On the Science of Changing Sex

Exploring The Science of Transgender

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 16, 2018

Through Knowledge, Justice…

27867072_1811649452220144_4426664495691531655_nThis blog is on the science of transsexuality and transgender sexuality, including aspects of sexual orientation.  The blog also explores socio-political themes where appropriate.  There are many myths and misunderstandings about transsexuality and transgender people.  Our scientific understanding of the transsexual phenomena has increased and dramatically improved over the past fifty years, yet much of what is available in popular literature is misinformation and disinformation.  Much of what the public, including transsexuals and transgender people themselves, believe about the etiology and epidemiology of transsexuality is based on wishful thinking on one hand and deliberate distortions on the other.  Worse, many cherry-pick among the scientific papers, choosing those that, in isolation, appear to support a given thesis.  Many people have read misinformation and disinformation regarding the science, denying, decrying, and even weaponizing the science, often in emotionally inflammatory language (including vicious attacks on the characters of scientists and educators), that makes its rounds in the echo chamber of the web and social media.  Indeed, there are fora that will instantly ban any who discuss this science in any truthful way.  This blog is an attempt to correct this situation.

Learning an unpleasant truth is better than believing a comforting lie – Don’t let the “tribe” tell you what to think – Trust only evidence, not vehemence

All information found in this blog is supported by peer reviewed science and referenced (cited) in essay posts covering a given topic found on this site.  Many topics are interwoven with other topics, as they are interlocking issues.  Please explore the entire site for a full explanation of each topic.

I recommend that one read the first several entries in the FAQ as an introduction and jumping off point via the links provided.  One can find a bibliography for this blog if you wish to quickly find papers of interest.  You may wish to review the Glossary if a word is unfamiliar.

Remember as you read this site;  Transsexuals and transgendered people are good people, worthy of our respect, and even of our admiration.  Nothing in this material is meant to imply otherwise.  If you are a transsexual or transgendered person:  You have value as a human being.  You have the right to be respected, valued, and even celebrated as the gender to which you identify and aspire regardless of etiology.

Comments Off on Exploring The Science of Transgender

Sorry Virginia, The Two Type Trans Typology Has NOT Been Disproven

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on June 2, 2020

critical-thinkingA new study out of Europe is being touted by some autogynephilic autogynephilia denialists as proving that there aren’t two types.  In this case, they want to show that autogynephilia is just as common in exclusively androphilic transwomen as it is in exclusively gynephilic and bisexual transwomen.  Sorry Virginia, the two type taxonomy has NOT been disproven.  The actual DATA, not the text of the study, clearly supports the taxonomy.

First, recall that there is much noise in any study, much of it because of Social Desirability Bias.  There is a strong tendency for transwomen to mis-report their sexuality.  A number of gynephilic/bisexual transwoman falsely claim to be exclusively androphilic, often ignoring their own sexuality (e.g. ignoring years of sexual experience with women, including having been married to women).

First, lets look at their three categories and their age of HRT onset.

Sexuality:        Gynephilic                Bisexual                 Androphilic

N=                          15                              26                              17

Age of HRT           37.8                          31.8                            30.0

(SD) years             8.3                             8.4                             8.7

Do those numbers make any sense given nearly every other study we’ve ever seen?  Consider that in the Nuttbrock study, half of the androphilic transwomen had begun HRT before the age of 20 years old while less than 10% of the bisexual had.  Another issue is the range (Standard Deviation) in years of the age of starting HRT where it is similar to the other two, but slightly wider.  Can this be a hint that some of the putatively androphilic were years younger when they started HRT, but a fair number of older transwomen pulled the age up?  As in an older, non-exclusively androphilic transwoman?  As though to confirm this, we note that in the demographics table, two of the putatively androphilic transwomen were married, one now divorced.  Ummmm… so that’s at least two out of the 17 we know are mis-reporting their sexuality.  Two more are cohabitating, but the study doesn’t let us know if it is with men or with women.  So here is a Bayesian style statistical prior:  I’m betting that at least four of the 17 transwomen are not exclusively androphilic and that the data regarding how many report being autogynephilic will reflect that.  In fact, I’m betting that nearly all of those in this study, save two or three, are in fact BISEXUAL, given their age of HRT onset.  Because of that, I’m betting that we will see data that will look very much like what we see in other studies, that gynephilic transwomen will report around 80% to 85% AGP arousal to cross-dressing while the bisexual group will report a bit less.

But I’m also betting that in spite of that, because at least some of the androphilic group are truly androphilic, they will report less autogynephilia.  But because of the larger number of bisexual mis-reporting to be androphilic, the number will be close to that of the bisexual group, but slightly lower.  My guess, from the very slight age difference is only two to four of the seventeen are actually androphilic.  Remember, ANY difference will support the two type taxonomy as it points to the latent taxons; It just won’t be a very strong signal because of the false signal from the large percentage of bisexuals:

Sexuality:        Gynephilic                Bisexual                 Androphilic

N=                          15                              26                              17

AGP N=                  12                            14                                 7

%                            86%                         54%                            41%

Yep… this fits.  Most of those claiming to be androphilic are actually bisexual.  The researchers fell for the issue of mis-reported sexuality that is common in these studies, especially those from Europe.  The mistake is to trust self-reported attraction instead of classifying them based on actual behavior.  It is sad, because in other studies from Europe, they demonstrated just how unreliable and unidirectional the mis-reporting bias is.

Because of this, the rest of the study is nearly useless save for looking at the difference between bisexual and exclusively gynephilic transwomen’s sexual behavior.

Conclusion:  This study supports, rather than refutes, the two type taxonomy.  It shows the same pattern of autogynephilia to be found in non-exclusively androphilic transwomen.  Shows the same pattern of reduced self-report of autogynephilia in bisexually identified transwomen seen in previous studies.  And shows the same pattern of mis-reporting of sexual orientation seen in previous studies.  Yet despite that, the weak signal of exclusively androphilic transwomen NOT being autogynephilic is still detectable.  Note that even with the known mis-reporting of sexual orientation, the gynephilic transwomen are still twice as likely to report autogynephilic arousal as the self-reported androphilic.

Further Reading:

Essay exploring the Nutbrock study.

Reference:

Laube et al., “Sexual Behavior, Desire, and Psychosexual Experience in Gynephilic and Androphilic Trans Women: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study”
March 2020 Journal of Sexual Medicine
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339738869_Sexual_Behavior_Desire_and_Psychosexual_Experience_in_Gynephilic_and_Androphilic_Trans_Women_A_Cross-Sectional_Multicenter_Study

Comments Off on Sorry Virginia, The Two Type Trans Typology Has NOT Been Disproven

COVID-19 Deja Vu

Posted in Autobiographical, Editorial by Kay Brown on March 13, 2020

Kay BrownI’m feeling a sense of deja vu these days.  It feels a tiny bit like the early ’80s as HIV/AIDS was spreading in the gay male (and androphilic only) trans communities.  Then, it was a mix of dread and denial.  For me, as it became clear who was most at risk and why, I was in deep dread that I might already have a ticking time bomb lurking in my body.  I had been sexually active with men as an obligate bottom during the ’70s and early ’80s before my SRS.

Until the HIV/AIDS epidemic, I had had completely unprotected sex.  I had never even seen a condom until I attended a “safe sex” education party held at one of my Stanford classmate’s house.  I mean, why should I have?  It wasn’t like there was ever any chance of pregnancy, right?  Seriously, that’s the only reason we knew for using a condom back then.  If one got an STD, one took a course of antibiotics, no muss, no fuss.  How wrong we were.

When testing became available, there was an option to have it done anonymously.  I didn’t want to do it even then, dreading the possible result.  But my friends, Joy Shaffer, M.D. (a gynephilic transwoman) and her lover, Patricia quite literally shanghaied me to take me to the clinic.  They also got tested, but c’mon… it was only done as a show of emotional support for me, so that it wouldn’t be so obvious that I was the only one who was actually at risk.  Fortunately, the test result was negative.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic grew and we learned about it being an STD and a nearly universal death sentence, some of us dramatically changed our behavior.  I know I certainly did.  I dramatically reduced my sexual activity and kept condoms with me at all times.  I had quite the “dry spell” for while, unwilling to risk even protected sex unless I knew that the man I was with was a very low risk.  (The fact that I dated almost exclusively straight men helped reduce that risk… but even then… better safe sex right?)

But some gay men and HSTS continued to contract HIV because of denial and ignorance.  And President Reagan refused to even acknowledge that we have a serious epidemic killing us.

So, here we are today, with a global pandemic illness and a President in denial, failing to respond appropriately, and some people in total denial as though it won’t affect them.  Deja vu.

Yes, it can.

So, please, stop going clubbing or to concerts.  Work from home if you can.  Wash your hands often.  Listen to health authorities and ignore bad advice on social media.

Survive.

Comments Off on COVID-19 Deja Vu

2D:4D Evidence Supports Transexual Taxonomy

Posted in Brain Sex, Confirming Two Type Taxonomy, Female-to-Male by Kay Brown on January 30, 2020

handA new paper provided both new direct evidence and a meta-analysis of measurements of 2D:4D finger ratios in transsexuals, both FtM and MTF.  Such measurements are interesting because it is known to be influenced by testosterone levels in utero and thus an indirect measure of testosterone exposure that might influence brain sexual dimorphism.

What is doubly exciting about this paper is that the authors fully comprehend the overwhelming evidence for the two type taxonomy and of the (mild) scientific controversy regarding sexual orientation vs. age of onset as the best clinical markers for the two taxons.  The study is open access so I highly recommend following the link to it and reading it for yourself.  The study is also interesting because of where it was conducted; Iran.

Iran is a Muslim country which while being extremely homophobic, both culturally and legally, treats transsexuals fairly well, at least legally and medically.  Make no mistake, culturally, it is far from truly accepting.  Further, Iran is considered a “Collectivist Society” according to the Hofstede Individualism vs. Collectivism Index.  Lawrence has shown that this index highly correlates with the percentage of non-androphilic (and thus likely autogynephilic / late onset) transwomen transitioning in a given culture.  Thus, we would expect that there were fewer such transwomen in the study and the reported data bear this out.

Let’s look at the new data they provide:

Table 1

Means (and SD) for 2D:4D in the left and right hand for transmen, transwomen, control women, and control men

Transmen

Control women

Transwomen

Control men

Left 2D:4D

0.991 (0.034)

0.991 (0.032)

0.981 (0.033)

0.974 (0.029)

n = 104

n = 53

n = 88

n = 56

Right 2D:4D

0.981 (0.030)

0.983 (0.033)

0.972 (0.029)

0.959 (0.033)

n = 104

n = 53

n = 89

n = 56

Table 2

Means (and SD) for 2D:4D in transsexuals’ left and right hand as a function of early or late onset of gender dysphoria

Transwomen

Transmen

Early onset

Late onset

Early onset

Late onset

Left 2D:4D

0.982 (0.034)

0.975 (0.022)

0.988 (0.033)

1.009 (0.031)

n = 80

n = 8

n = 92

n = 12

Right 2D:4D

0.973 (0.029)

0.963 (0.026)

0.977 (0.028)

1.007 (0.027)

n = 81

n = 8

n = 92

n = 12

Before the analysis of transfolk, it would be a good idea to scale the effect by looking at the effect size between the controls.  The difference between control women and men is d= 0.56 for the left hand and d= 0.76 for the right. This is only a moderate effect size.

Although the number of late onset is small, and thus must be viewed with caution, the analysis is still very interesting and would seem to confirm (agree) with the two type hypothesis.  Consider that the two MTF types have a small but distinct difference of d= 0.24 for the left hand and d= 0.22 for the right.  When we compare early onset type to the male controls we get d= 0.25 and d= 0.45 for the right.   When we compare early onset to female controls we get d= -0.27 for the left and d= -0.32 on the right.  This shows that early onset transwomen are roughly halfway between the controls, and if anything a bit closer to the female controls.

But even more intriguing, and the reason for trusting this interpretation is that when we compare the late onset population to the male controls we see that it exactly agrees with the hypothesis that the late onset type is essentially like the majority heterosexual male population and not at all feminized, with effect sizes that are, statistically speaking, non-existent at d= 0.04 and d= 0.12 for the left and right hands respectively.

This shows that early onset MTF type has notably hypomasculine (feminized) hands while the late onset MTF type does not, and thus in agreement with other data that supports the two type MTF taxonomy.

But what about the FtM transmen?  Here we see an even more intriguing set of data.

The two FtM types have a moderate to substantial, very notable, difference of d= -0.66 for the left hand and d = -1.07 for the right, indicating that early onset transmen are far more masculine than late onset.  When we compare the early onset FtM to female controls we find effect sizes of d= -0.09 for the left hand and d= -0.20 for the right indicating a non-existent to small masculinization signal.

However when we compare the late onset FtM to female controls we see a very different pattern with effect sizes of d= 0.57 for the left and d= 0.80 for the right.  The positive sign indicates that late onset transmen have a more feminine 2D:4D ratio than control women (!!).  And the effect size difference between early and late onset transmen is far greater than the difference between control men and women (!!!).

This, if replicated, is very big news.  It would support the notion that transmen also exhibit two taxons as has long been suspected, one that is masculinized in both behavior, sexual orientation, and very mildly in appearance, the other that is very feminine, androphilic, and autoandrophilic, the mirror image of late onset transwomen.

Further Reading:

Essay on 2D:4D History

Essay on Cultural Difference in Percentage of HSTS vs. AGP Transwomen

Essay on Androphilic Transmen

Reference:

Sadr, M., Khorashad, B.S., Talaei, A. et al. “2D:4D Suggests a Role of Prenatal Testosterone in Gender Dysphoria” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01630-0

Tagged with: , ,

Comments Off on 2D:4D Evidence Supports Transexual Taxonomy

Transkids Really Are Alright

Posted in Transgender Youth by Kay Brown on December 14, 2019

female_scientistWith pre-adolescent gender atypical and gender dysphoric children we have seen dramatic changes in attitudes during the past fifty years.  We have gone from extremely negative, indeed, punitive treatments to extinquish gender atypicality and demand gender typical behaviors, under the misguided belief that doing so will preclude youth from becoming transsexual and/or homosexual to accepting natural gendered behavior.  Recently, some parents and clinicians have become affirming, rather than denying, that the most gender dysphoric of these youth may benefit from early social transitions, knowing as we now do, that some of these youth will persist being gender dysphoric and will demand to social transition as teens or adults regardless of how they are treated as pre-adolescents.

This change has not gone unchallenged.  There is still a current of homophobic and transphobic feelings found in both the public and in some medical circles that cling to the old model of demanding that these youth should be “encouraged to accept their natal sex” / “encouraged to be more gender conforming”.  The question of how one goes about “encouraging” youth who are overwhelmingly both gender atypical and gender dysphoric without adding to their distress is almost never addressed.  If history is our guide, concern for that distress is largely absent, indeed, the goal of such “encouragement” is often to increase that distress in an effort to make the social cost of being gender atypical sufficiently high that the child’s natural expressions will be suppressed.  We have seen the resulting psychic damage such treatment, clinical or simply social (by family, neighbors, teachers, and bullying peers) has wrought on millions of LGBT people.

When making clinical decisions and recommendations, nothing is more important than scientific evidence.   So it is a happy day when researchers step up to examine transkids experiencing this new, kinder, gentler, and yes, affirming, approach to easing childhood gender dysphoria.  One such group is led by Professor Kristina Olson at the University of Washington Social Cognitive Development Lab and their TransYouth Project.

graphsIn their studies they are following a large number of transkids, now in the hundreds, many of whom have socially transitioned before puberty.  One recent study allowed them to compare transkids to age matched non-transkid controls.  The results did NOT surprise me personally, but may either surprise or dismay virulent transphobes and religious bigots, in that these kids are doing quite well.  Further, the findings show that as a population, one would be hard put to find any differences in psychological make-up, views, attitudes and self-concepts with non-transkids of the opposite natal sex as shown in the histograms shown here. (Note that “Transgender Girl”= MTF Transkids, etc.)  However, transkids and their siblings were more open minded about gender atypical people in general, as one would expect.

Another important finding is that this similarity does NOT change with time post-social-transition, neither increasing nor decreasing with age.  This should put to rest those concerns (if indeed they were genuine concerns and not merely ‘concern trolling’) that social transition either causes persistence or makes it more difficult for desistors to detransition.  The data shows that for pre-adolescent gender dysphoric youth, social transitions occur only in the persisting population, either because desisters abandon the social transition experiment (“Real Life Test”) or simply never even try.

If I have any complaint about this work, it is that the authors of these papers use the term ‘gender typical’ for non-trans-controls but ‘gender non-conforming’ instead of ‘gender atypical’, as though they could be conforming if they just chose to, instead of being naturally gender atypical (and actually quite typical when being compared to the opposite natal sex).  That is say, they didn’t describe the controls as “gender conforming” because that would silly.  Old habits and biased thinking die hard.

Further Reading:

Child’s Play; Essay on Transkids Self-Concept

Because Boys Must Be Boys; Essay on why “Gender Non-Conforming” label is problematic

Further External Reading:

TransYouth Project

References:

Gülgöz, S., Glazier, J. J., Enright, E. A., Alonso, D. J., Durwood, L. J., Fast, A. A., Lowe, R., Ji, C., Heer, J., Martin, C. M., & Olson, K. R. (2019). Similarity in Transgender and Cisgender Children’s Gender Development. PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1909367116  Link to pdf

Olson, K.R., & Gülgöz, S. (2018). Early Findings from the TransYouth Project: Gender Development in Transgender Children. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 93-97.  Link to pdf

 

Comments Off on Transkids Really Are Alright

Critique of Gliske’s Gender Dysphoria Conjecture

Posted in Editorial, Science Criticism by Kay Brown on December 3, 2019

phrenologyWhen a radically new conjecture is put forward regarding the etiology of a phenomena that purports to be a new explanitory theory it must explain all of the previous observations, evidence, and data in a better, more compact way to be accepted as a theory, displacing or augmenting a previous one.  Stephen V. Gliske claims to have a new explication of the mechanism leading to a unitary theory of gender dysphoria, displacing our current two type taxonomy with its two separate and distinct etiologies, namely extreme gender atypicality vs. Erotic Target Identity Inversion caused by an Erotic Target Location Error.

However, as one digs into Gliske’s recent paper published in eNeuro, one very quickly notes several serious defects.  First, he relies on neuro-anatomical studies that have been shown to be purely effects of hormonal treatments.  He attempts to recruit xenomelia as a point of argument for his thesis but fails to note that such evidence supports the two type as that phenomena is also highly correlated with apotemnophilia and thus another example of an Erotic Target Location Error.  He cites a study which showed reduced activation of part of the brain to sensory touch of transmen’s breasts as evidence that this is a cause of gender dysphoria, rather than an effect of gender dysphoria (attentional suppression of emotionally distasteful experience).  Finally, he fails to explain or even directly acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the role of autogynephilia in the development of gender dysphoria in one of the two types including the studies that concluded that the two types have different brain structural shifts.

inah3Gliske leans very heavily on post-mortem studies of MTF transsexual brains by Swaab’s group in the Netherlands.  For a while so did many other researchers and especially the transgender population.  Sadly for Gliske’s argument, this effect on areas of the BNST (BSTc & INAH3) was shown to be purely an artifact of these patients being treated for gender dysphoria using female hormones for years.  These changes are activational effects of hormones.  Perhaps Gliske can be forgiven for not knowing this, given that even Swaab’s group continues to publish papers referencing this earlier work as though it hadn’t been shown to be meaningless as evidence for any etiological arguments.

Gliske proposes a mechanism of gender dysphoria that arises out of a disturbance of sensory networks in the brain.  This idea is not new.  It was proposed by Ramachandran some years ago but with a different twist.  The earlier work suggested it as supporting the sexually dimorphorphic brain hypothesis.  That earlier work was shown to be statistically weak and inconclusive.  Later work using fMRI scans of transmen while their breasts were touched were interpreted as evidence of an intrinsic neurological difference in the sensory networks involving the breast of transmen.  However, as I have argued in the past, this ignores the ability of the attentional networks of the brain to both highlight and suppress sensory experience awareness at multiple levels.

{My reader can test this ability for themselves.  While reading the above, were you keenly aware of the exact position of your left foot?  Are you now aware of it?  Now imagine you hate your left foot and concentrate on your right hand.}

Ramachandran and Case also attempted to cite the example of xenomelia and observes that this may be similar to transgender, but ascribes it to somatic mapping issues while failing to note that we have another name for xenomelia, “apotemnophilia”, the erotic desire to be an amputee and how that desire arises out of an Erotic Target Location Error (ETLE) for the primary erotic target of amputees.  The authors thus sweep the well documented erotic motivations of both amputation “wannabees” and of autogynephilic transwomen under the rug in order to further their thesis of transgender as a brain mapping issue alone.  Gliske commits the same academic sin.

Gliske doesn’t completely ignore the two type taxonomy, but makes a sweeping statement that he does not back up with compelling evidence, that the two types are better characterized by age of onset than sexual orientation, failing to note that once false self reporting for both characteristics are taken into account, the two are in fact merely labels for the same taxons that focus on one or the other of the two very highly correlated items.  However, as has been shown repeatedly, sorting for the two taxons on sexual history to determine likely sexual orientation leads to significantly higher statistical signals.

Finally, Gliske ignores that the very studies he cites as evidence for his thesis more properly supports the two type taxonomy, as Guillamon, et al., concluded in a meta-review of the papers.

“The review of the available data seems to support two existing hypotheses: (1) a brain-restricted intersexuality in homosexual MtFs and FtMs and (2) Blanchard’s insight on the existence of two brain phenotypes that differentiate “homosexual” and “nonhomosexual” MtFs”

Gliske ends his paper with a classic Bad Science Journalism(tm) move by suggesting that his work will lead to better therapies for treating gender dysphoria without the slightest evidence or hint of how that might be.

Gliske calls this a “new theory”, but in fact, it is poorly warmed over previous conjecture with very little evidence to support it, certainly not enough to displace the Two Type Taxonomy and Erotic Target Identity Inversion.

Addendum 4/30/2020:  Gliske’s paper has been retracted.  I guess I’m not the only one who noted that this paper fails to meet basic standards:

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/30/journal-retracts-paper-on-gender-dysphoria-after-900-critics-petition/

Further Reading:

Essay on Swaab’s research on BSTc & INAH3

Essay on Ramachandran’s paper on phantom pain after SRS

Essay on Case & Ramachandran’s paper on Transmen’s responses to breast touch

Essay on Apotemnophilia arising from an Erotic Target Location Error

Essay on Age of Onset vs. Sexual Orientation

Further External Reading:

https://community.sfn.org/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F4375-editorial-ethics-issues-of-eneuro%2F&tab=comments&fbclid=IwAR0WSHgJPGtnsywVbkagfFbs9lyv0q27_bkLB4ddKUqY5uUTCLnKfmmJQZk#comment-12809

Essay on Bad Science Journalism(tm)

References:

Stephen V. Gliske, “A new theory of gender dysphoria incorporating the distress, social behavioral, and body-ownership networks” eNeuro 2 December 2019, ENEURO.0183-19.2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0183-19.2019

Comments Off on Critique of Gliske’s Gender Dysphoria Conjecture

Kincade Fire in Sonoma County

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on October 26, 2019

For my friends and readers, Jeff and I are OK.  Our house is NOT in any of the evacuation zones at this time, though they are near by.

(Addendum 10-5-19:  The fire is out.  We are fine.  Though I grieve for friends who lost their home on Chalk Hill.)

Comments Off on Kincade Fire in Sonoma County

Dubunking Transsexual & Transgender Myths

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on October 20, 2019

phrenologyThere are a number of misconceptions, misinformation, disinformation, and even outright lies swirling around social media regarding transsexual and transgender people, our caregivers, and the consequences of our medical care.  This post is an ongoing effort to dispell and debunk them with actual scientific evidence.  I will update this post as I research issues.  (Please be patient)

MYTH:  Hormone Replacement Therapy & Puberty Blockers Cause Sterility

This is a complex matter, in that while currently taking such medications, one is indeed rendered infertile.  But then, so are women who are taking contraceptive medications.  However, if one stops taking them, fertility returns (provided that no surgical removal of reproductive organs has occured).

References:

https://www.endocrine.org/news-room/2019/endo-2019—ovary-function-is-preserved-in-transgender-men-at-one-year-of-testosterone-therapy

https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/growthdisorders/41733

MYTH:  Men Who Date & Marry Transwomen Are Closeted Gay (Perhaps Bisexual), Never Straight

This would seem at first glance to a true and common-sensical, based on superficialities.  Many hold this to be self-evident.  It it repeated as true in popular entertainment and by lay people on social media.

But reality is far different.  Actual research into the matter has shown that there are two populations of men that date & marry transwomen, both heterosexual.  One group is what are called in the transcommunity “chasers”, men who avidly seek out transwomen, especially young pre-op transwomen.  The other group is simply straight men who meet and fall in love with a given transwoman, in spite of being transsexual.

GAM“Chasers”, scientifically labelled “gynandromorphophiles” (GAMP) would seem to fit the description of “bi” in that they seek out people who both have intact male genitalia and an overall female form, called “gynandromorphs” (GAM).  However, true bisexual people would also be attracted to the male body form, that is masculine body and personality.  However, research measuring actual sexual arousal to images of nude masculine men, feminine women and young feminine pre-op transwomen do NOT show this pattern.  Instead, these men are preferentially attracted to women and pre-op transwomen, with far less arousal to men.  The opposite pattern is found in gay men.

Note carefully:  Gay men do NOT find transwomen to be very sexually arousing.

The second group that may date a given transwoman is very unlikely to seek out other transwomen should their relationship end.  They are, as Dr. Green in his 1974 book on transsexuals, “Gender Identity Conflict in Children and Adults” wrote,

“The men who fall in love with and perhaps marry women who are themselves former males, by and large, have known their partners only as women.  Their prior sexual experiences have been only with females.  They consider themselves heterosexual and their relationships heterosexual.  To varying degrees they are consciously and unconsciously aware of the biologic status of their partners, but it would be simplistic and would furthermore blur generally accepted definitions to call these men homosexual.  Rather they are men who respond to the considerable femininity of male-to-female transsexuals, ignoring the dissonant cues of masculinity.”

Reference:

K. J. Hsu, A. M. Rosenthal, D. I. Miller and J. M. Bailey, “Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women”
http://d-miller.github.io/assets/HsuEtAl2015.pdf

Comments Off on Dubunking Transsexual & Transgender Myths

The Sneaky Plan to Stifle Trans Science

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on September 11, 2019

Kay BrownIn the ongoing effort by autogynephilic transwomen to silence those who research and present evidence of the two type taxonomy, a new phase has been entered.  They are now publishing and pushing “ethics” position papers that work on the laudable tendency of people to not “offend” people.  But when science and education are deemed “offensive” to a group that does not want certain well established facts to be known, that’s not being inoffensive to them.  Its granting them the power to censor.

Even more destructive, granting one self-described “marginalized” group the power to censor the science, in this case at a least, also can further marginalize another.  Specifically, we know that there are TWO etiological paths for male bodied people that leads to intractable gender dysphoria.  One can NOT understand those two paths if the very nature of one of those path is deemed “offensive” and censored.  Further, the needs, indeed the very existence, of the unique etiology of the other group, requires that these paths both be fully researched and described.

The most recent development is publication and dissemination of a document listing words and concepts that are to be censored as “offensive”

Thus, it is shameful and hurtful, that this effort to stifle science, science education, and open discussion is being attempted.  It would be even more shameful if it succeeds.

Further Reading:

How to Ruin Sex Research

Reference:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iHodSA16oP0itTjZPkB5tslBjMHOiMdy9lt9zmTPKPs/mobilebasic

Comments Off on The Sneaky Plan to Stifle Trans Science

Transgender Sexual Predators

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 27, 2019

Kay BrownRecent news about a non-op transgender male bodied individual demanding women, who perform very intimate grooming services for female clients, provide it for him, and then making official complaints about them for “discrimination” if they don’t, has caused a serious kerfluffle for the trans communities.  So, let me state in this editorial, with no equivocation, I do NOT support this person nor his actions.  (Yes, you read that right; I will not offer the courtesy of using feminine pronouns for a male sexual predator and bully attempting to use the cover of being a transwoman.)

For a pre-op / non-op male bodied person to demand, using the force of law, to be allowed to, in effect, expose himself to non-consenting women is the action of a sexual predator, period.  This behavior is identical to a public ‘flasher’.  It is one of the four “Courtship Disorders” that include paraphilic rape, frotterism (rubbing one’s penis against non-consenting people in public), and voyeurism (Peeping Tom).  This behavior is a paraphilia that seeks, requires, non-consenting participants and is by definition a sexual offense.

The various transcommunities should, nay, must denounce this behavior and any and all individuals who attempt it.  Further, we should recognize that this is an abuse of non-discriminational laws.  We should support changes in law to end such abuse.

Further Reading:

Dangerous Thoughts

Comments Off on Transgender Sexual Predators

How Many Trans Folk Are There, Really?

Posted in Transsexual Field Studies by Kay Brown on July 19, 2019

female_scientistIf we are to meaningfully discuss the impact of trans people in society and public policy recommendations we need to know how many transfolk there are.  For this we need to define who we mean and who we don’t.  This is a topic I’ve explored before, but it is worth going into greater detail.  I’ve remarked before that we need to have very clear definitions and about the problems that occur when we don’t.

The media and the press often talk as though “transgender” = “transsexual”.  That is to say, that there is an assumption that those who identify as transgender are all socially transitioning from one social sex to the other, prescribed cross-sex hormones, and either have or would strongly consider, if affordable, surgical interventions.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as the vast, in fact, a super-majority, of such self  identified transgender people have not, nor do they wish to, permanently socially transition, nor are they gender dysphoric.

We also need to know how many people fall into each category, as it directly effects policy and politics, from school bathroom use to potential medical transition services demand in the military.

In a 2016 paper exploring this very issue, spelling it out in the title, “Prevalence of Transgender Depends on the “Case” Definition”, paraphrasing their results,

“27 studies provided necessary data for a meta-analysis to evaluate the epidemiology of transgender and examine how various definitions of transgender affect prevalence estimates and to compare findings across studies that used different methodologies, in different countries, and over different periods.  Overall estimates per 100,000 population were 9.2 for surgical or hormonal gender affirmation therapy and 6.8 for transgender-related diagnoses. Of studies assessing self-reported transgender identity, the estimate was 871; however, this result was influenced by a single outlier study. After removal of that study, the estimate changed to 355.”

transmapThese numbers tally very well with those from another study using US Census and Social Security data in which name and sex were changed in various US states.  In that study no state had more than ~10 per hundred thousand.  Note that this study was not included in the meta-analysis conduced by Collins, et al.

These numbers also tally with the several order of magnitude larger estimates of those who self identify as “transgender”.

One of the most enlightening results of the Collins study was that though there was a slight increase in the number of gender dysphoric cases in a given clinic over time, there was no increase in prevalence over all.  That is to say, there is no “epidemic” of gender dysphoria.

Given that we can’t demand that people who self identify as transgender stop doing so, I recommend that we as a community and in science studies differentiate gender dysphoric individuals by resurrecting and reclaiming the old fashioned, but very useful term, “transsexual”.  Only those who permanently social transition with some medical interventions should be so designated.  Those who wish to conduct sociological studies of non-gender-dysphoric people who self identify as “transgender” should so specify in their publications.  Given the large disparities in the numbers, without an operational definition of “transgender” or “transsexual”, a given study is almost assured to be about non-gender-dysphoric people.

Further Reading:

The New Math:  Using US Census and Social Security data to estimate the number of transsexuals in the United States.

Getting Lost In The Crowd:  The problem of conflating self identity as “transgender” with prevalence of gender dysphoria.

Reference:

Lindsay Collin, Sari L. Reisner Vin Tangpricha, and Michael Goodman, “Prevalence of Transgender Depends on the “Case” Definition: A Systematic Review” (2016) Journal of Sexual Medicine
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.02.001

Comments Off on How Many Trans Folk Are There, Really?