What do you think about this research?

[Shellianne_Kay83]

I just found this. 

 

I hope it wasn't published or discussed yet or it it had been I beg you to redirect me to the post in the forum. 

 

It it's not- share your thoughts about it!

Biological sex classification with structural MRI data shows increased misclassification in transgender women (1).pdf

[Carolyn Marie]

Shellianne, I'm not knowledgeable enough in biochemistry to know whether this is a valid study, but it's certainly interesting and has a conclusion that I am happy with.  I wonder if it's been peer reviewed yet?   I'll keep a link to it for future reference.  Thanks for posting it.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Shellianne_Kay83]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:18 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

Shellianne, I'm not knowledgeable enough in biochemistry to know whether this is a valid study, but it's certainly interesting and has a conclusion that I am happy with.  I wonder if it's been peer reviewed yet?   I'll keep a link to it for future reference.  Thanks for posting it.

 

Carolyn Marie

You are welcome! 

I don't know how to check if it's reviewed. That's why I share it here so if someone can say something about it, I would be glad to hear from them. 

[Guest]

I'll have to read this some other time...but the first sentence in the Introduction makes me kinda leary: "Being transgender describes the stable feeling of belonging to the opposite sex rather than the biological sex assigned at birth..."

...That's inaccurate. 🫤

"Being transgender describes the stable feeling of NOT belonging to the biological sex assigned at birth." would be a more accurate description, seeing as one can also be nonbinary, gender fluid, a-gender, bi-gender, etc. etc. 🙃

[KathyLauren]

The article bears the brand of Springer-Nature.  They are one of the top-rated scientific publishers in the world.  Among other publications, they publish Nature, which is regarded as the top scientific periodical in the world.  So I would guess that it is a valid study, and was properly peer-reviewed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Nature

[Mary]

It was published in a reputable journal, so it was peer reviewed. However, the N for transwomen was small, possibly affecting the results. Interestingly, they themselves point to this possible problem.

 

Very interestingly, and strongly supporting a lot of previous data, they found a distinct difference between Transwomen and Cismen or ciswomen, underscoring the point that gender perception is a real, physico-chemically based phenomenon. This must be disappointing to certain politicians.

 

What it does not say, is that any one group is better than any other group in any way - only different. The techniques used, i.e MRI scanning, although a marvel of modern science, cannot tell us anything about the quality of the connections in that bit of brain, nor how it interfaces with other bits of brain. It also gives Debra Soh, in her book "the end of gender" the smack it deserves (it is a rant, self contradictory, where she tries to make a meal of having some neuroscience training - a good one to avoid!)

 

So the take away message is that it confirms previous findings that transwomen are physically different from either cismen or ciswomen. Hormonal treatment makes a change, but does not bring the changes completely in line with their cis-colleagues. Gender is not a choice. And there was no distinction made between the age of onset of the dysphoria, driving, yet again, a nail into the coffin of "autogynephylia".

 

So I like it!

[Zelaire]

Thanks so much for sharing this!

[Shellianne_Kay83]

You are all welcome!!!