Friday, November 27, 2020

Comments by ariarommie

Showing 4 of 4 comments.

  • Your response NiKKi, seems like the exact viewpoint that most mainstream people have towards experiences which are labeled as “psychosis” AKA hearing voices, extreme states, etc.

    IE:
    “Ohh thats great if some people can find meaning from them but for most people its a debilitating and terrible experience!!!”

    Also, Good Job on the rebuttal Au Valencia.

  • Also want to put this out there, that in transgender healthcare having a view that is similar to a biopsyc view might not be all bad or incorrect… well in relation to hormones that is.

    There is that discredited idea that psyc meds are like insulin for diabetics, which they are not.

    However, in transgender hormone care it is known what the average range of testosterone is for cismales and estrogen is for cisfemales. So unlike psyc meds but like insulin and blood sugar monitoring we know the ranges that hormones should typically fall into. Transgender people that choose to pursue hormone therapy generally have their blood taken and their hormone doses adjusted to fall in normal ranges that are typical for the gender in which they identify. Their hormone therapy is also typically prescribed and monitored by GP’s or endocrinologists not psychiatrists.

  • Yes, there are parallels between biopsych’s and some transgender peoples ideals. But it is easy to draw similarities between many things. For instance, I know many women who take bioindentical estrogen as they have had hysterectomies so they no longer produce their own and they just feel better with estrogen than without it. I could compare the similarities of this situation to alcoholics who feel better with alcohol than without, or to anyone who is chemically dependent. In both situations people take substances to feel better but their is radically different stigma levels between these similar situations and I don’t think these women would like their situation being conflated with the alcoholics situation.

    Some transgender people do think in similar ways to biopsycs which is not surprising since biopsycs have traditionally been gatekeepers for most of the treatment that transgender people seek. There has been some movement away from gatekeeping but its slow going as doctors are powerful and its hard to get people to give up or share their power. One of the criticisms I actually pointed out in my earlier comment was that Zucker’s research discounted transgender people as not being transgender if they did not want surgery. Transgender people who did not want surgical interventions did not fit Zuckers narrative of what a transgender person should be or want so their experiences were discounted and instead twisted to fit his view and research conclusions. There are lots of reasons that anyone may have for not wanting surgery, this includes transgender people too. Each persons situation is unique and some transgender people definitely do need surgery in order to feel congruent in their body and to resolve their gender dysphoria. One potential reason for not wanting surgery, is that if a person transitions early enough then they may not need surgery in order to blend in as they avoid the damage caused by a incongruent puberty and the resulting secondary sexual characteristics. Another potential reasons is that there are also people who do not identity on a gender binary or are content being more of a hybrid or androgynous in their gender expression or identity. Also, its true that hormones do help a lot of transgender people feel better and biodentical hormones are certainly way more natural and safer than the damaging substances that biopsycs peddle.

  • Just because brain based gender differences are indeed on a spectrum does not mean that brain based gender differences do not suddenly exist and as a result no longer influence behavior.

    People arguing the environmental influences of gender development are also not without bias. There is a ton of controversy surrounding Zucker and his research on gender dysphoria persistance. His research has been highly biased and he argues that most children eventually grow out of gender dysphoria(just a phase) which has been used by people in support of conversion therapy for transgender persons. One particular damning criticism of his research on gender dysphoria persistence in FTM persons is that if the person was unsure of wanting to have masculinzing surgery yet they considered themselves to male and wanted to be perceived as male they were NOT counted has having persistent gender dysphoria. Basically Zucker used biased operational definitions in order to produce the results he desired. According to Zuckers definition my ex boyfriend a FTM person would have not even counted as having gender dysphoria. Yet certain conservative groups continue to use his research statistics to justify arguments for torturing children in the form of conversion “therapy”. Google “leelah alcorn” if you would like to read about the harms of such an approach.

    This area of research is very relevant to transgender individuals in that numerous studies have shown that MTF persons have brain structures more closely resembling those of cisfemale controls and FTM persons have brain structures more closely resembling those of cismale controls. The current theory is that testosterone exposure has a masculinizing/defeminizing effect on the baby while it is developing in the womb and that the brain and genitals are effected by testosterone exposure(or lack of) during different trimesters.

    This article summarizes Swaabs research up to 2009 he has also done more research since then. His later research also supports that the masculinizing/defeminizing effecst of prenatal testosterone exposure creates a spectrum of changes in the brain.
    Swaab, D. F., & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1), 17-28