggressive, dominant roles in prison? Tricky, tricky, those correlations. Again, don't get yourself confused. The first two articles do not concern sex hormones. It is well known that emotion, stress and social variables affect various adrenal (and other) hormone levels. Not testosterone, though (read the rat article again, closely). The remaining two links are mainly about how hormones affect behaviour --not the other way around. I think that, as always in these matters, there is most likely a circular relationship between sex hormones and behaviour (triggering events --> emotion --> hormones --> behaviour --> consequence, which in turn is a trigger --> emotion --> hormones etc.). However male blood-testosterone levels range from 300 to 1,200 nanograms per deciliter, while the female equivalent ranges from 15 to 100 --not nearly enough to re-wire women to have male brains. Think about all those women in prison: they may be violent, dominant, engage in lesbian sex even (needs must), but they don't go around feeling like men. Similarly cross-dressing men do not exhibit abnormal testosterone or oestrogen levels. And if it was all that easy, don't you think we could cure transgender individuals simply with a healthy dose of body congruent sex hormone therapy? An interesting cognitive experiment found that a woman put on male doses of testosterone (in gender re-assignment) did start to exhibit male patterns of thinking and feeling (including thinking more about sex and the inevitably associated schoolboy humor: "He said hard drive, hur, hur, hur..."), and even male patterns of cognitive functioning. But here, she was doused in male doses of testosterone --and she felt like a male in the first place, so there's a significant head start. David Reimer did not feel like a girl, so all the oestrogen in the world didn't help him feel any more girly.
- those women have higher levels of testosterone compared to the timid/gentle/shy women out there, and these same wilder/tougher women are alot more aggressive in the sack, speaking from my limited experience anyway i thought i did proove it with this: then you contradict that and agree with me: now i know that you are just messing with me! there is no grasping at straws, just merely high lighting some facts. The only thing i grasped at, was a few links from the very first page of results from google - see above. Does anyone have a single link, to try and backup these unfounded claims of "behaviour has no effect on hormones"
Translate to: All the women I see on the internet are pretty and blonde, but for some strange reason the only chick I've ever slept with had an Adam's Apple and stubble. Sorry, I couldn't resist; it's all in good fun. -monkey
That doesn't prove anything. The author drew an unwarranted conclusion not supported by the data. Correlation says nothing about the direction of causality. No, follow my line of reasoning. You say: behaviour affects hormone levels, which affects gender identity. I say: there is no proof of that, but most likely there is a circular relationship between behaviour and hormone levels (i.e. the causality goes both ways). But where such a relationship exists, it is still NOT enough to result in a re-wiring of gender identity in the brain. There is plenty of proof of that: no person has ever ended up feeling a certain gender just because they were raised and treated and behaved that way. If that was the case, there would be no transgender people in the first place. It is the conclusions that you draw from them that I have a problem with. Read your rat article again. It shows that although social setting and behaviour is correlated with hormone levels, that no effect was found on testosterone specifically. After quite a trawl, I came across this article that mentions: It goes on to give some research references, which is useful. But note the behaviours mentioned: sexual intercourse, drinking, nutrition, exercise and stress are hardly exclusively gender-specific behaviours; both men and women engage in them. Moreover, some behaviours typically associated with being male, such as drinking, leads to a decrease in testosterone. So in this instance, acting like a boy should make them more girly. It doesn't seem to. Have a look in town on a Friday night. If anything, they fight and (try to) have sex more. Not as straightforward is it? You have to be careful how you interpret the data and what labels you stick on things. People often make the mistake to attribute certain hormones and behaviour patterns to certain genders: testosterone is the male hormone (it isn't), oestrogen is the female hormone (it isn't) and behaviour like aggression, dominance or competitiveness is obviously "male" behaviour while social compliance, sensitivity and co-operativeness are obviously "female" behaviours. Yeah, right. It is not that simple. Moreover behaviours can have a wide range of different effects on the brain and body, the impact on sex hormones being but one. Think of alcohol: what other things does it do besides decreasing testosterone? There is also some research now suggesting that the impact of sex hormones on behaviour may be overrated. No research says: "if a boy acts girly a lot, they will become physically/neuropsychologically more female" or vice-versa.
So as you say Nexxo; "After quite a trawl" the best you could find is: And that is if someone does "manly" activities, over time it increases testosterone in the body, and that affects the body, including the brain. The BEST you could find is something that supports what i'm saying. Either i'm drawing correct conclusions, or i am just not able to comprehend english You also say "it is still NOT enough to result in a re-wiring of gender identity in the brain." It may not completely change things around, but behaviour, environment & the resulting internal changes, such as hormone levels, over time, will affect the body! Even after years and years of being raised a certain way, years of thinking and behaving in like the opposite gender, this would not have a major effect on the brain? So in other words, you expect an old lady, that has been a complete hard core tom boy all her life, as in beats people up, steals, works out, etc really rough, tough, loud & abusive, you'd expect her hormone levels & brain to be like a timid lady's? Or similar to a man's? How about the hormone levels & brain of an old man, that has been a shy, quiet, timid, never hurt a fly, never used a hammer, a completely gentle, fragile little fella, all his life? As for "No research says: "if a boy acts girly a lot, they will become physically/neuropsychologically more female" or vice-versa." A couple of years ago, i actually come across research that prooved exactly this, and vice versa for acting like a rough male meaning more testosterone. It was performed on multiple subjects, but i can't present it unfortunately, i don't know where it is now I have presented a heap of evidence so far tho, and the single piece you have presented completely supports what i'm saying.
I think you're missing the point a bit. I would expect that this person might have an underlying raised testosterone -which is causing the behaviour that she's exhibited over the years (your scenario sounds more like a psychiatric issue but I digress). It's also possible that it's the other way round (as you say) but I'm not sure what you're basing this assumption on, since as Nexxo has pointed out, there's no actual evidence to support your theory. What are you basing your claims on?
After reading all of the opinions of others. I'd like to take this opportunity and do the one thing everyone else seemed to forget. A big & warm congratulations to the parents-to-be, may you prosper in this wretched planet of ours we call Earth and with lots of love, a little luck may your child grow up to be all it can be (in the sense of Self-actualization). With any luck your child will be as f***ed up as the rest of us. (with a tiny sprinkle of sarcasm on top)
Yes, true asphinx I guess we got a little sidetracked with some technical issues - first time for everything It is true that there is no reason these parents can't raise the child better than anybody else, which hopefully is the case (same goes for all parents) and that's the most important thing.
NO! You are simply reading what you want to read, and ignoring what doesn't fit your opinion. AS I SAID BEFORE: 1. "Manly" activities do not always increase testosterone. Drinking reduces it, for instance. 2. To label many behaviours as gender-specific (e.g. aggression as typically "male" behaviour, or submission as typically "female" behaviour) is a fallacy. Women can be aggressive. It is not a "male" behaviour. Men can cry and be sensitive. It is not a "female" behaviour. Both men and women drink. Both are competitive in sports. Both commit violent crime. NO! 1. For starters, women cannot generate nearly the levels of testosterone that men do. They lack the testosterone mass-producing glands: the testes. So a woman can never achieve testosterone levels similar to a male. Similar for a man: he lacks ovaries. 2. Transgender people are raised according to their body gender. There are powerful psycho-social pressures from family, peers, community and culture, to make them think, feel and behave according to their body gender from the cradle. By your reasoning, this should affect their sex hormones over time to such an extent that they start to feel more congruent with the gender that they were assigned according to their body. Nevertheless they still feel a different gender. So strongly, in fact, that they will undergo gruelling major surgery just to feel body-congruent. It is like homosexuality. It is wired. It occurs all over the world, in tolerant and intolerant cultures, to the same extent. It occurs against powerful social conditioning to the contrary. Against all these odds, brain wiring wins out. NO YOU HAVE NOT. You have given some links to articles and Google Searches that do not prove your point; you just draw your desired conclusions from them. You do not quote specific text, you do not critically discuss it. You even overlooked your own article stating that social behaviour did NOT affect testosterone levels in rats. You mention research that supports your point but you cannot produce the references. I'm not sure that there is any point discussing this further. You conveniently ignore my points and stubbornly interpret things the way you want to. You do not critically evaluate the evidence that you present. No offence, but this is a very complex issue that is the subject of lots of psycho-biological research. I think that you are simply not quite grasping what we are discussing here.
Actually I saw a lot of pitches I chose not to swing at. I was just wondering what you were swinging at.
Sorry, this isn't a miracle. Lets face it she ('he' is still a 'she') doesn't have a Y chromosome, so she is not a 'he'.
I was just pointing out that just as nature can produce its extreme behaviours, so can culture (and within that, as it happens, religion). So although we don't want animal extremes as example for our behaviour, we don't want to be led by cultural (and religious) extremes either. I put that in the context of conceptual thinking. Hence: dogma is bad.
OK then, I don't think I was being dogmatic thus my reaction to "...But we need to keep our constructs flexible and functional. Dogma is bad, mmmokay?" - which I read as what I perceive to be your dogmatic belief that people of my particular religious beliefs are stuck on impractical / unrealistic dogma when I was not referring to any dogma. .oO(wow, that's a convoluted sentence - see what happens when I don't have coffee?)
No, I just think that some people with religious beliefs are stuck on inflexible, narrow constructs (= dogma), and that it's not a problem specific to religion but common to culture in general. Including science and art: they have dogma too. In spades. Now go have some coffee. May I recommend Monsoon Malabar, or CafeDirect does a good fairtrade organic Machu Picchu?
