watch the documentaries on transexuals. most come from very good loving homes and begin to feel like they are in the wrong body from a very early age. what do you say for the ones who come from perfectly healthy homes and have very good lives? who stop suffering and begin to flourish once they begin to transition?

__________________
GO CUBS

Psych Majors are JUNG and HORNEY

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

Alright, slow down. You're going to insist on that I've been abused now? Basically, my arguments are moot because you have somehow decided that I have abusive parents or whatever?

It has been proven that the brains of MtFs have similarities with those of biological females that males aren't supposed to have. What more do you want?

So, you are saying that David had a man's brain because of nature, but then you claim that others have a brain that is different from their body because of nurture. That is a contradiction, because David was nurtured to be a girl from a very early age, and thought he was a girl because he was told he was a girl, dressed like a girl, pushed to play like a girl, treated like a girl. If a concerted effort to nurture David to be a girl failed because he had a man's brain, how can you possibly claim abuse by a parent or adult would nurture them into believing they were of the sex other than what their body and the way they were dressed and treated by their parents and society?

You can't have it both ways. Either mental aspects associated with a specific sex is by nature, or it is by nurture; it can't be both ways. And unless you deny evolution, one must look at animals as explaining something about human beings past, before they became able to reason separate from instinct.

Some classic lab experiments with mice involve feeding their mothers some chemicals which then affect their sexual preferences. One of the chemicals causes changes in the epigenome which is passed on to offspring. The male offspring then hump other males and ignore females. If these mice are treated with drugs, reversing the effect of their inherited epigenome, they then hump females. A related test causes white mice to develop a black spot, which is then passed on in their offspring, showing that the changed epigenome can be passed on.

By the way, my interest in the subject is as the inquisitive "science writer" like Asimov, Michel Pollen, Stephen Jay Gould, but without the determination to write stuff that is in a form for publication, much less have the determination to get it published. The nature of sexuality in humans is particularly interesting from the standpoint of understanding genomics, which is critical to understanding evolution. I also research the relationship of genetics to migration which is related to genealogy and sociology. So, I find intersexuality fascinating because of what it tells us about the evolutionary genetics of life on this planet.

Of course, as a liberal, I based what are called political views on objective science, so scientifically, given the clear evidence of intersexuality in humans, I believe that public policy must reflect the true nature of humans, and that true nature is of sexuality being a hundred or more traits that define an individual that cluster strongly into male and female, but with a lot of smearing across the spectrum so that some people strongly exhibit attributes that are in conflict with the dominate clustering. Thus, the California decision today reflects the application of objective scientific criteria to a social policy written into law. To argue a position different from an objective interpretation of the facts is what is called religion or superstition or philosophy, and as such, discriminates against individuals for being different from others. Intersexuals in the US are no different than people with black skin - their genetic or epigenetic code was such that they are different that others, and the difference is not a matter of choice.

They make a thousand times more pushing the drugs, and then developing drug tests to detect illegal doping, and then developing new drugs that can't be detected and then developing new tests for detecting the undetectable sex hormones that sports fans and owners so desire to see manifest in their sports heroes.

The only place that surgery is being employed for profit is by waging the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which created demand for replacing human body parts with machines which give them advantages in sports competitions.

real science? Is that too much to ask for? In this modern world we've turning science and medicine into this magic which rights all these wrongs we supposedly have, but its just technology combined with a liberal society and a confused gender vocabulary which allow for people like yourselves to change sex. I don't care, if you're paranoid, but in for the sake of science I'm interested in some empirical evidence when you make these claims. On the other hand, I have no bias, my intention isn't to prove a point, or to embarrass you, but just to help me personally maintain a consistently thoughtful and effective vocabulary and world view.

Luddite. .

__________________
"I consider Homo anal sex to be a religion." - Wow, AWE poster.

In this case, the girl had a boy's brain, a boy's hormones and other unique organs. It makes sense. In the other scenario, a person is born a girl with a girl's brain and then is born and begins to misinterpret gender cues at an early age (or later) brought on by abusive relationships. They don't have a boy's brain or hypothalamus or testosterone levels.
This is the distinction between sex and gender. Sex is male or female (almost always). Gender, however, unique to every culture and subculture, is how one takes on socio-sexual rolls. So Gender is nurture, because you have to be indoctrinated into a language to assume a gender; whereas sex is nature because its biological.

I'm being extremely considerate of evolution when I write, believe me. Do me a favor and find me a land mammal that has desires to become a different gender.

It isn't because of "epigenome" levels being higher, there is no such thing as an inherited epigenome. Thats not what an epigenome is; it is an effect added to a pre-existing DNA sequence. Let me make an analogy for you so you understand. DNA is like code for a computer. An epigenome is like installing your printer. It isn't something the computer can ever do spontaneously, nor is it something which alters the code. Instead it merely produces a biological reaction. In the case of humans, we can use epigenomes to change already existing characteristics of our body, but not create a new limb or organ. So your example is faulty, those rats were forced into a type of behavior their body could never possibly manufacture artificially. It doesn't prove a gay gene, and especially doesn't prove anything about transexuals

This isn't about me making any political leaps. Humans are free to change their gender, I'm purely interested in demonstrating how your so called unbiased liberalism is bullshit and not based on real empirical data. This form of liberalism is the religion of the day, full of as many potholes.

how so? .

I still haven't seen those studies that you kept talking about.

likewise. but i did notice you failed to answer my question.