'Scientists find a gene for the transsexual experience'

[Black Dagger]

Scientists find a gene for the transsexual experience
Deborah Smith Science Editor
October 27, 2008

IN THE largest ever genetic study of transsexuals, Australian researchers have discovered a DNA variation linked to male-to-female transsexualism.
The finding strengthens the view that there is a biological reason why some people feel they are living in the wrong body, in this case men who have an strong desire to live as a woman.

Vincent Harley, of Prince Henry's Institute in Melbourne, said his team's study of 112 Australian and American male-to-female transsexuals found they were more likely to have a genetic variation in a gene that could lead to a feminisation of the brain during early development.

The research confirmed that transsexuality was not a lifestyle decision, as some had suggested, said another team member, Trudy Kennedy, the director of the Monash Gender Dysphoria Clinic in Melbourne.
"People who come to our clinic describe how they knew they were different at a very early age, just three or four years old. This is something that people are born with," Dr Kennedy said.

The findings, which are published in the journal Biological Psychiatry, were good news, said Sally Goldner, 43, who had an inner sense she was female from a young age, despite being a boy. "Such compelling evidence dispelling the total myth of gender identity issues being a choice is always welcome," she said.

The Australian and American team examined three sex hormone genes. They found male-to-female transsexuals tended to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene, which could reduce testosterone action.
"It is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might result in incomplete masculinisation of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals," Associate Professor Harley said.
But it was highly likely that other genetic factors were also involved in this form of transsexualism, he said.

The research was trying to solve the "fascinating" question of why people felt a particular gender was important, but it might also lead to practical benefits in future, if genetic tests could inform decisions about which sex children, born with ambiguous genitalia, should be raised.

Ms Goldner, a spokeswoman for TransGender Victoria, said she assumed she just had a vivid imagination as a child when she thought of herself as female. It was not until she was 29, after she had had a bad experience with a psychiatrist, that she was accurately informed about transsexualism by a different expert.
"It was incredible. It was the first time I could remember waking up and feeling peace and calm in 20 years," she said.

Juliet Richters, an associate professor in sexual health at the University of NSW, said much of the distress felt by transsexuals was caused by cruel treatment from others. "A little more tolerance towards everyone who doesn't conform to gender norms would be a good thing," she said.

-Link (http://www.smh.com.au/news/specials/science/scientists-find-a-gene-for-the-transsexual-experience/2008/10/26/1224955854977.html)
----------------

This is pretty interesting, it's by no means conclusive but perhaps this will shut some of the 'trans sceptics' up.

[Dean]

The research confirmed that transsexuality was not a lifestyle decision, as some had suggested, said another team member, Trudy Kennedy, the director of the Monash Gender Dysphoria Clinic in Melbourne.
"People who come to our clinic describe how they knew they were different at a very early age, just three or four years old. This is something that people are born with," Dr Kennedy said.

Nothing against the article, but I totally despise this notion. There is no legitimate dichotomy between genetic predisposition and lifestyle choice. Those who are raised with certain values, attitudes and complexes are no more "choosing" to act on their emotional disposition than those who experience the disposition as a result of genetic compulsion.

Human beings cannot and should not be looked at as if they are in total control of the human package with all the genetic and biological predisposition that comes initially. We are molded into the conditions of our lives, and the transsexual who may not have had father figures to live up to is no more "making a lifestyle choice" than those who have the genetic predisposition. It is dangerous to look at human psychology as if it was a one dimensional response to our biological conditions.

[JorgeLobo]

Agree Dean and i'll add that reports such as the one offered above are always overinterpreted and senationalized.

The actual data were that a "longer version of androgen receptor gene" was found more frequently in transexuals. Authors go on to speculate that this led to a different level of circulating testostrone that was esp significant in early development - neither of which was shown. The author Kennedy certainly had a bias.

One could just as easily offer that folks with these modified genes are more likely to be neurotic and neurotics are more likely to think they're transexuals and cut off their dicks.

Does nothing to "shut up" the "trans-skeptics". Let's not mic political correctness with science.

[Lynx]

And what do 'trans-skeptics' add to the debate? That in a future society all notions of gender identity will simply disappear?
I wouldn't mind living in a society where SRS would be done for purely cosmetic reasons.

[JorgeLobo]

Don't know, lynx. Quoted them but fail to from what post in this string. Maybe from another discussion - or I'm crazy.

What's SRS?

[Kukulofori]

Sex Reassignment Surgery.

The Operation.

It will never be done purely for cosmetic reasons. Most trans people I know feel extremely awkward having sex with their original organs.

[Lynx]

I would like to see a reference to the original trans-skeptic debate (if it did indeed occur).

[Black Dagger]

I'm not thinking of anything specific debate; but there are a few 'anti-trans' posters on the site - like TC - who treat trans folk like 'fakers' or something.

[JorgeLobo]

Sorry lynx - I sure don't see it now. Maybe it was from another string.

[JorgeLobo]

Still - my comment was more than not critical of those complaining of the alleged skeptics. Unaffected as I am by the dynamics involved, my bias had me believing folks pursuing SRS will eventually be as dissatisfied as they were before the surgery and complaining of skeptics speaks more to folks wanting to be accepted in their pursuit of change.
As a biologist - the "sex reassignment" concept strikes me as a silly term. As biologically (vs. socially) sex is based on genetics, this runs afoul of the concept that acquired characteristics are not inherited.

[Dean]

I'm not thinking of anything specific debate; but there are a few 'anti-trans' posters on the site - like TC - who treat trans folk like 'fakers' or something.

Good god, where is the inevitable discussion attacking her on that premise?

[Pogue]

Although it'd be good to see some scientific evidence indidcating that being born with the gender you don't feel comfortable with is a real physical condition and problem, as a leftist I think it's irrelevant because if someone says they want and have to change genders its their business.

[JorgeLobo]

I'd prefer economy in investment of medical resources and see SRS as indulging the neurotic.

[Lynx]

Sorry lynx - I sure don't see it now. Maybe it was from another string.
I never saw the alleged comments either, but someone did allude to them and wondered how such views could be tolerated at RevLeft. I believe trans-skepticism derives from the premise that "gender is a social construct".

[Coggeh]

We are molded into the conditions of our lives, and the transsexual who may not have had father figures to live up to is no more "making a lifestyle choice" than those who have the genetic predisposition.
This is one of the biggest points to be taken out of context ever , the result of having "no father figure" to look up to is minimal , I had none that I can think of and haven't any confused lifestyle attitudes aswell as many of my friends . Their is a very slim chance that by this issue alone I believe that one can decide to be a transsexual , I'm not saying it couldn't play a part along with many of social-conditions but biology to has a certain role to play in our development . Though I agree the role some scientists say this plays is massively over-rated .

[Vanguard1917]

In other words, being "trans" is a defect or illness that people are born with -- a defect which, btw, necessitates very serious operative procedures to correct in adult life. If it's indeed not a lifestyle choice, but a birth defect, it can potentially be prevented or cured, so that the "patient" does not have to face the distressing prospect of surgery or other forms of medical attention in later life.

If being "trans" is a medical condition and not a lifestyle choice, there is surely nothing to be celebrated about it. We don't "celebrate" the fact that some children are born with, say, autism or with limbs missing. We don't "celebrate" illness and disability as being key to "human diversity", or anything of that sort. Instead, we look for ways to prevent, treat or cure these physical defects. If people are born "trans" (a "condition" which will mean serious medical attention in adult life to "cure"), why celebrate the "transexual identity"?

[JorgeLobo]

Doubt there's sufficient information (not withstanding coggy's n=1 observation) to say it's entirely congenital or an even illness that needs surgery to correct. It may well be a symptom resulting from multiple unrelated pathologies. And what are we "correcting"? Other than chromosomal anomalies, screwed up gender identity is probably a symptom but not the condition itself (esp. if it's mental/social). If true, SRS is probably no sustaining emotional fix.

My bias - this matter is a sign of an effete society that spends most of its emotional and monetary capital, here indulging in surgical treatment of gender angst, in a self-absorbed plea to be special.

[Dr Mindbender]

so as well as a raging homophobe you are also against the principle of people's autonomy over their own bodies?

Wow it gets better and better.

[JorgeLobo]

Let me help you on this. Relying on ad hominem* is an error in logic as well as an admission you have nothing to offer in this extended discussion.

My suggestion is that you get by your passion for things homosexual and try to engage in discussion. For example - do you have concept as to the pathology of gender identity crises, efficacy of SRS to remedy whatever pathology is its cause, the responsibility of society to invest limited health funding in what some see as self-absorbed and questionable self-indulgence?

* likely a new concept to you - suggest you look it up.

[Dr Mindbender]

thats fine by me, keep digging that hole... :rolleyes:


If you refuse to understand the progressive importance of bodilly autonomy and gay liberation you don't belong on revleft.

Maybe other members arent onto you but i am.

[JorgeLobo]

Please try to explain - we're so eager to hear. But you may have not read carefully. The discussion was not autonomy per se but the nature and etiology of the condition and appropriate treatment. I had added the dynamic of limited health care funding and triage that would place SRS fairly far down the priority scale.

Let me also help you with communications - it's important as folks judge you by your communications. The term is "that's" - not thats (sic) - it's a contraction of that is - and arent (sic) - is aren't - a contraction of are not. Also, the word is "bodily" not bodilly.

Hope this helps you. Also, are you considering SRS? It might help us, if you are, to tell us your feelings.

[Dr Mindbender]

Please try to explain - we're so eager to hear. But you may have not read carefully. The discussion was not autonomy per se but the nature and etiology of the condition and appropriate treatment. I had added the dynamic of limited health care funding and triage that would place SRS fairly far down the priority scale.
as social progressives and revolutionaries we see that as an enditement of capitalist planning and the limitations of scarcity economics.

not people wanting to have sex changes.



Let me also help you with communications - it's important as folks judge you by your communications. The term is "that's" - not thats (sic) - it's a contraction of that is - and arent (sic) - is aren't - a contraction of are not. Also, the word is "bodily" not bodilly.
Considering the context of the things you've said, it's difficult to reach any conclusion other than the fact that you are a social reactionary that has no business posting beyond the opposing ideaolgies board.


Hope this helps you. Also, are you considering SRS? It might help us, if you are, to tell us your feelings.
I have no intention of getting SRS, however i do extend my sympathy and solidarity to those who do and will no doubt recieve hatred and harrassment at the hands of bigots like you.

[JorgeLobo]

The term is indictment - not enditement (sic) and again you fall back on the ad hominem (did you look it up as I suggested?).

You've drifted off the point again. Assuming you have nothing to offer in that regard and to the point you've raised, would you please summarize for us the level of support for SRS globally - breaking out capitalist economic/political/social systems and compare to other systems?

[Dr Mindbender]

The term is indictment - not enditement (sic) and again you fall back on the ad hominem (did you look it up as I suggested?).

You've drifted off the point again. Assuming you have nothing to offer in that regard and to the point you've raised, would you please summarize for us the level of support for SRS globally - breaking out capitalist economic/political/social systems and compare to other systems?

the percieved level of global support is a moot point, we do not oppose autonomy to what we do with our bodies because this stance is incompatible with the progressive paradigm.

Public mindset is a subsequent symptom of the conditioning of the status quo, also something we seek to alleviate.

PS. When i see spelling fascism it is always a sure sign of losing a debate. ''clutching and straws'' anyone? :D

[JorgeLobo]

Again the ad hominem - "spelling fascism". Be aware please your communications impeach presumption of literacy (the word is perceived - not percieved - sic) as does the inaccurate phrase - the term is "clutching at straws". It's ironic that you should draw anyone's attention to another of your errors - here "clutching and straws". Along the same lines - it wasn't clear what you are seeking to alleviate - mindset, symptom or status quo?

Do you have polling data to reports "public mindset" or are you reading collective minds of societies?

So you don't know the global support but consider it arguable? How then do you conclude lack of support for SRS is a mark of capitalist societies? Autonomy is not the direct argument - no one here has objected to SRS as a do-it-yourself effort.

[Dr Mindbender]

Again the ad hominem - "spelling fascism". Be aware please your communications impeach presumption of literacy (the word is perceived - not percieved - sic) as does the inaccurate phrase - the term is "clutching at straws". It's ironic that you should draw anyone's attention to another of your errors - here "clutching and straws". Along the same lines - it wasn't clear what you are seeking to alleviate - mindset, symptom or status quo?
Wow you badly need to get laid. :huh:



So you don't know the global support but consider it arguable? How then do you conclude lack of support for SRS is a mark of capitalist societies? Autonomy is not the direct argument - no one here has objected to SRS as a do-it-yourself effort.
Er other than the fact that public opinion is generally influenced and decided by the capitalist mass media?

[JorgeLobo]

So you're working against capitalist media? How is that working for you? Hope better than your literacy lessons.

[Dr Mindbender]

So you're working against capitalist media? How is that working for you? Hope better than your literacy lessons.

the capitalist media will sell itself the rope that it hangs itself with.




Hope better than your literacy lessons.

Are you sure you don't mean ''I hope better than your literacy lessons?''

If so i could tear into your grammar but i'm not that petty.

[JorgeLobo]

Re, the 1st - never heard that one before. If you can't be clever - at least plagairize well - so please carry on.
So you're not working against the media? Then what are you "trying to alleviate" or was that just BS?

Back to the point - is it fair to assume that you know nothing about it but have a strong opinion?

[Plagueround]

The larger point that most people in this thread seem to be missing is that our attitudes toward transsexuals should be one of support and respect, whether you believe it to be the product of lifestyle or genetics. No matter what you believe the origin to be, one fact does remain: transgender people feel more comfortable with themselves through the use of hormones, therapy, and/or SRS. The notion that they should not be indulged because you view them as a defect or neurotic does nothing to improve their life, you're basically telling them to "suck it up" instead of allowing them to make the choices (funny how we seems to have this problem lately of "communists" wanting to promote a classless, stateless society where we make other people's personal choices for them) that would improve the quality of their life.

As for people that seem disgusted or put off by the idea of celebrating "trans identity", if these people were not ostracized and belittled their entire life, being labeled fakers or defects, they would likely have little reason to band together and assert that they are not ashamed of who they are. They are speaking out against their oppressors, not stating they are proud to have been scorned their entire lives while constantly wondering what they can do to feel complete. Speaking as the friend of someone who, for the first time in their life is feeling somewhat positive about his identity after being approved for testoterone injections and some SRS (mastectomy only, as complete FTM is not yet very advanced), I could care less where his desire to do this comes from (although if you tell me it's simply a lifestyle choice you're an idiot), I'm simply happy for him finally being somewhat comfortable with himself.

[Vanguard1917]

The notion that they should not be indulged because you view them as a defect or neurotic does nothing to improve their life, you're basically telling them to "suck it up" instead of allowing them to make the choices (funny how we seems to have this problem lately of "communists" wanting to promote a classless, stateless society where we make other people's personal choices for them) that would improve the quality of their life.

They should have the choice. My point is that if transexuality is indeed determined by genes, then it is a birth defect, since it requires medical procedures to correct it. Why should we celebrate transexuality if it is indeed essentially a medical condition?

[Plagueround]

They should have the choice. My point is that if transexuality is indeed determined by genes, then it is a birth defect, since it requires medical procedures to correct it. Why should we celebrate transexuality if it is indeed essentially a medical condition?

I get what you're saying, however, as long as transsexuals are treated as defective, filthy, and/or "fakers", I don't see anything wrong with the idea of "trans pride" as it's simply a way to combat the discrimination they've endured. It's not a celebration so much as a show of solidarity and compassion.

[Vanguard1917]

I get what you're saying, however, as long as transsexuals are treated as defective, filthy, and/or "fakers", I don't see anything wrong with the idea of "trans pride" as it's simply a way to combat the discrimination they've endured. It's not a celebration so much as a show of solidarity and compassion.


You're right: feelings of compassion and sympathy towards transexuals isn't the same as the celebration of a 'transexual identity'. Most of us sympathise with any human being born with a condition which will necessitate very serious surgical procedures in adult life; but we don't tend to celebrate their condition as being a feature of the beauty of "human diversity". If transexuality is indeed a birth defect, the only logical attitude towards transexuality is to find ways to eradicate transexuality, along with all other serious birth defects.

This should highlight the danger of accepting the argument that transexuality is genetically determined, when it in reality is more likely the product of a combination of complex factors, whether cultural, personal, or even political.

Iran, for example, performs a record number of transsexual operations every year. This is very likely a result of the fact that homosexuality is banned in Iran and having a sex change -- which is not only legal but financially funded by the Iranian authorities -- is seen by gays in Iran as the only way of leading a somewhat normal life free from criminal punishment. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7259057.stm)

What this shows is that transsexuality, as an 'identity', can be highly influenced by existing social, political and cultural conditions. If we go down the road of talking up the influence of a person's genetic makeup, we must also, whether we like it or not, provide rationalisation for the view of transsexuality as a birth defect.

[apathy maybe]

I get what you're saying, however, as long as transsexuals are treated as defective, filthy, and/or "fakers", I don't see anything wrong with the idea of "trans pride" as it's simply a way to combat the discrimination they've endured. It's not a celebration so much as a show of solidarity and compassion.

This.

For you folks who disagree that pride should be used in this manner, I direct you to the thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/black-pride-gay-t50557/index.html?t=50557