Puberty Blockers Do NOT Make Transsexual Teens Inorgasmic As Adults

For a number of years now, transphobic propagandists have been pushing an unsupported statement that many of us knew must be a lie that transkids who were treated with puberty suppression protocols, “puberty blockers”, would be inorgasmic as adults, especially for Male-To-Female transsexuals after sex reassignment surgery. This was usually couched in terms of the medications not allowing a “natural puberty” which was presumed to be necessary for sexual functioning as an adult.

However, those of us with a greater background in biology and psychology were more than skeptical of such an assertion. First, historically, for example, in the 19th Century, puberty occurred much later and yet, those individuals didn’t have problems as adults. Second, there are all the many thousands of non transsexual children who for decades have been treated with these very same medications who are now adults who do NOT report such problems. How could it be that transsexuals would be any different?

Now we have DATA to directly refute these assertions.

But first, lets review some data in natal females as a comparison group. In the Najafabody study, ~25% of the women experienced such difficulty. In another,

“The findings of the 1994 National Social and Health Life Survey provide the most comprehensive description of orgasmic experience in a nonclinical, representative sample of women. Twenty-four percent of female subjects reported they had experienced a lack of orgasm for at least several months or more in the previous year.”

Thus, we see that it is common for women to have difficulties experiencing orgasm. Should we expect it to be any better or worse for transwomen?

Looking at the results for MTF transsexuals who had bee treated with puberty suppression, similar numbers were found,

“37 transwomen that received gender affirmative treatment, consisting of puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones and vaginoplasty, were included. Of all transwomen, 76% was able to reach an orgasm after vaginoplasty. Of the transwomen that were treated with puberty blockers early in puberty, 81% was able to experience an orgasm postsurgery. When looking at the ability to reach an orgasm after vaginoplasty, we found that there was no difference (p=0,278) between those that were treated with puberty blockers in early versus those that were treated in late puberty. Of the transwomen who did not experience an orgasm before surgery, 75% was able to reach one after. Approximately half to three quarters of the transwoman experienced sexual difficulties when having sexual intercourse.

Both transwomen treated with early and late puberty suppression are equally able to experience an orgasm after vaginoplasty. Likewise, it is not necessary to experience desire, arousal or orgasms presurgery to be able to experience these postsurgery. The majority of transwomen sometimes experience some difficulties in their sex life, but this is not dependent on the puberty stage they started blockers in.”

The results are in; Puberty Blockers do NOT cause transsexuals to be inorgasmic as adult, no matter whether the suppression began early or late. This is one propaganda lie that has been totally demolished.

Further Reading:

Transphobic Propaganda

References:

Najafabady MT, Salmani Z, Abedi P. Prevalence and related factors for anorgasmia among reproductive aged women in Hesarak, Iran. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(1):83-6. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322011000100015

Laumann, EO, Paik, A., & Rosen, RC (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Asssociation, 281, 537-544.

Michael RT, Gagnon JH, Lauman EO, Kolata G: Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, pp 123 – 126. Boston, Little Brown, 1994

van der Meulen Isabelle, van der Miesen Anna, Hannema Sabine, de Vries Annelou, (198) THE EFFECT OF PUBERTY SUPPRESSION ON SEXUAL FUNCTIONING IN TRANSWOMEN AFTER GENDER AFFIRMATIVE SURGERY, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Volume 20, Issue Supplement_4, July 2023, qdad062.090, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdad062.090

The Sound of Transsexual Voices

When I was a late teen in the mid’70s, involved in the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Program, I attended what they called their “Grooming Seminars”. These were part of what Dr. Fisk had so self-congratulatorally called “total overall rehabilitative experience“. One of the sessions was a risible lecture on voice production differences between men and women.

The lecturer, a man, was supposedly an expert in the field. But far from offering advice on how adult males can sound female, he offered observations that most anyone would know. Yes, women’s voices are higher pitched than men. (An adult woman’s average range is from 165 to 255 Hz, while a man’s is 85 to 155 Hz.) Because of this, so many of the transsexuals sounded like Minnie Mouse, as they mistakenly attempted to raise the pitch too high. But the lecturer spent most of the time on gendered speech patterns. He put special emphasis on “up speak”, the way one ends a sentence.

Both men and women denote a question by increasing the frequency at the end of a sentence. But this lecturer insisted that a feminine voice uses it all of the time. Ironically, before I had attended this lecture, I had been involved with feminist consciousness raising sessions on campus, in which it was explained that women only did this in situations in which they were concerned with being judged harshly as too assertive, that women should never do it, as it denotes uncertainty. “Like, we don’t know what we are talking about? That we lack authority? That we all sound like ‘Valley Girls’?” Seriously, this lecturer was suggesting that successful adults should sound like shy, fearful teenaged girls?

Today, things are very different, with professional voice coaches offering services to transsexuals on how to modify their speak patterns to pass better. It’s not just about pitch. It’s about pitch modulation and phoneme clarity.

Consider the differences between gay and straight men. Gay men are often mocked by describing them as speaking with a lisp. But in actually, their voices are more clearly enunciating, hyper-articulation, not less, very much like women’s voices. They are also speak with more pitch variation and modulation, naturally. This same feminine speaking style is also present, naturally, in homosexual transsexual (HSTS) voices, without training.

This means that there is a difference between HSTS and AGP voices, at least before vocal training. Although, to be brutally honest, many of us can, as I do, still hear the difference, even after training. A great deal of how we speak, just as in how we move, is hardwired into our brains and AGPs have difficulties learning to produce them as it does not come naturally.

On the flip side, transmen have a similar problem, only in reverse. Even after they get lower voices due testosterone, many of them now sound like gay men to many observers. Though, to me, there is a distinctive difference I call the “(FTM)tranny voice”. Just as with transwomen, especially AGPs, I can identify many transmen from their voices alone.

For those keeping score at home: No, I have never had, nor needed, voice training.

Further Reading:

Essay on experiences at Stanford’s “Grooming Seminars”

Sound of Your Voice…

Further External Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal

https://theconversation.com/how-trans-people-can-change-their-voice-to-suit-their-preferred-gender

References:

Suire A, Tognetti A, Durand V, Raymond M, Barkat-Defradas M. “Speech Acoustic Features: A Comparison of Gay Men, Heterosexual Men, and Heterosexual Women.” Arch Sex Behav. 2020 Oct;49(7):2575-2583. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01665-3.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01665-3

Oates, J., Dacakis, G., “Transgender Voice and Communication: Research Evidence Underpinning Voice Intervention for Male-to-Female Transsexual Women” (2015) DOI:10.1044/vvd25.2.48

Zimman, L. (2010). Female-to-Male Transsexuals and Gay-Sounding Voices: A Pilot Study. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22. https://doi.org/10.33011/cril.22.1.3

On The Etiology of Homosexual Transsexuality

The question of what causes transsexuality has long been a question that sexologists and transsexuals have been asking. We know some things, but the answers only invite new questions. First, we know that there are two totally unrelated taxons of MTF transsexuals, One is autogynephilic and the other is “HomoSexual TransSexual” (HSTS). But what causes this homosexual type? Why aren’t they just simply gay men?

Part of the answer appears to many to be cultural, that some cultures are more comfortable with homosexuality when it remains largely gender typical, or at least pretends to be, and other cultures are more comfortable with gender atypical presentation, fitting in as members of the opposite sex or at least an adjacent appearing category (e.g. fa’afafine in Samoa). However, in every culture BOTH presentations co-exist, even if one is more visible than the other. So, why?

A similar dichotomy appears to be true for gynephilic females, that some cultures accept masculine individuals as being men, or at least adjacent to men while others prefer that such females take on more gender typical presentations. But, again, in all cultures, both exist side by side, even if one is more visible than the other.

We are learning that androphilia in males is NOT unitary, that there are several distinct etiologies, developmental pathways leading to it. We are also learning that these different etiologies, while all leading to androphilia, do NOT all lead to the same level of gender atypicality or sexual interests. In the gay male culture, this has long been recognized, if often in an uncomfortable manner. There are labels for the anal sexual roles that may be taken, of “tops” vs. “bottoms” and those who are more ambiguous as “versatiles”, while others eschew either as “sides”. We have studies that show that bottoms are much more gender atypical than tops, in multiple dimensions, from childhood behavior to partner physiognomy preferences.

Along with etiological differences, there are bio-physical and bio-demographic differences between tops and bottoms. As I have written before, HSTS share these with bottoms, in nearly all respects.

So lets review the factors that are believed to be associated with male androphilia; excess left handedness, lower testosterone exposure in utero and /or perinatally, higher testosterone exposure in utero, fraternal birth order (FBOE), familiality, and unknown factors. Then we can explore which are likely to be involved in leading to HSTS outcome.

First, we know that HSTS show higher numbers of older brothers than gay men, on average.

Further, we know that only bottoms show this effect. But here’s a twist. Only RIGHT handed androphilic males shows this effect. Left handed androphilic males don’t. But wait, gay males show an excess of left handedness. But HSTS do NOT show this same excess of left handedness. What ever causes the excess of left handedness is NOT one of the possible etiologies for HSTS. Some researchers have suggested that this excess in gay men is caused by high testosterone exposure in utero. I would venture to suggest that this is one of the likely etiologies for tops, but not bottoms. Tops being masculine in behavior and appearance, the classic “straight looking, straight acting” gay man.

If tops are likely to be associated with high testosterone, are bottoms associated with low testosterone in utero. The data from 2D:4D measurements strongly support that hypothesis. The statistical difference between the tops and bottoms was d=0.63 for their right hands. Compare this to the difference between control men and women (from another study) at d=0.76. Thus the difference is nearly as large as that between men and women. This is a dramatic result! A similar result is found when measuring HSTS (recall that some AGPs falsely claim to be androphilic, reducing the signal strength). When we compare HSTS to male controls we get d= 0.25 for the left and d= 0.45 for the right.   When we compare HSTS to female controls we get d= -0.27 for the left and d= -0.32 on the right.  This shows that HSTS transwomen are roughly halfway between the controls, and if anything a bit closer to the female controls.

The next question is whether familiality is associated with HSTS. The answer is a resounding yes. We know this because in research of Muxe, both types, HSTS and conventional gay men, show such familiiality. In Samoa, the same was found for fa’afafine (feminine presenting androphilic males). HSTS in Western nations show the same effect.

Next, is there an additive effect of the various prime causes? Is there a requirement for multiple factors to produce an androphilic male?

Shown above is the result of a Latent Class Analysis that shows a four factor model was the best fit to the data for gay men. Note that Profile 1 is all the individuals who do NOT have a strong association with any of three factors that Swift-Gallant, et al, examined. Something else, not measured was likely the etiology (e.g. low testosterone exposure or other unknown factor). As one would expect from the fact that HSTS have a stronger FBOE signal, Profile 2 had the highest gender atypicality (feminine behavior), of the four profiles.

The analysis shows that one does not need multiple factors to result in an androphilic male. Note that the FBOE profile is especially independent, yet present in all four profiles. However, this does NOT mean that the measured factors can’t co-exist in the same individual, only that they don’t have to. Nor does it necessarily mean that some factors may not interact to increase the likelihood of a male being androphilic. For example, familiality and excess left handedness might interact thus. Nor does it necessarily mean that any male with a high number of older brothers was influenced by the FBOE, nor that someone who was an only child or a first born wasn’t influenced by the underlying maternal immune system conflict that gives rise to the FBOE.

Taking all of the data together, it appears that the only factor that does NOT lead to HSTS outcome is the high testosterone in utero / excess left handedness. All the other putative factors may lead to HSTS outcomes.

For those at home keeping score: I evince both very low testosterone exposure in utero/perinatally (as evidenced by a VERY high 2D:4D ratio {that’s my hand in the photo above} and being very hypomasculine before HRT onset at age 18) and familiality (my father’s brother was gay), but was the first of four children and right handed (thus possibly influenced by the FBOE as being right handed and first born allows, but does not indicate it, while being several inches shorter than my brothers does indicate it).

Addendum 10/4/2023: We have a poster paper on the same topic.

Further Reading:

Nature vs. Nurture

Male Androphilia Runs in Both Father’s and Mother’s Families

Common Correlations in HSTS Transwomen and Gay Men

2D:4D Evidence Supports Two Type Taxonomy

Gay Men’s Hands Tell Us About Their Erotic Role

Why Are Homosexual Transsexuals Short?

Fraternal Birth Order Effect Applies To First Born Male Children Too

References:

Swift-Gallant, A., et al., “Evidence for Distinct Biodevelopmental Influences on Male Sexual Orientation, PNAS (2019) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809920116

Ray Blanchard PhD (2008) Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, Laterality, 13:1, 51-70, DOI: 10.1080/13576500701710432

Slabbekoorn D, van Goozen SH, Sanders G, Gooren LJ, Cohen-Kettenis PT. The dermatoglyphic characteristics of transsexuals: is there evidence for an organizing effect of sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2000 May;25(4):365-75. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(99)00063-3.

Valentova, J.V., Fořt, J., Freudenfeld, P. et al. Different Subgroups of Homosexuality: Great Ideas, Little Evidence, Promising Future. Arch Sex Behav 52, 3013–3018 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02548-z Research Gate Copy

Autogynephiles Are More Likely To Be Left Handed Than Homosexual Transsexuals

Most people are naturally right handed. The number of left handed people has been studied and shown to be a little more than 10% of the population. Interestingly men are more likely to be left handed than women by several percent.

It has been reported in the science literature for several decades that transsexuals, both FTM and MTF are more likely to be left handed than than the general population, not just more “non-right-handed” (meaning ambidextrous to some degree).

In the Orlebeke (1992) paper 19% of both MTF and FTM transsexuals were left handed compared to 11.2% of the general population of the Netherlands. Sadly, they did not report data on homosexual vs. non-homosexual. However, several other studies did.

Slabbekoorn et al. (2000) included only homosexual MTF transsexuals (HSTS) showing only 10.4% were left handed compared to 10.6% of the controls. Another study by Richard Green showed that only 10.8% of HSTS were left handed. Both studies show that HSTS have the same incidence of left handedness as the general population.

One of the reasons that HSTS do not show elevated left handedness is that only right handed people exhibit the Fraternal Birth Order Effect (FBOE) which many HSTS do.

I was intrigued so I conducted a poll on Twitter from 9/4/2023 until today, 9/6/23 asking “AGP” and “HSTS” self-identified MTF transsexuals to report their handedness, right, left, both. I hypothesized that I would see the same or similar numbers as the earlier studies for AGPs. I also predicted that some non-HSTS would misrepresent their sexuality, as is well known to happen and that the numbers for the HSTS group would be slightly higher than those reported by Slabbekoorn and Green.

Both AGPs and HSTSs reported similar numbers of “both” handedness, being less than 100% right handed, but very different amounts left handedness in agreement with the above studies and my hypothesis that a number of AGPs are misrepresenting their sexuality on Twitter. AGPs have higher incidence of left handedness than the general population, while HSTS do not.

Here is the poll result for the AGPs N=110:

• Right 62.7%
• Left 18.2%
• Both 19.1%

Here is the poll results for the “HSTS” (likely mixed with some AGPs) N=60:

• Right 68.3%
• Left 13.3%
• Both 18.3%

Thus, this is yet another bio-statistical difference between AGPs and HSTSs supporting the Two Type Taxonomy.

Further Reading:

Transsexuals misrepresenting their sexuality

Consilience of Evidence supporting the Two Type Taxonomy

References:

Orlebeke, J. F., Boomsma, D. I., Gooren, L. J. G., Verschoor, A. M., & Van Den Bree, M. J. M. (1992). Elevated sinistrality in transsexuals. Neuropsychology, 6(4), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.6.4.351

Slabbekoorn D, van Goozen SH, Sanders G, Gooren LJ, Cohen-Kettenis PT. The dermatoglyphic characteristics of transsexuals: is there evidence for an organizing effect of sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2000 May;25(4):365-75. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(99)00063-3.

Ray Blanchard PhD (2008) Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, Laterality, 13:1, 51-70, DOI: 10.1080/13576500701710432