Transgendered discussion (split from HoS)

[LionElJonson]

if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

I gotta say, as a fellow autism-spectrumer, you suck pretty bad at it. Your performance here in gauging the mood of the room and projecting basic empathy has been, quite frankly, abysmal.

It's less good on the Internet, yes; that's why I specified IRL. I've actually had people express surprise when I've informed them that I'm on the autistic spectrum.

Guess what, most transsexual people are doing just that - they try to live as normal women or men.
This is not only true after transition, but also before transition - many transsexual people try to function normally in accordance to their birth sex. Pretty much every late transitioner is evidence for that, many of them function quite well: They get married, have children, good jobs, the respect of their peers etc.

Good. Then they can keep on pretending and going on with life that way until the mask becomes the reality, or at least whatever's under the mask has been forgotten and ignored so long they don't even know what's underneath it.

The reason why they (and every other transsexual person) choses to transition is because they are not HAPPY that way.

Why should I care about the happiness of people I don't even know? Besides, if they're not happy, then they can make themselves happy; happiness is a part of the mask too, so if they're not happy, they just need a better mask to wear.

According to your "logic", it's perfectly fine to persecute and kill someone who tries to be happy, presumably because you are not allowed to change your body.
Strange logic for a transhumanist who supports body modifications.

When did I ever say it was okay to persecute and kill them? I just said that it was a mental disorder that is currently being "treated" by mutilating the person and pretending that's okay when it isn't. In an ideal world we could treat it without mutilating them, either by altering their bodies on a fundamental level without having to mutilate them, or by altering their minds to remove their mental disorder.

As for "they have to see a bunch of shrinks before":
That is done in order to RULE OUT (certain) mental disorders. If you actually read the scientific literature, you'll not that it has been the scientific consensus for nearly 40 years that you can NOT cure transsexuality with psychological treatment, drugs, same-sex hormones or anything like that.
But who needs science if you can just spout your uneducated bigotry?

Psychology isn't a particularly hard science in any case; it's a lot more prone to being influenced by political trends and whatnot than physics are, especially since it defines normal as "whatever the average for the community is", so when the public ideals change, so does psychology. See the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM for evidence of that.

Besides, if you'll check, you'll see that I've been promoting the curing of transexualism with mindstate editting or fundamental edits to the human body, not with drugs or conventional psychological treatment.

You know, it's really amazing how you claim to be a transhumanist etc. - but dismiss a technological solution because it's not natural

Yes, because it's a capability that the human body lost, even if technology can make up for it. If you've blinded yourself but linked your mind to a bunch of cameras, that doesn't make you any less blind.

The same "logic" would also apply to every man who ever had a vasectomie, or every women fallopian tube cut.

I don't think so, because the organs are still there, they've just had the tubes the gametes travel through cut (and I think the procedures can be reversed in any case).

Either way, the world-wide scientific community disagrees with you - not wanting to reproduce is NOT a mental disorder.
But again, who needs science if you can just make stuff up as you go along?

Again, politics. Classifying the lack of desire to reproduce as a mental disorder could in turn be taken as a justification for rape, and they probably don't want to do that, and since psychology measures things by the community standard, and the community holds that not wanting to have a child as perfectly normal, the psychological community doesn't either. But, like many things taken to an extreme, not wanting children to the point of castrating yourself is definitly not normal.

You hereby fail at elementary logic.
I asked for proof that transsexual people can not function normally in a society, and that they have no desire to do so.

No, I don't. Functioning normally in society means to act as a normal member of society. Normal members of society don't mutilate themselves and pretend to be a member of the opposite sex, so therefore since they willing pursue these things, they are willfully choosing not to function in society by definition.

This should be obvious.

By the way, you still have no provided a shred of evidence that "changing ones body=mental disorder". If you change your body in order to improve your health (and yes, mental health counts), how is that a disorder?

It's not, if you're actually improving yourself. Implanting a computer in your head to make yourself smarter is an upgrade. Having nanobots grow a bunch of nerve cells all over your body's skin along with a computer in your brain so you can interpret the data so your entire body is as sensative as a clitoris is an upgrade. Improving your vision or your sense of smell is an upgrade. Getting castrated and having the rest of your genetalia rebuilt to superficially resemble those of a woman is a downgrade; even if technology's gotten to the point that they can build you ovaries, it's at best a side-grade.

And mental health only counts if it has a notable improvement in your behavior. Getting your mindstate editted to remove cognitive biases and improve your economic rationality is an upgrade. Having your body mutilated to conform with your delusion of being the opposite sex isn't an upgrade and more than having a hand lopped off to conform to your delusion of having only one hand is.

You know, i normally don't give a damn when someone addresses me as male on a webboard - after all, the assumption that most people on such boards are male is nearly always justified. In most cases, the person just doesn't know any better - sometimes i will correct them, sometimes i won't.
However, you DID know better. Your original post occured a significant time after you posted in this thread. Unless you didn't read this thread at all, you would have to know about my gender identity.
Therefore, the only conclusion left is that the "he" was deliberate and against better knowledge - in other words, a deliberate insult against me due to my gender identity.

Actually, it wasn't; it was because another poster referred to you as "he". If you are a transexual though, you are a "he" who possesses a mental disorder that makess him think he is a "she".

[Junghalli]

Why should I care about the happiness of people I don't even know?

Tip: openly stating stuff like this is a great way to prejudice everyone against everything you have to say, especially when it comes to moral arguments.

Not that any prejudicing actually needs to be done to get most people here to reject pretty much everything you say, but saying stuff like this really doesn't help. Your mask of normalcy may need a little work.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Psychology isn't a particularly hard science in any case; it's a lot more prone to being influenced by political trends and whatnot than physics are, especially since it defines normal as "whatever the average for the community is", so when the public ideals change, so does psychology. See the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM for evidence of that.

Actually, the de-listing of homosexuality had nothing to do with the values of society. It was done back in the 1970s, when being gay was still illegal in most states.

It was because homosexuality by itself does not cause harm or distress. The treatment of gay people by society is what caused the problems.

As for your rant about psychology, some branches are in fact, as hard as any of the physical sciences, because they are basically neurochemistry, anatomy, and behavioral genetics. That is why we know that being trans is not treatable. Frankly, it got tried, back in the days before ethics committees. It did not work.

[Serafina]

Good. Then they can keep on pretending and going on with life that way until the mask becomes the reality, or at least whatever's under the mask has been forgotten and ignored so long they don't even know what's underneath it.

You are an idiot. Do you have any idea how much harm that kind of psychological repression causes?
Also, WHY should we have to do that? You have not presented a single good reason why transsexual people should not transition.

Why should I care about the happiness of people I don't even know? Besides, if they're not happy, then they can make themselves happy; happiness is a part of the mask too, so if they're not happy, they just need a better mask to wear.

Do you have any idea about psychology? AT ALL?
You can't just pretend to be happy no matter what and actually BE happy due to that. Sometimes, you have to actually resolve the problem.

When did I ever say it was okay to persecute and kill them? I just said that it was a mental disorder that is currently being "treated" by mutilating the person and pretending that's okay when it isn't. In an ideal world we could treat it without mutilating them, either by altering their bodies on a fundamental level without having to mutilate them, or by altering their minds to remove their mental disorder.

Where did you say that?
Right here:

If you're not going to at least pretend to be normal, you don't get to whine about being persecuted for being strange.

Or in other words: If you are different, you deserve to be treated worse than others, so don't complain about it.

Now, why are you still using the word mutilation? If we look at a dictionary definition, we find this:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

How does sex reassignment have anything to do with that? The changes don't make the body imperfect, and they don't remove anything essential for it's function. At best you could call the removal of the testicles/ovaries a mutilation, but the word certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the changes.

As for "altering the minds to remove the disorder": That alteration would essentially destroy their personality. You can't compare it to mental disorders, because gender identity is an essential, fundamental part of ones personality.

Besides, if you'll check, you'll see that I've been promoting the curing of transexualism with mindstate editting or fundamental edits to the human body, not with drugs or conventional psychological treatment.

No, that's not what you have been arguing. Your argument is that RIGHT NOW, transsexual people should NOT alter their bodies because doing so is abhorrent to you personally, and that they deserve to be persecuted and mistreated if they do.
Instead of actually tackling problems right now, you handwave them away with technology that doesn't exist and won't exist for who knows how long. You are evidently utterly incapable of caring about other peoples problem, even on a rational basis.

Yes, because it's a capability that the human body lost, even if technology can make up for it. If you've blinded yourself but linked your mind to a bunch of cameras, that doesn't make you any less blind.

Don't be obtuse, of course it makes you less blind - you can see if you do that, so calling you blind is utterly wrong.

I don't think so, because the organs are still there, they've just had the tubes the gametes travel through cut (and I think the procedures can be reversed in any case).

They no longer work. You talked about a "lack of desire for reproduction" and claimed that it was a mental disorder. When i point out any other case of such a lack of desire to reproduce OTHER than transsexuality, you dismiss it out of hand.
Apparently, you are not working on any logical basis here, you are just trying to single out transsexual people and bash them for whatever reason.

Again, politics. Classifying the lack of desire to reproduce as a mental disorder could in turn be taken as a justification for rape, and they probably don't want to do that, and since psychology measures things by the community standard, and the community holds that not wanting to have a child as perfectly normal, the psychological community doesn't either. But, like many things taken to an extreme, not wanting children to the point of castrating yourself is definitly not normal.

Do you have ANY evidence that there is a scientific reason to classify it as such?

No, I don't. Functioning normally in society means to act as a normal member of society. Normal members of society don't mutilate themselves and pretend to be a member of the opposite sex, so therefore since they willing pursue these things, they are willfully choosing not to function in society by definition.

Nice circular logic here
You can use that reasoning to classify everyone as "not functioning as a normal member of society".
Given the right support, (nearly) all transsexual people will eventually be indistinguishable from other members of their gender. They are perfectly capable of working in any job you can imagine (according to their abilities, which are not different from those of others). They can interact socially just like everyone else.
So tell me - how are they NOT functioning members of your society? Your "explanation" right now is utterly laughable, because none of these things impede their function in society.

It's not, if you're actually improving yourself. Implanting a computer in your head to make yourself smarter is an upgrade. Having nanobots grow a bunch of nerve cells all over your body's skin along with a computer in your brain so you can interpret the data so your entire body is as sensative as a clitoris is an upgrade. Improving your vision or your sense of smell is an upgrade. Getting castrated and having the rest of your genetalia rebuilt to superficially resemble those of a woman is a downgrade; even if technology's gotten to the point that they can build you ovaries, it's at best a side-grade.

Could you stop the singularity-wank for a second?
Besides, it IS an upgrade. I am more content with my body, how is that not an upgrade? I will be able to use my genitals (who will be fully sensite etc., it's hardly superficial) without getting a personal crisis, how is that not an improvement?

Actually, it wasn't; it was because another poster referred to you as "he". If you are a transexual though, you are a "he" who possesses a mental disorder that makess him think he is a "she".

Bzzt. Wrong, bigot. I AM female, i have a female gender identity. Legally (by german law) i am not yet fully a woman, but i have the legal right to be addressed as such.

[Zaune]

I think the point LionElJonson is trying to make is that current gender-realignment procedures are extremely complex, invasive and ultimately a poor substitute, and that some people with gender dysphoria might be better off holding out for something better than what's available today. Which is fair enough, I suppose.

But is the guy who thinks... well, just see my sig... seriously expressing disdain for people who are incapable of 'pretending normal'?

[Serafina]

I think the point LionElJonson is trying to make is that current gender-realignment procedures are extremely complex, invasive and ultimately a poor substitute, and that some people with gender dysphoria might be better off holding out for something better than what's available today. Which is fair enough, I suppose.

But is the guy who thinks... well, just see my sig... seriously expressing disdain for people who are incapable of 'pretending normal'?

If that was all he was saying, sure, that would be a somewhat valid point.
It would still be a horrible thing to advocate. It's exactly equal to saying that someone with a missing leg shouldn't use a wheelchair or get a prosthesis, and should rather wait for something better. Sure, if you can guarantee him that it will be available in a year, that might be a viable option. But the solutions he is proposing are pure science fiction. Sure, we might have them someday - but when? Demanding that transsexual people suffer until an unknown point in the future, waiting for speculative technology to arrive, is outright abhorent.


But he doesn't stop there, he is constantly using typical anti-trans bigotry phrases. He constantly tries to display it like transsexual people are crazy people incapable and unwilling to function in a normal society, advocates that radically changing someones personality is preferable to changing someones body, denies us our human rights because it's "our own fault", has absolutely no idea about transsexuality or is (more likely) willfully ignorant about it, refers to transwomen as men, focusses on the disadvantages (such as infertility),calls someone who takes a well-thought out decision insane for taking that decision and so on and so on.

His entire argumentation indicates not the slightest hint of understanding, sympathy, compassion or even just tolerance for transsexual people - and instead, he displays the exact opposite.

And last but not least, he has not presented even a slightly reasonable argument - he is just constantly stating his bigoted opinion. At least spartasman was listening and capable of changing his opinion, a capability i respect deeply. LionElJonson is just a bigoted idiot without the slightest hint of intelligence.

[Broomstick]

I think the point LionElJonson is trying to make is that current gender-realignment procedures are extremely complex, invasive and ultimately a poor substitute, and that some people with gender dysphoria might be better off holding out for something better than what's available today. Which is fair enough, I suppose.

It's my understanding that some of today's transsexuals do, in fact, opt NOT to undergo certain treatments (bottom surgery for transmen being the one I hear about most often) for that very reason - but that varies by individual. Certainly no one is forced to undergo these treatments, and it should be left up to the individual to decide what and how much they want done.

I have to wonder if LionEL is suffering from castration anxiety - I mean, men do tend to wince and experience discomfort when discussing genital surgery, quite a few of them get so worked up about it they refuse to neuter their male pets. It's that fear about having one's dick cut off, I suppose, and correcting them by saying no, it's not "cut off" during SRS but more turned inside out doesn't seem to reassure them at all. My god, if someone is willing to do THAT what won't they do? OMG! OMG!

That is one of the major differences between transwomen and men - transwomen welcome a surgery that can send a cis-man running away gibbering in fear to find a hole in which to hide in a nice fetal position. Years ago, when I have almost no understanding of transsexuality, I came to the conclusion that even if I couldn't understand it and found it weird and scary if someone was that certain and that determined to make such a change they'd willingly, even eagerly undergo such surgery I just wasn't going to argue with them. Clearly, however I felt was irrelevant. It was so extremely important to that person and there wasn't anything I could say to dissuade them. So hey, if they're going to do it anyway then at least make it as safe as possible for them to do so.

I like to think I've come a little farther since then, but that's where I started.

And if LionEL, if you are truly in support of "morphological freedom" then you have to support the right of others to make decisions you don't agree with, or think are wrong, or mistakes without coming off as a complete tool. I mean, it's fine if you disagree with some body mods, it's fine if you find them distasteful, but it's not fine to hurt others while stating your opinions. I mean, I can't stand eyebrow piercings, they really annoy me, creep me out, and I find them gross on a certain level but I realize that is my personal opinion and despite my loathing of them I will absolutely defend the right of an adult human being to get as many eyebrow piercings as they want because their body belongs to them, not me. I don't have to agree with their position to support their right to stand in that position. I can be polite to them in public without feeling a need to say anything more than "You know, eyebrow piercings are one of my turn offs, but hey, it's your body so my opinion doesn't enter into it".

[madd0ct0r]

yes, you cannot support body-mods, especially the extreme of trans-humanism, without supporting the right to change your genitals in the here and now.

It's suddenly no longer a convenient fantasy, with no pain, blood or downsides, but a reality you have to cope with.

It's time to face yourself in a mirror, and ask which principles you really belive in

[Alyrium Denryle]

yes, you cannot support body-mods, especially the extreme of trans-humanism, without supporting the right to change your genitals in the here and now.

It's suddenly no longer a convenient fantasy, with no pain, blood or downsides, but a reality you have to cope with.

It's time to face yourself in a mirror, and ask which principles you really belive in

The problem with that, for him, is that the mirror may reflect sunlight from the window at an odd angle and he would turn to stone.

[Serafina]

Oh, another point regarding the "if you get SRS you are insane because every sane human has a drive for reproduction"-tangent:

I DO have a drive for reproduction, i WANT to have children. But since i have already frozen sperm to statistically have 3-4 (and i only want 1-2), what the hell do i need my testicles for? Again, it's strange that a supposed transhumanist focusses on biology and declares it superior to technology by default.

So my testicles are not only useless (as in "they don't have a useful function anymore"), they are actually harmful. They produce testosterone, for which i take anti-androgens to suppress them (i am german after all ). Those have side-effects, such as being a constant (if small) strain on my liver. Thus, removing them has actual medical benefits. Unless you want to claim that it would be better to not take hormones at all, in which case you have gone from arguing against SRS to arguing against any transition at all.

But if i HAVE SRS, then they will have an actual, usefull function, because the outer skin of the testicles is used to build some parts of my new genitals.


So even your own "do not remove any function"-logic should dicate that SRS is the sensible option. Then again, i highly suspect that it was never logic, but mere prejudice, bigoty and perhaps fear that dicated your opinion.

[Serafina]

So, LionElJonson, are you ever going to reply, present a proper argument or show that you changed your mind? Or did you run away yet again?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Zaune: Your (and his) point is fallacious because the current procedure is good enough that a gynecologist during a normal pelvic exam cannot necessarily tell the difference. In short all external sexual characteristics look and function like those of the appropriate sex for at least male-to-female transsexuals, the procedure is less advanced for female-to-male; still, however, the end result is that you simply cannot tell the difference, by the time transitioning is done Serafina will, after the appropriate surgeries for instance, be functionally completely identical to a woman who had to, for instance, have her womb and ovaries removed due to cancer. Unless you're prepared to call such an individual no longer a woman, it is hilarious to hold such a standard against post-operative transsexuals.

[Darksider]

Are the artificially constructed genitals just as effective as the real things though? I was under the assumption that MtF transsexuals were under considerable risk of being unable to ahem... enjoy.... sexual activity after the surgery, and that FtM's parts were basically just for show. Obviously this risk is no reason to remain trapped in a body whose gender is opposite from your brain, but if true, I can see why it would make some want to wait a few years to see if something better comes along.

[Serafina]

Are the artificially constructed genitals just as effective as the real things though? I was under the assumption that MtF transsexuals were under considerable risk of being unable to ahem... enjoy.... sexual activity after the surgery, and that FtM's parts were basically just for show. Obviously this risk is no reason to remain trapped in a body whose gender is opposite from your brain, but if true, I can see why it would make some want to wait a few years to see if something better comes along.

That HAS been the case once, but it got much better by now.

A lot of the (effectively it is a) rumor that transwomen can't enjoy sex stems from the fact that it's very different from having a penis. It's harder to get to an orgasm for women in general, and that applies to transwomen as well. Thus, many will be dissapointed during their first tries - you can get off with a penis easily (at least mechanically, enjoying it is another thing), it's harder to do so with a vagina.
Now, transwoman tended to have about 30% less neve tissue than ciswomen, but recent improvements in surgical techniques are changing that a lot. But even with that, you just have to remember that the head play a vital role in havin an orgasm, especially for women, trans or not.
It IS fully possible for transwomen to be orgasmic with a good surgeon. While not all of the post-OP transwomen i know (well enough) had an orgasm yet, all of them have very sensitive genitals and report it to be much better than pre-OP, even without an orgasm. And 4 out of 9 actually had an orgasm, tough it took all but one of them more than a year after the surgery to get there, and more than half a year after everything was fully healed off.

Also, new techniques allow the vagina to be fully self-lubricating when aroused. Older techniques allow partial lubrication, but indepent from arousal (so it's always there, but there isn't much more when having sex). Not much of a problem tough, even some ciswomen need lube after all.


For transmen, they can basically choose between two options as far as i know:
-a sizable, fully erectile with artifical means one
-a smaller, more sensitive, naturally erectile one
The first can be constructed by a variety of means, which i am not familiar enough to describe in detail. They are generally mostly sensitve by applying pressure to the clitoral nerves, so there isn't much direct stimulation. With pumps and the like (some fully-automatic, and there are experiments that connect them to the right nerves), the penis is fully erectile.
The second is constructed in a very delicate procedure from the clitoris. It is very sensitive, actually more so than a normal penis. Basicaly, the clitoris is put on the top of partially erectile tissue grafted from other parts of the body. It's fully erectile and fully sensitive, but due to the way it's constructed it's size is quite limited (around a small adult penis)

So basically, transmen have to choose between a large penis they might not enjoy that much, and a small one that they are likely to enjoy more. I know transmen who are happy with both, tough those that choose the former tend to be unhappy more often (but i only have a post-OP sample size of 8 anyway).


Oh, and waiting for a better method is indeed valid for transmen, since there is a continuous development. It doesn't make that much sense for transwomen, the available techniques can be fully satisfactory and we are basically adding details by our improvements.
However, waiting in hope of a nanite-wank-miracle doesn't make any sense. If such a treatment would suddenly become available, then it would not matter whether you already had the surgery - the treatment would work just as well. So Johnson is still full of bigoted bullshit.



Edit:
To get a major breaktrough, we would have to be able to replicate nerve tissue, erectile tissue and lubricating glands. Curently, there is no good way to do that, so we have to work with what's already there. But again, such a major breaktrough could likely also be applied to already donesurgeries, so there is no real reason to hold out for it either.

[Zaune]

Zaune: Your (and his) point is fallacious because the current procedure is good enough that a gynecologist during a normal pelvic exam cannot necessarily tell the difference. In short all external sexual characteristics look and function like those of the appropriate sex for at least male-to-female transsexuals, the procedure is less advanced for female-to-male; still, however, the end result is that you simply cannot tell the difference, by the time transitioning is done Serafina will, after the appropriate surgeries for instance, be functionally completely identical to a woman who had to, for instance, have her womb and ovaries removed due to cancer. Unless you're prepared to call such an individual no longer a woman, it is hilarious to hold such a standard against post-operative transsexuals.

Point conceded, with apologies for any inadvertent offence caused. I honestly didn't realise that GRS had come that far.

You know, from one point of view, people with gender dysphoria are actually luckier than people on the autistic spectrum; you actually have the option to not do your best to 'pretend normal' and just put up with never quite fitting in. Not that fitting in is something we're usually all that hung up on, of course.

[Setzer]

What I don't understand is how we're supposed to develop superior transgender treatments if existing surgical techniques are forbidden as "barbarous mutilations?" As much as I'd like medical treatments to go from an untested idea to a completely perfect procedure, I know it doesn't work that way.

[Bakustra]

What I don't understand is how we're supposed to develop superior transgender treatments if existing surgical techniques are forbidden as "barbarous mutilations?" As much as I'd like medical treatments to go from an untested idea to a completely perfect procedure, I know it doesn't work that way.

Most people who make arguments like that are not actually interested in improving GRS significantly. Note that Lion-O talked about how he felt it should be corrected through altering the brain. These individuals are interested solely in altering the brains of the transgendered, and only produce garbage about our "primitive" surgical techniques as a smokescreen. The opinions of the trans individuals? Don't matter. In essence, proselytizing transhumanists generally are fascists balance on the edge of the totalitarian abyss.

[Serafina]

What I don't understand is how we're supposed to develop superior transgender treatments if existing surgical techniques are forbidden as "barbarous mutilations?" As much as I'd like medical treatments to go from an untested idea to a completely perfect procedure, I know it doesn't work that way.

That's typcial for LionElJohnson - he is a nanotech/singularity-wanker. He understands squat about science, or engineering, or medicine, or anything really - but kist appeal to the "inevitable singularity" and everything will be solved!
Edit: Oh, and i agree 100% with Bakustra - Lion-O (nice one btw.) is clearly not interested in actually improving conditions for transgendered people. Whenever someone starts about "altering the brain instead", it shows two things: They understand nothing about the brain at all, and they don't care about the personal wishes of transsexual people. Lion-O shows clear disgust towards transsexual people, which you can tell from his constant (ab)use of the word "mutiliation", which is completely wrong when you are trying to describe sex change procedures (because the results are not what people think of when they use that word). Couple that with his utter disregard of the actual problems transgendered people face, and you'll see why i used the word "bigot".


Now, on a more serious note. Many of the treatments invovled in transitioning were not actually developed for transsexual people.

Hormone treatment is the major example here, it's mostly derived from hormone treatment for women after menopause or who had their ovaries removed (say, due to cancer), while the anti-androgens were likewise developed for similar reasons. In fact, in many countries using these drugs to treat transsexual people is a strict off-label use, tough obviously a widespread and well-accepted one. This is also one of the reasons why there is not as much research into hormone treatment as there could be - it get's the job done, and there is simply no fundingto improve the current state (say, to a way that is less stressfull for the liver, or that get's better result in older transwomen), since you don't use it for the same purpose in those the drugs were developed for. Thus, while hormone treatment works, there is still a large area with a lot of dispute - the effectes of progesterone and similar substances on transwomen is not clear, nor is it clear whether is it beneficial to replicate the female hormone cycle (instead of taking the same dose every day). Also, while SRS-surgeons are highly specialized and cosmetic surgeries are not really that different for transwomen (breast implants are breast implants after all), the changes in the endocrine are quite different from what an endocrinologist is normally doing - but hormone treatment is often done by those not specialized in, since they pretty much just have to hand out recipes and check hormone levels and liver stats. That way, you have very few specialists in an area that would need a lot of expertise, which is likely why there is still a lot to learn and improve.

Likewise, many of the possible surgical procedures are derived from beauty-surgeries, such as FFS or breast augmentation. This also goes for hair removal.
SRS is pretty much the only procedure developed solely for transwomen, and it still benefits a lot from surgeries intended for ciswomen (yes, there are cosmetic surgeries for the vaginas of ciswoman), mostly in the area of external appearance (tough that's pretty much perfected by now).

Personally, i think that it's very nice to see that people benefit from treatments that were not originally developed for them. SRS for transmen can also benefit cismen who lost their penis, so it's not a one-way street either.

[Setzer]

The body isn't as important as the brain in my opinion. If someone wants to alter their body, fine, but I don't think they should have to alter their brains. Our minds make us who we are. Forcing a change like that is one of the worst things I could imagine doing to a person. It's like a forced lobotomy.

[Paula42]

You do realize that the brain of a transsexual person more closely resembles the brain of someone with the opposite body sex, right?

While i do not want to be seen as supporting either side of this argument you are incorrect about a transgender brain being more closely female than male. At very best and looking at the most recent studies there are very small differences if any between the transwoman brain and a male brain prior to hormone treatment, however there are significant differences between a male and cis woman's brain.

After hormone treatment over a considerable time period the trans-genders brain is altered by the hormones to be slightly more like a females (and as such slightly less like a males) than it was prior to the treatment but even then it is not fully or what can be considered "very close" to being fully the same as a cis females.

[Bakustra]

You do realize that the brain of a transsexual person more closely resembles the brain of someone with the opposite body sex, right?

While i do not want to be seen as supporting either side of this argument you are incorrect about a transgender brain being more closely female than male. At very best and looking at the most recent studies there are very small differences if any between the transwoman brain and a male brain prior to hormone treatment, however there are significant differences between a male and cis woman's brain.

After hormone treatment over a considerable time period the trans-genders brain is altered by the hormones to be slightly more like a females (and as such slightly less like a males) than it was prior to the treatment but even then it is not fully or what can be considered "very close" to being fully the same as a cis females.

Akhlut is referring to the study that found the BSTc (bed nucleus of the strial terminalis) of transwomen to be similar or identical in size to that of ciswomen and smaller than that of cismen. The BSTc is not altered by sex hormones in adulthood. There were similar studies that found similar correlations throughout the brain between transwomen and ciswomen that were controlled for hormonal variation. While overall differences may be small, there are still a number of unusual correlations, to say nothing of the phantom limb syndrome associated with transmen.

[Serafina]

Not that fallacy again....

Yes, a transmans brain typically has more structures resembling a female brain than that of a cisman. So what? We know that none of these structures are relevant for gender identity.
Basically, it's like this:
Several structures in the brain tend to be one way if you are female, and another way if you are male. However, we can find that which is typically male in female brains and the other way round - and it doesn't change someones gender identity. There probably is no such thing as a 100% female or male brain in the first place, since there is always some variation.

What we HAVE found is that the ONE area that matters for gender identity is different - transwoman have a female BSTc (and not "close to female", it is female, you find no difference) and transmen have a male BSTc. The rest of the brain does not matter for gender identity.

Therefore, saying that "oh, but it's not 100% female" is a mere red herring. It's like arguing about the taste of food and then pointing out the color of the dishes the food is served in. Or arguing that a car that has a front-wheel drive is not a car with front-wheel drive because there are differences between that car and others with a front-wheel drive. You are focussing on something that is not relevant for the discussion, since the rest of the brain is not relevant for gender identity.

[madd0ct0r]

What's this phantom limb phenomena? I've not heard of this in this context before.

@Bakustra, she might be arguing a softer version - that
1) most of the brain structures we've identified so far are not especially different between men and women
2) we've found one (from a relatively small set of samples) that is normally markedly different
3) This dosen't mean it's the only one, and the others may be hormone susceptible,
4) Therefore the HRT may be remoulding the mind too

I'll admit, I'm pretty easily swayed by 'brain is complex beyond our current understanding' arguments

[Bakustra]

What's this phantom limb phenomena? I've not heard of this in this context before.

@Bakustra, she might be arguing a softer version - that
1) most of the brain structures we've identified so far are not especially different between men and women
2) we've found one (from a relatively small set of samples) that is normally markedly different
3) This dosen't mean it's the only one, and the others may be hormone susceptible,
4) Therefore the HRT may be remoulding the mind too

I'll admit, I'm pretty easily swayed by 'brain is complex beyond our current understanding' arguments

The phantom limb phenomenon is that transwomen post-SRS are about half as likely as cismen who have lost their penis to feel phantom sensations of it, and that two-thirds of transmen pre-SRS have phantom sensations of a penis and even phantom erections.

The problem with that is that it's not a single structure but a number of structures that are markedly correlated between trans and cis women and not between trans women and cis men, and several of these structures are hormone-insensitive. So there is a correlation. While this does not imply causation, Paula42 claimed that this was isolated altogether from the rest of the brain, rather than being something warranting further investigation.

[madd0ct0r]

Trying to get over the idea of my penis as a 'limb'
(Yes i know it fits the dictionary definition, but still, an elephant's trunk it is not)

Ok. this is also the first time I've come across a hardware type of brain sex differentiation. (Spent a bit of time wondering where i am on the spectrum).
Structures in this case refers to areas marked out by specific nerve bundles?