> There are also plenty of studies showing the opposite, as well as studies showing trans people being, on average, somewhere in between the male and female averages (on the specific area of the brain observed - generally different in each study!). The fact is, we just don't know.
That should have been sex-atypical differences, which would accommodate for the "in-between" studies.
Taken as a whole, the science is pretty clear, when looking at various parts of the brain, patients with gender dysphoria (both prior and after treatment) show differences from cisgender controls, and typically, those differences align with those of their identified gender.
> And that's why GLAAD's definition is good. Trans people deserve respect and fair treatment regardless of what causes some people to be trans and others not to be trans.
These two don't follow each other. Of course transgender people deserve respect and fair treatment, like all people. I just think we have to be careful when we conflate gender variance with gender dysphoria - one is a very evolving cultural concept, the other is a major contributor to suicide in transgender individuals.
After dating a transwoman, I came away with the strong opinion about what being transgender is from a biological/psychological point of view.
What I learned was - it boils down to is a missmatch between the software, and the wetware - the thing is, many people have this, many who are successful and happy in the body they have - but there are some, a minority of those afflicted who simply cannot deal with that missmatch - I don't know why they can't (up bringing, inability to extend beyond classic gender identity, something biological, not really sure) - but whatever the cause, they can't, and those are the folks that generally end up identifying as transgender, and going thru the process of transition to remove the discongruity between the hardware and software.
I don't (well try not to, I'm only human) place a value judgement on it, its about finding your own happy place where you can flower into a good person.
Yes, there are several studies showing no differences in various task-based studies. There is also at least 1 MRI study I am aware of that didn't find sex-atypical differences, but did find a difference between the subjects and the cisgender controls.
However, and I repeat myself, as a whole - we now at around 30-40 studies most of which fall on the side of there being neurological differences in subjects with gender dysphoria. And in a few key areas we have replication of these findings too.
When you couple this together with long term treatment studies a picture starts to emerge - one of gender dysphoria being an intersex condition which response to hormone therapy and gender confirmation surgery. And most psychologists and endocrinologists now accept that when you take this approach, it is the most successful in producing happy and healthy patients.
The treatments do not depend on the cause being an intersex condition or a brain syndrome. Modern medical support for trans people helps them far better than anything we had before, but not because it is tied intrinsically to any theory of what causes one to be trans. Instead, the treatment makes sense for someone that feels as their physical form is inappropriate - it helps change that. It doesn't matter why they feel that way.
The danger, as I see it, with your approach is that you predicate society's view of trans people on medical grounds. Being trans is a medical condition, from your perspective. Of course, being trans can be medically relevant, but we aren't talking about that here - we are talking about how society should treat them. For that, the cause is simply irrelevant, and tying it to scientific findings is risky as we don't know what science will find.
And its not uncommon in the trans community to tie "biological causes" with "more valid and real." Ultimately I bet gender dysphoria is indeed a biological issue, but it seems presumptuous to think the science is completely settled on it.
The problem is that not everyone who is gender dysphoric can transition. That might be a shock to bi-coastal progressives, but for a large chunk of people, stuff like cross dressing might be the only way to deal with it (very, very secretly for people assigned male at birth).
"These two don't follow each other. Of course transgender people deserve respect and fair treatment, like all people. I just think we have to be careful when we conflate gender variance with gender dysphoria - one is a very evolving cultural concept, the other is a major contributor to suicide in transgender individuals."
Why can't crossdressers be considered gender dysphoric? It may simply be the way that some people deal with their biological gender dysphoria. Ugh, stupid trans community politics and shit. Yay lets all argue about terminology!
That should have been sex-atypical differences, which would accommodate for the "in-between" studies.
Taken as a whole, the science is pretty clear, when looking at various parts of the brain, patients with gender dysphoria (both prior and after treatment) show differences from cisgender controls, and typically, those differences align with those of their identified gender.
> And that's why GLAAD's definition is good. Trans people deserve respect and fair treatment regardless of what causes some people to be trans and others not to be trans.
These two don't follow each other. Of course transgender people deserve respect and fair treatment, like all people. I just think we have to be careful when we conflate gender variance with gender dysphoria - one is a very evolving cultural concept, the other is a major contributor to suicide in transgender individuals.