Gender? It's A Gray Area!

Talk about anything else: your pets, your car, movies, celebrities, or other things you like. As a reminder, political and religious discussions do not belong in here, nor any other topics that may incite a heated debate! As always keep it clean, please.

Moderators: KimberlyS, Celia

Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Gender? It's A Gray Area!

Post by Danielle La Belle »

Gender? It's A Gray Area.
'The Female Brain' Dissects Our Differences Above the Neck

By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 24, 2006; D01

SAUSALITO, Calif.
According to pop psychiatrist Louann Brizendine, author of the best-selling new book "The Female Brain," men and women come equipped with completely different operating systems -- not only below the belt but between the ears.
Like bath towels, there are his-and-her brains.
Or so Brizendine interprets the latest skull scanning: Woman is weather, "constantly changing and hard to predict." And man? Man is mountain. But maybe you knew that.
Brizendine insists this is a scientific fact. Males and females may perform similar calculations, but they use different "circuits." Woman is Mac. Man is PC. Blame the brain.
The female version excels at conflict resolution, deep friendship and mood reading. "These are talents women are born with that many men, frankly, are not," says Brizendine, who recently spent a morning at the kitchen table in her waterfront home, issuing similar sweeping observations about the neurological underpinnings of wicked-bad PMS, teen girl text-messaging, and the frisky later chapter of life known as "post-menopausal zest."
First of all, Brizendine says, our floor plans are different. She's got the bigger "worrywart center" (the anterior cingulated cortex), and so stress tends to wig her out, as "conflict registers more deeply in the areas of the female brain."
That more ripe prefrontal cortex of hers? Makes the ladies pacific and patient. Her hippocampus also runs a size larger. Meaning "she never forgets a fight, a romantic encounter or a tender moment -- and won't let you forget it, either," says Brizendine, founder of the Women's and Teen Girls' Mood & Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco.
Her bottom line? "There is no unisex brain," says Brizendine, and "it follows these two brain models can produce quite different behaviors." Such as: Average Woman sure talks a lot. Average Man does not. She obsesses on her sexual allure. He obsesses on sex. It's not our fault. Not only is the architecture of boy/girl brains different, but wait until the hormones do their work.
His brain is "marinated" (her favorite word) with testosterone, "the rocket fuel" of sex and aggression (and barbecue?). While her brain is a spinning Tilt-a-Whirl of estrogen and progesterone, and the new darling of the hormone world oxytocin, which you definitely want to check out, the hormone Brizendine describes as the "fluffy, purring kitty; cuddly, nurturing earth mother; the good witch Glinda in 'The Wizard of Oz.' "
For Brizendine, it's all about the juice.
"The female brain is so affected by hormones, they control her very perception of reality," says the doctor. "Her values, her desires, what's important to her, even whom she loves."
You buying this? There is some disagreement. The 53-year-old neuropsychiatrist, by way of Yale and Harvard, with the Tina Fey eyeglasses and her auburn hair back in a ponytail, has been offering her take on the female brain on the morning talk show circuit and is scheduled for an upcoming episode on ABC's "20/20." Her book cracked the Top 10 list at Amazon and is garnering generally favorable reviews -- and heat from her critics, who say Brizendine (pronounced BRIZ-en-dine) is guilty of hyping gender differences and misrepresenting the research.
In the pages of "The Female Brain," briskly selling as an owner's manual for women and a kind of cheat sheet for men, Brizendine promises to reveal the neurological explanations why:
· Men think about sex every 52 seconds, while a woman does only once a day.
· Women speak faster on average -- 250 words per minute vs. 125 for a typical male.
· A woman uses 20,000 words per day, while a man uses only 7,000.
· Boys don't listen to mommy (answer: because "he physically cannot hear the same tone of warning").
· And "a woman knows what people are feeling, while a man can't spot an emotion unless somebody cries or threatens bodily harm."
These are simply remarkable differences, and naturally they have been repeatedly cited in book reviews and news reports about "The Female Brain" and its claims.
She is a motor-mouthed empath with bat-like hearing? Or does it just seem that way, because men think about sex 69.2 times an hour?
Alas, we do not know if any of these factoids are true -- and they very well may not be.
Brizendine includes 58 pages of references and 19 pages of footnotes in her book, but when asked to produce the primary scientific studies that produced the numbers above, she could not.
"I have to say the pattern is very consistent. When you attempt to track down her sources for some of the more sensational claims, it is not satisfactory," says Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics and computer science at the University of Pennsylvania who has blogged on the language-use claims in Brizendine's book.
According to Liberman, most research concludes that men and women use an equal number of words in a day. Liberman also says that the study that Brizendine cites to show that women talk twice as fast as men "doesn't support this at all, and in fact I found other research that showed men speak slightly faster."
These claims, Liberman says, "simply violate common sense." Gender differences, outside of contests of physical strength, when they are found at all, are mostly only a matter of a statistical point or two. Rarely is one sex two or three times better or worse at anything -- except, well, giving birth. "It reminds me of the myth that Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow," Liberman says. "They don't. The various Eskimo languages and English have the same number."
In a follow-up e-mail exchange about her sources, Brizendine stated, for example, that she found the sex-on-the-brain figure in the work of John Bancroft, formerly head of the Kinsey Institute. But in the FAQ section of the Kinsey Institute Web site, it reports that 54 percent of men think about sex every day or several times a day, while 19 percent of women think about sex every day or several times a day -- or so they say. (These figures are included in 1994's "Sex in America: A Definitive Survey" from a University of Chicago research team.)
Sloppy or not, Brizendine is on to something. The last decade of science, especially the ability to scan the brain while it performs simple tasks (the human subjects lie in magnetic resonance imaging tubes), is providing evidence of gender differences in the architecture and activity of the noggin. But a lot of it is pretty subtle and the meanings still obscure.
"There does appear to be more than one brain design," agrees Richard Haier, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, whose own studies have shown that women possess, on average, a greater density of white matter, and men more gray matter (gray is the cell bodies of neurons; white is the stuff that connects them).
But it is equally interesting, Haier says, that male and female brains arrive at the same destination. IQ scores are essentially equal between the sexes. (Though in SATs, males consistently score slightly higher; some argue the tests are male-biased.)
Phrenologists at the turn of the last century, upon discovering that the average male brain is about 9 percent larger than the female (true -- and attributable to body size), shouted "Eureka!" and put the observation to work to justify little lady stereotypes about women. Post-1960s researchers tended to see men and women as neurologically identical, and any differences as culturally learned (hence the short-lived trend of giving boys dolls and girls trucks).
The pendulum is swinging again, and the "gender genre" is currently as hot as a flash in perimenopause, with "The Female Brain" sharing shelf space with other popular science books such as "The Mommy Brain" (eeeek, it shrinks! ), "The Essential Difference" (autism is an extreme form of maleness) and "Why Gender Matters" (immediately enroll your kid in a single-sex school). It is a contentious brew of biological determinism, stirring up bugaboos about gender "traits" and "strengths" that a feminist may say always end up conveniently relegating women to roles as nurturing caregiver (vs. Condoleezza Rice).
Look no further than last year's furor when Lawrence Summers, now former president of Harvard, suggested that the reason women do not occupy the top ranks of science and engineering has something to do with their brains. Brizendine says that Summers was actually right and wrong. Her take: When boys and girls enter their teens, their math and science abilities are equal. "But as estrogen floods the female brain," she says, "females start to focus intensely on their emotions and on communication." Talking on the phone, furious text-messaging, dressing-room confabbing. "At the same time, as testosterone takes over the male brain, boys grow less communicative and become obsessed about scoring -- in games, and in the back seat of the car. At the point when boys and girls begin deciding the trajectories of their careers, girls start to lose interest in pursuits that require more solitary work and fewer interactions with others, while boys can easily retreat alone to their rooms for hours of computer time." (Noted: Most science is done by teams of researchers.)
Brizendine says she was initially torn about highlighting the differences between male and female brains. Her politics are Bay Area liberal, and she's as politically correct as anyone.
"I thought, oh boy, this isn't going to be good for women," Brizendine says. "I struggled with it. I was very cognizant that some of these will be used against women. But I decided I would go with the data and the science. Because actually this is very good for women in pointing out their innate skill sets and strengths."
But some of her critics say that what Brizendine did was overstate the science. In part, it may be the style that Brizendine adopts when she speaks and writes. When science looks for differences, it finds them in the average male and average female -- meaning that if six in 10 women show an advantage in one area, so do four in 10 men. But this gets lost in the prose.
For example, according to Brizendine, "during puberty, a girl's entire biological raison d'etre is to become sexually desirable" and "they are almost exclusively interested in their appearance." The female brain, she writes, is "a machine . . . that is built for connection. That's the main job of the girl brain, and that's what it drives a female to do from birth."
Brizendine, in part, blames her publisher for requesting that she edit out her repeated use of the words "typical" and "average."
"These are stereotypes, and stereotypes die hard," says Janet Hyde, psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, whose own studies find that instead of vast differences between the sexes, males and females are more psychologically similar. Hyde reviewed 46 so-called meta-analyses that examined gender differences (across a wide swath of categories, such as math, reading, sexuality, happiness, assertiveness, etc.). Her study showed that "in most areas there are either no differences or very small differences," she says, with a few exceptions: Men are more physically aggressive, better at throwing; they masturbate more often, have more relaxed attitudes about casual sex. But Hyde prefers that science adopt a "gender similarities hypothesis" rather than search for differences.
Brizendine sees her point. "What we are finding is small differences in the male and female brain," she says. "But medical science tells us that small differences can have big outcomes." Think of cancer, she says; the slightest alteration of cells can have the most lethal consequences.
In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, the authors write: "Sex matters. Sex, that is, being male or female, is an important basic human variable that should be considered when designing and analyzing studies in all areas and at all levels of biomedical and health-related research."
This is going to be a bumpy ride.

Thought that this might stir the "proverbial pot" a little.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
User avatar
Lydia
We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Sarasota, Florida

Post by Lydia »

Hi Danielle,

It would take a mountain of text to properly respond to the polemic that you sent us. I won’t try to do it in detail - we would all be exhausted. In general it is typical of a news reporter’s attempt at explaining anything scientific. It is replete with cutsey-pie metaphors, pseudo-explanations, and unsupported extrapolations. It is a bit reminiscent of the best-seller “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” book by “Dr.” John Grey. Unfortunately, there are enough truths in all this to be split into half-truths, and thus sound erudite and believable.

Unquestionably, there are differences between men and women. On the fundamental level the differences are genetic. In fact the genetic differences between human males and human females are greater than the differences between the human and the chimpanzee species. But genes do not operate in a vacuum. The notion of the separation of Nature and Nurture is quite incorrect. The two phenomena are inextricably linked.

Similarly, the brain structure, development, and function is influenced at all stages by the physiology of the rest of the body - just as the operation of the endocrine system influences the development and function of the brain. To say that because the hippocampus in males differs in size from that of females, some behavioral characteristics are correspondingly different, is a gross oversimplification. According to this greatest authority, the “juice” controls the brain. The fact is (not a “factoid”) that hormonal secretions are also regulated by the nervous system by a set of interacting feedbacks.

Brizendine takes end products of behavior, i.e., thinking about sex, talking, word usage, etc., and correlates them with neurological variations that are developmentally, physiologically, and structurally only distantly related to the behaviors. There is a clear correlation between the height of the presidential candidate and his likelihood of winning: in the past 20 elections, the taller man won 19 times. A correlation alone is not evidence of a causal relationship.

In the latter part of the article, the reporter does express some skepticism, but he is too kind, and writes with the very same stereotypes that he criticizes.

If you must read such pseudo-science, approach it like you would the latest cop thriller or romance novel. Use copious quantities of salt.

Stirring the pot....

Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
User avatar
Jeannie
Miss Ruby Goddess
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: Connecticut

You brainiacs you two!

Post by Jeannie »

Whoa ladies! My head is spinning! There's a difference between men and women? Who knew! I knew it Lydia! Using a vacuum cleaner is genetic! I'd say more but I past my 150 word quota for the day! You're too much girls but I love it! Hugs you cuties! Don't ever stop!


Love
Jeannie


PS. I was listening to George W. Bush today and he stopped in mid sentence. He went by his 17 word limit!
Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Post by Danielle La Belle »

Gee, and I thought that everything in the Wasington Post was so taruueee!

I will go with Lydia to be on the safe side. A "letter to the editor" of the "Post" might be in order. I have read that "cowboys" used "buffalo chips" for their campfire. Perhaps the "Post" ran out of real firewood and decided to print some "chips" instead.

Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
User avatar
Jess(SO)
E-mail address not valid - Contact Admin
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:49 am
Location: North Yorkshire, England

Post by Jess(SO) »

jeannie you're back where u been girl was gonna post a has anybody seen Jeannie post.

Jess
* * Email address not current as of 08-29-2009. Please contact SilverLady(SO) immediately! See http://crossdressers-forum.com/forums/v ... php?t=9237 for further information. Thank You!! * *
User avatar
Lydia
We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Sarasota, Florida

Post by Lydia »

Welcome back Jeannie!

You are absolutely right. At any given moment in the time-space continuum, how many people using a vacuum cleaner are male and how many are female. I'd guess that the male/female ratio is about 1/1000, proving without a shadow of a doubt that there is an anti-vacuum cleaning gene on the Y-chromosome.

QED

Keep up the good science, Jeannie.

Hugs,

Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
User avatar
Virginia
Goddess of the Universe
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Strange Magic Hill

Post by Virginia »

Well being a neurological scientist which years of experience behind me -NOT [-X
I will say this about that! The final statement says something about how one altered gene/cell can erupt into cancer. Well can not what might be considered by some? many? a few? a "birth defect" lead to crossdressing?
I mean look at me and all my sisters here and else where - we can't all be "wrong." On the crossdressing continuum we cover a wide spectrum of, if you will, "participation" in this (its only me) Gift!!! We can go from the proverbial "guy in a dress," to those who say they actually experience, for lack of a better term, "girly" attitudes, emotions, feelings, insights, experiences, etc. to those who sucumb to their "born in the wrong body" and change to the right body, with of course the help of modern medical technology and psychatric intervention.
When you delve into the relhm of quantum physics and quantum mechanics and science is just at the tip of the ice berg in understanding much of anything about the human brain. It is given that -what? we actually use about 10% +/- of our actually ability so the things that we are or will learn to be capable of is even now beyond our comprehension. So who is to say that "we" = crossdressers can not exist! or to quote my wife's esteemed attorney we are "insane perverts!"
I have said it over and over and I will continue to say it maybe even in my last breath, I am Virginia, she is me, I feel her, I sense her and I love her and she loves me and together we will continue to share and enjoy our "Magical Mystery Tour." I can only hope that many if not all my sisters find the joy and happiness in life that the label "crossdressser" has, is and will bring to me!
Love you all,
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
User avatar
Lydia
We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Sarasota, Florida

Post by Lydia »

Hi Virginia,

I think you've put a well-manicured finger on the crux of the situation. The bare existence of this "spectrum" of "crossdressing behavior" is informative. The breadth and variation of this spectrum would make the possible genetic basis very unlikely. There are such one-to-one conditions such as blue eyes vs. brown eyes, where a single gene is clearly responsible. The majority of genetic effects, however, are not so clear cut. A single gene may have multiple effects in widely disparate structures or functions. On the other hand, almost any single characteristic is the result of the interaction of many genes. Add to this the continuous effects of the environment on the development of the organism, and the overall phenomenon becomes mind boggling.

I plead only a passing education in the homosexual condition, but it seems to me that being gay does not have the broad spectrum of variation that exists in crossdressing. Consequently, the recently claimed genetic basis for being gay is logical and believable, although some aspects need to be clarified. The crossdressing spectrum, however, is more likely a condition formed in early development.

Forgive the long pedantic post - old professorial habits die hard.

Hugs,

Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Post by Danielle La Belle »

Hi Girls:

Science per se brings to bear, qualitative and quantitative measurement. Behind this there lies a 3rd factor, the "social-emotional" factor. The article certainly does play a great deal on the 3rd factor.

We can form an argument of justification for our existence as we see ourselves. It is by and large, developed by using the 3rd factor. The first two, qualitative and quantitative are best left to those that practice the fine art of scientific investigation.

I would prefer to think that I am that I am rather than some form of mutant development or “mistake” of nature. When we examine the role of DNA, there is opportunity to implement many theories that may have some truth to them. We are just not sure at this time, what that “truth” might be.

The article of course was intended to “stir the pot” of social unrest among the populist thinkers that support both positions with equal vigor. “For and against” is a tradition with those that follow academic debate. To favor or oppose the concept of DNA altercation is still today, predominately, social-emotional. More pop science than concentrated, [Q] and [Q] research.

Since there is such diversity in the TG community, I am going to say that some may be DNA, while clearly, others are social-emotional. The social-emotional group covers a great deal of ground, including psychological and behavioral attributes.

There are many here that demonstrate with some vigor, testosterone supported exclamations of their views. Clearly, their chemistry is supporting some very strong male attributes. I know that mine does.

Never the less, the “Post” article, unto itself serves a genuine purpose. It keeps our “cause” alive and in public debate. Those things that were debated as such 100 years ago, have now been incorporated into our culture. All of the obvious “woman” issues such as the right to vote, work and dress as desired, were at one time, topics of social commentary rather than an actuality. Time and public discussion not unlike the Greeks of their day, presents opportunity for the adoption of such topics into the day-to-day living of the general populace.

Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Gender Pac Release

Post by Danielle La Belle »

National Latino Congress Passes Gender Identity Resolution
WASHINGTON (September 25, 2006) - Earlier this month, the National Latino Congreso passed a resolution calling for equal rights and civil rights protections for all Latinos - regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. The Congreso convened Latino leaders, organizations, and elected officials for the first national Latino meeting since 1977 and it focused on creating a long-term national Latino agenda and mobilizing the Latino community.
Said Riki Wilchins, Executive Director of the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, “Pressures to conform to expectations for masculinity and femininity – and in the Latina/o community to stereotypes for ‘machismo’ and ‘madonna’ – are a painful right of passage for many youth. It is especially welcome for a national Latino group to take this strong public stance, and help people recognize the connection between gender and ethnicity.”
The ground-breaking resolution calls for national, state and local legislation that protect Latinos from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. (Gender identity is an inner sense of being male or female.)
It asserts that all Latinas and Latinos – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – should have the right to marry, adopt, and serve in the military. It is believed to be the first resolution of its kind adopted by a national Latino/a or Hispanic organization.
“The overwhelming support shown at the Congreso for this resolution simply demonstrates what we already know – that Latinos put familia above all else. The resolution’s passage is a public abrazo [embrace] and acknowledgement that LGBT Latinos are part of that familia and deserving of respect,” said Laura Esquivel, a voting delegate at the Congreso.
________________________________________
The Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GenderPAC) is a human rights organization working to ensure that classrooms, communities and workplaces are safe places for everyone to learn, grown and succeed.

:) :) :)

Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
User avatar
CJ
Miss Diamond Goddess
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Post by CJ »

Hi all,

My two cent's worth (as a person unschooled in the fine art of science) will sound very much like Ludwig Wittgenstein's ultimate conclusion: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I hear people ceasely expressing scientific opinions and interpreting data who, in reality, haven't the means nor training that would allow them to speak with any authority on a given matter. It's like people voting, say, Republican, "because that's how my daddy voted." They don't take the time to inform themselves regarding social issues and political causes, preferring instead to align themselves with whatever position already suits their beliefs or temperaments.

Same goes with science. We have, on one end of the spectrum, the more or less Darwinistic biological determinists ("it's a genetic or neurophysiological thing and we'll find it soon"). Ms. Brizendine would feel comfortable in this group. On the other end, we have the social relativists ("behavioural differences between the sexes are socially constructed and we can fix that").

Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't know. And, frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn. I just go by what my own experience, both as a person and as a people-watcher and -lover, tells me: there is no mold. I know enough "masculine" women and "feminine" men (as well as enough feminine women and masculine men, of course) to render the point beyond moot. Moot, because whether or not I know that my behaviour towards others is genetically structured or socially programmed does not free me from the obligation to be responsible for my own behaviour. Yes, testosterone flows through my body; this gives me no license to rape and pillage. Yes, I played with Tonka trucks and G.I. Joes when I was a kid; this gives me no license to smash and battle my way through life.

This trend (the seeking of biologically deterministic or socially relativistic explanations for our beings and behaviours) removes personal responsibility from the equation. I don't like it one bit because we're led to believe that most answers to our questions or solutions to our "problems" lay out there, somewhere, in the world, rather than within us. Of course, in a world such as ours, where everybody and his great-grandmother thinks they're entitled to this or that or the other thing, that's par for the course.

Again, we come to the Buddha's parable of the poison arrow. If we've been shot with a poison arrow, it makes little sense to ask a million questions about the arrow before deciding to remove it. Just take the damned thing out! I will not ask a million questions; I'm neither a geneticist nor a social psychologist. Whereof I cannot speak, thereof I will remain silent.

Love,
CJ
Image
Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Post by Danielle La Belle »

Hi CJ:

Confucius say: "Man so foolish as to remove foreign object from chest, bleeds to death on boat. Better that he waits for professional help". Ouch!

"Life is short, except when you are in pain!"

:) :) :)

Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
User avatar
Lydia
We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Sarasota, Florida

Post by Lydia »

Hi CJ,

Your two cents is worth at least a dollar - maybe even a Canadian dollar.

I agree completely and vehemently:
Same goes with science. We have, on one end of the spectrum, the more or less Darwinistic biological determinists ("it's a genetic or neurophysiological thing and we'll find it soon"). Ms. Brizendine would feel comfortable in this group. On the other end, we have the social relativists ("behavioural differences between the sexes are socially constructed and we can fix that").
This is a false dichotomy and is the hoary Nature vs Nurture argument. The human organism is not simply a bag of DNA, nor is it a complete tabula rasa on which all experiences are written. The creature develops with a complex interaction of a multitude of controlling or influencing factors. Unfortunately the simplistic Aristotelian approach is easier for the average mind to deal with.

Danielle -- you really opened a can of worms here - but that's what makes life interesting.

Hugs,

Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
User avatar
DonnaT
Miss Great Goddess
Posts: 8222
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: No. Virginia

Post by DonnaT »

I lttle bit of a post I made on another forum:

There have been a number (too few) of genetic studies to back up the idea that genetics and hormones (testosterone, oestrogen, androgen, etc.) influence our gender identity, sexual orientation and/or both.

Take the affect of androgen on a fetus having XY chromosomes. Normally, a baby boy will be developed. However there are a number of XY women looking for all intents and purposes, as female as any XX female, who have, for example, CAIS, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Most have female a gender identity and many have no idea that they have CAIS.

One would think that since they are XY, they would have a male identity, but studies have shown that they have a female gender identity.

http://www.chicagogender.com/Articles/2 ... 4&gallery_ id=86033

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

Thus, it appears that the androgen receptor may also play a role in gender identity. Wiring the brain to be female.

Of course one could easily argue that these XY women were raised (nurtured) female. However, CAIS is only one form of being intersexed based on the androgen receptor. And there are a number of intersexed individuals who have been raise as one gender and identify as another gender, as has been demonstrated by intersexed individuals on other forums.
DonnaT
Danielle La Belle
Account Deactivated at Member's Request
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
Location: SC

Post by Danielle La Belle »

Hi Girls:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tabula%20rasa

With years of reading and a multitude of crossword puzzles behind me, I just had to look this one up from Lydia. "tabula rasa," as I for some reason suspected "blank slate," I found the link provided additional information for my education.

:) :) :)

Thank you Donna for those links. I went to each and can say that I am better informed because of it.... :) :) :)


Hugs

Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
Post Reply