Gender

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I got Young and Alexander's The Chemistry Between Us from the library. Dick Swaab has a lab that maintains the Netherlands Brain Bank founded in 1985. Here's something from pages 30-31:

Swaab has also found the transgender brain. After years of searching his lab discovered differences in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)....When Swaab's lab looked at the BNSTs of male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals, and at those of male-to-female transsexuals, it found that the transgender BNST was the same size as the BNST of women.

This seems to be confirmed by the Wikipedia article on "causes of transsexualism" although other causes are also mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism

---

That's very interesting. Though I think I'd rather a book confirm a Wikipedia article than be confirmed by one. :)

So, different sizes. Which is bigger, and how does the size of this structure affect our perception of our gender? Especially to the point where someone can feel so trapped in the wrong body that they feel the need to undergo a (I assume, traumatic) total body transformation to try to bring their "actual" self in line with their perception of self.

I'm kind of still trying to wrap my head around "Netherlands Brain Bank" also. I suppose it's too much to hope for that they've tried to connect all the brains and restart them. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Since I read your post this morning, I have been thinking of the subject of gender identity as analogous to sexual preference (these are two very different matters, I know.) However, in the broadest sense, there are 4 types of sexual attractions: you are attracted to men, to women, to both, to neither. So why can't gender self-identification work in the same way (again, in the broadest sense). That is, I find nothing wrong with those who ascribe to male or female traits - the grand archetype of what it means to be a man and a woman (as antiquated and artificially constructed as it may be). But I can fully acknowledge that some self identify as both or neither.

---

Not bad, I could get behind that. It's unfortunate that most people don't think that way though. Maybe they will after a few more generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

That's very interesting. Though I think I'd rather a book confirm a Wikipedia article than be confirmed by one. :)

So, different sizes. Which is bigger, and how does the size of this structure affect our perception of our gender? Especially to the point where someone can feel so trapped in the wrong body that they feel the need to undergo a (I assume, traumatic) total body transformation to try to bring their "actual" self in line with their perception of self.

I'm kind of still trying to wrap my head around "Netherlands Brain Bank" also. I suppose it's too much to hope for that they've tried to connect all the brains and restart them. :devil:

---

The Netherlands Brain Bank is a collection of brains from dead people to be used for experimentation.

I started re-reading The Chemistry Between Us keeping gender identity in mind. It seems that the views Darcy88 originally presented were standard up until about 1997 when John Money's research on Bruce-Brenda-David Reimer was discredited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

There was earlier evidence from 5-alpha-reductase deficient children, presented between 1974 and 1979, that also discredited Money's research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha...ase_deficiency

If you think about it, if prairie voles have gender identity and even pair-bonding similar to humans without cultural construction, there must be some non-cultural ground for this. To find this in the brain should not be surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

To use the word "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen and progesterone, and the amount of each hormone varies depending on the individual you're looking at. What's more, out of all of the hormones in the human body, the variation in three hormones seems pretty minor to me.

Also, you can tell how important something is to a system by messing with it. If you inhibit or assist testosterone, progesterone or estrogen in a man or woman the affects on the individual's personality aren't extraordinarily pronounced. On the other hand if you mess with a person's frontal cortex, even if their cognative ability remains intact their personality often changes dramatically. I'm used to dealing with people (even on litnet) who say things like "women are different from us because they don't have testosterone [sic]," while completely ignoring the role of the vastly complex human brain, which varies from person to person regardless of biological sex in unimaginable ways. Taking this into consideration, how could sex be the overriding influence in determining personality (as it's often considered)?



If the question is something specifically regarding gender, like "how does gender within a social context influence one's mental health," then obviously you'd have to acknowledge gender to have this discussion, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position.

---

Those three hormones are highly potent potent chemicals, both endogenously and exogenously. It's why we're concerned about giving hormones to food animals, and the use of estrogen analogs in other drugs. They function in a system which relies on balance, and have the ability to disrupt whole body systems and interact with the neurotransmitters that control brain function. The brain only functions as well as its neurotransmitter hormones, and they are not independent of the sex hormones. Do you have experience with oral contraceptives? I have never met a single female who has not experienced significant emotional, call them personality, changes when dealing with the pill.

Underestimating the influence of the sex hormones on emotion and personality is akin to suggesting that serotonin and dopamine aren' t heavily involved with happiness, depression, or anxiety.

I think sex must be a (A, not THE) determining factor for "personality" because of how the whole system develops. The prenatal hormone profiles of the developing XX and XY conceptus are very different, given that the structures form in a sort of template and are then mutated by the presence of certain and different hormones. For example, Anti-Mullerian hormone is produced in the XY conceptus but not the XX conceptus to ensure that reproductive development occurs in a particular way. I think its possible that the presence of this hormone could somehow influence/ interact with other hormones within the axis resulting in "personality traits" such as gender association. I don't know exactly when neurotransmitters start to function prenatally but I would think interaction is likely.

I guess what I think is that gender/personality/affiliation is the result of prenatal hormone patterns and interactions, and variations within those. So sex is not the determining factor, but is closely associated because of the hormones associated with sex.

I wonder if part of the difficulty with this issue is that we are trying to determine what causes our behavior - and even to admit a physical basis for our behavior implies a deterministic viewpoint.

Another difficulty, which the above post illustrates, are the boundaries between 'emotion', 'behavior', and 'personality'. I don't think it is appropriate to say they are all the same, but then, how are they different?

I need to gather my thoughts, but anyhoo, this is a fascinating thread, and I wish I'd joined in earlier.

I've had an idea: what if gender is essential for some people but not for others?

Take me for instance. I'm a heterosexual male, yet I'm slightly gender-atypical; but most significantly, I've never thought to myself, I'm really glad I'm a guy, or, I'm glad I'm not a girl. My maleness does not factor into my self-identification. In fact, if I imagine myself as the same person, living in a female body, I don't have any reaction one way or another; I suspect I could live with it, apart from the difficulties of having to live as a homosexual due to my desire for women. This has made me suspicious of those who claim gender is an essential construct; I just can't relate to that idea.

But not too long ago, I met a woman who worked as a performer at Disneyland. In one of her costumed roles, she had to act slightly aggressive; her character was a male one. But sometimes, she got to wear a Minnie mouse costume. At those times, she said, she felt not just comfortable, but relieved to be a woman again, declaring that she loved the feeling of twirling her skirt and generally acting coquettish. So for her, perhaps, gender is an essential part of personality. Since she was completely costumed, she could have felt no external pressures to 'act female'; her desire to do so, therefore, must have been completely endogenous.

Is it not then a possibility that gender exists for some and not for others? I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

I've had an idea: what if gender is essential for some people but not for others?

Take me for instance. I'm a heterosexual male, yet I'm slightly gender-atypical; but most significantly, I've never thought to myself, I'm really glad I'm a guy, or, I'm glad I'm not a girl. My maleness does not factor into my self-identification. In fact, if I imagine myself as the same person, living in a female body, I don't have any reaction one way or another; I suspect I could live with it, apart from the difficulties of having to live as a homosexual due to my desire for women. This has made me suspicious of those who claim gender is an essential construct; I just can't relate to that idea.

But not too long ago, I met a woman who worked as a performer at Disneyland. In one of her costumed roles, she had to act slightly aggressive; her character was a male one. But sometimes, she got to wear a Minnie mouse costume. At those times, she said, she felt not just comfortable, but relieved to be a woman again, declaring that she loved the feeling of twirling her skirt and generally acting coquettish. So for her, perhaps, gender is an essential part of personality. Since she was completely costumed, she could have felt no external pressures to 'act female'; her desire to do so, therefore, must have been completely endogenous.

Is it not then a possibility that gender exists for some and not for others? I'd love to hear what you guys think.

---

I can relate to what you're saying here. The whole idea of gender as a static psychological and behavioural reality makes little sense to me. Occasionally I indulge in a little testosterone-induced hyper-masculinity, but usually I'm more androgynous than anything. I've been called both "really manly" and a "sissy" numerous times. I understand and support transgendered people, but in my own personal life it seems that what makes me a man is nothing more than my anatomy and my clothing. If I were to list the nouns which apply to me in order of significance "man" would not be near the top. I only feel deeply the fact of my gender before and during sex, or in the extremely rare occasions when I'm called upon to physically protect someone who is weak.

That said, I am very much proud and appreciative of being a man, even if this pride and appreciation only arises in the midst of the physicality of sex or violence.