Identical twins start off with the same brains. The question is whether after they undergo different life experiences which affect them emotionally and psychologically their brains remain the same.
The point of twin studies is to determine whether differences in psychology are the result of differences in brains that are present at birth, or whether they’re the result of environmental factors that come later; for this purpose identical twins are a good test. But what we’re discussing is whether you can look at the brains of (groups of) people who already have different psychological characteristics and assume that if you find differences in their brains that these differences must have always been present, and are thus likely the cause of the psychological differences. I’m suggesting that they may be the result of the psychological differences.
A great many pugilists have broken noses and cauliflower ears. Could a study be done to determine if these injuries caused their profession, or their profession caused these injuries?
If you think science can’t manage that kind of cause-and-effect studies, you don’t give science enough credit.
Again, look at my cite: best current available evidences shows that differences in sexual orientation are due to both genetic factors (ie., pre-existing differences in brains) and life experiences (i.e., differences in brains resulting from differences in life experiences):
*In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. *
Let me try to summarize:
Is sexual orientation 100% genetic? A: So far as I understand it, no. Identical twins, with 100% identical genetics, can have different sexual orientations. Differences can be attributed, in large part, to different life experiences.
Is sexual orientation 0% genetic? A: So far as I understand it, no. Twin studies show there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.
Do all people with the same “pre-existing brain differences” have the same sexual orientation? A: So far as I understand it, no. Identical twins with similar life experiences (and therefore presumably similar brain structures) can have different sexual orientations.
I’m not sure what question you’re asking that can’t be answered by the twin study, so presumably I’m missing something.
And what do you feel is the import of this possibility you suggest, specifically in regards to a) the therapeutic protocol to be followed for persons with gender dysphoria, and b) protection of the civil rights of transgendered people (their inclusion as a protected class)? Unless you also suggest that a definitive answer to your question would dictate substantive changes to the medical or societal responses to the fact of transgendered people, I don’t see that your quibble is at all meaningful outside of a very narrow critique of the particular phrasing of an otherwise legitimate argument.
IOW, you are probably correct in saying that similarities and differences in selected brains fails to adequately explain transgenderism. But I don’t think that says anything at all about the social or medical legitimacy of transgenderism or invalidates in any way the argument that real medical harm is done to individuals and real ethical wrong is done in any society which denies that legitimacy.
You seem to be coming up with a new approach each time you post. What you’re saying here seems to be conflating sexual orientation with gender identity. These are very different things. In this thread, we’re discussing gender identity. Your latest post and the studies you referenced were about sexual orientation.
I am not aware of any twins studies on gender identity and didn’t see any in the article I was referring to which Una linked (and apparently wrote).
I think I agree with all this (unless there’s some nuance I’m missing).
When I made that specific point (i.e. my first question in Post #308) I did not intend any relevance other than that someone made an assertion in this thread that A implies B and I questioned that logic.
I think the point that is being made is that some of the observed physical differences are the result of nurture not nature so physical differences in the brain are not very good evidence of a physical basis for transgenderism. If its all nurture, then the argument becomes different.
If there was a twin study where twins separated at birth tend to have gender identity issues together, then that would probably address his concerns. I thought I saw a link to some twin studies that showed a link between gender identity issues between twins separated at birth but the numbers were so low it could have been a fluke (I think it was one case but considering how rare transgenderism is, even one case seems like quite a coincidence)
I’m sure it still happens but I remember a family moving out of the neighborhood when their son came out of the closet. I remember another older boy running away from home after he was came out and got a really bad reaction from his parents. But that was the 1970’s. I can’t imagine anyone I know kicking out their child for being homosexual in today’s day and age. I’m sure it still happens but I think things are different now.
To be totally honest, I think that I would be mildly disappointed if my son told me he was gay but I would probably be more disappointed if he couldn’t have kids. If he told me he was gay and he planned on having kids, a lot would depend on who he ends up marrying, I think I would be much more critical of his husband than I would be of his wife. I don’t know if I could help myself.
If he told me he was transgender, I don’t think I would be so sanguine. I haven’t really thought about how I would react but ISTM that transgenderism is not something that would catch a parent by surprise.
I think F-P has sufficiently explained the point (s)he intended to make, so I’ll respond to your expansion as a separate discussion.
First, I think the brain differences aren’t the only or even the most compelling evidence of a physical basis. I’m neither a physician nor an expert on the subject, but Una’s citation has plenty of references which document physical bases for gender identities which differ (or appear to differ) from the ‘birth’ gender of individuals. So, I think it’s clearly not proper to say that in general there are no physical bases for transgenderism, and it’s more likely than not always a mixture of “nature” and “nurture” (i.e. congenital or contracted physical characteristics and life experiences).
Second, if we take as a given that some physical differences were imposed from outside the individual rather than being present at birth or generated by internal biological causes, does this really change anything other than possibly expanding the options available to individuals in some cases? Should this change the way we (the general, majority cisgendered “we”) feel about transgendered folks?
We need to guaranty the right to choose to be transgender, and thereby guarantying the right to be transgender. The guaranty should never be based on the reason. Even if it is all nurture, the argument is exactly the same.
It’s a mistake of conflate “people choose to be transgender” with “transgender is based on nurture”. Nurture is not a choice, for the most part. And there’s a big difference in the extent to which society needs to accommodate people who voluntarily choose to do (or be) things as compared to things that are the result of involuntary circumstances, whether nature or nurture.
[FWIW, I wouldn’t be surprised if nurture played some role in a person being transgender - as it generally does in other parts of people’s psychological makeup - but I would be very surprised if transgender orientation is impacted by choice.]
If those differences are not from birth and are the result of other things, the easy arguments are not there any more. It gets more complicated and trying to explain those arguments gets tougher. People aren’t going to agree with you just because they don’t understand enough to really say you’re wrong.
That’s YOUR opinion but the argument is different when you are talking about societal accommodations for your choice versus societal accommodation for your condition at birth.
If I am not handicapped but I just like riding around in a wheelchair, I cannot demand that society change its rules and laws to accommodate my preference if there are not actually any people that need to use wheelchairs.
Yabbut, that’s because wheelchair accommodation actually imposes substantial costs and burdens on society (building accessibility, etc.).
What significant burdens are imposed by accepting that people can identify as a gender different from one they’re assigned at birth? Especially now that we’ve got marriage equality so the government doesn’t need to worry about ensuring any particular combination of spousal genders?
AFAICT, transgender rights don’t impose any more in the way of a governmental burden than, say, allowing legal name changes. And we let people do that all the time. Even outside of the widespread name changes traditionally associated with marriage, we still accept that dealing with the inconvenience of an occasional individual deciding, for whatever reason, that they want to be identified in a way different from the identification that was initially assigned to them is just part of the overhead of individual freedoms.
I don’t think it’s any tougher to do that than to explain different forms of growth abnormalities. Some are ‘from birth’ and some occur due to trauma. Fotheringay-Phipps just explained the difference between “nurture” and “choice” in a short paragraph. (And F-P isn’t one to shun prolific verbiage.)
People have always been hard to persuade out of their prejudices. It’s not arguments that typically persuade them otherwise, it’s being confronted with reality close to home that does it. Arguments just serve to point people’s perspectives in a general direction. Some choose to look where you’re pointing and some don’t, but you’ve made them aware the issue can be seen from some other viewpoint.
In post #320 you indicated that you were just using sexual orientation “as a proxy for brain scans”. In post #323 you switched to viewing sexual orientation itself as the question at hand.
I’m not saying you’re using different terms in your posts here. I’m saying the discussion here has been about gender identity, so purporting to address this by citing studies of sexual orientation misses the boat (in addition to being confusing).
So, something along the lines of: “over here you said x=y, but in this line you solved for x instead of solving for y”?
Or, I think sexual orientation is probably also a good proxy for gender identification. So, maybe I think: a) if sexual orientation as a genetic underpinning, then b) there are probably physical differences associated with sexual orientation, and c) gender identification probably also has a genetic component.