Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[Angra Mainyu]

Now, if someone identifies as a woman, while having a man's body, there there must be, without any question I think, something female about that person's brain. Literally, logically and biologically.

It does not follow logically, no. But biologically? Why without any question?

Here's a review of several studies. It's from 2014/2015, though published in 2016 , so new research might have further evidence, but then, you could have made that assertion back then as well.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5.pdf

This appears to show that going by the limited available data analyzed, the brain of early-onset androphilic MTFs is mostly male-like, though they have some female-like traits, and then other parts that are neither male-like nor female-like. On the other hand, for early-onset gynephilic MTFs - but it's from just one study -, it is mostly male-like, with some parts neither female-like nor male-like, and no known female-like part (in all cases, this is without hormone treatment).

So, take the gynephilic MTFs. What do they have that it is female? Nothing found up to 2016.

What about androphilic ones?

Sure, there is evidence that they have some female-like parts of the brain. But then again, the same can be said about gay men.

And then there are late-onset cases, which might have just other properties.

Of course, this is all preliminary research. Not much is known about the brain. Also, psychological studies might shed light on this, if properly done (alas, I think that's pretty improbable. To the serious replication problems in psychology one has to add the potentially significant influence of the ideology of researchers in setting up the experiments. But still, potentially this is doable too).

And to be clear, of course the conditions are all real. The questions are whether they involve having [partially, mostly] female brains/minds, if so to what extent, etc.

Does that mean that a trans woman has a 'woman's brain'? From what I know of the sorts of differences that can be measured, I don't think that could readily be said. It seems far too complicated. There may even be no such thing as a woman's brain.

Sure there is such thing as a female or a male human mind, and so brain. And then it's a matter of language whether the same holds for 'woman' instead of 'female human'. I would argue there is too, but then, you generally do not engage when I bring linguistic evidence , so I'll leave that aside for now.

But let us say - hypothetically - that there is no such thing as a woman's brain, or a female brain. Then, whatever properties make it the case that a person is a woman, do not include the nonexistent property of having a woman's brain, or a female brain . But then there isn't such thing as a female human mind, either (or a woman's mind), as it is clear that different minds would require different brains - souls and the like are not real. But this leaves only things like, you know, vaginas and other organs (not involving the brains) as the only viable candidates to make it the case that someone is a woman or a man (yes, you can try to make a case even then, and try to provide candidate properties; but I'm saying it would fail in very obvious ways. I'm willing to discuss the matter further if you think otherwise). There is also the alternative of an error theory, which I will leave aside as too improbable unless you want to discuss it.

In short, if there is no such thing as a woman's brain or a female human brain, then claims that a person with a vagina, uterus, etc., is a man are all false, and so on.
If there is such thing, then further argumentation and evidence is needed, using linguistic evidence and - depending on that one - perhaps psychological and/or neurological evidence. But I don't find such claims persuasive, as you already know I hope.

So I do think it's possible to say that someone who has a male body has enough of a 'female brain' (including the 'fixed' and 'moving' parts, the tubes and what's flowing through them) to make them identify as female, without going as far as saying it's a female brain.

Sure, but the question is: should we believe that, as a matter of fact, their brain is mostly female-like? Evidence suggests otherwise. But okay, perhaps the smaller parts of the brain that are female-like in those cases in which there are such parts are enough to make their minds mostly female-like. After all, we do not have anything like a precise mapping from brains to minds, so even if the brain is mostly male, the mind might be mostly female, again if those parts are more important to shape the mind. But a problem is: it also might just not be so, and their minds might be mostly male-like as well, even in those cases in which they are somewhat female-like.

It is not epistemically rational to just believe the claims. It may well be means-to-ends rational to affirm that they are women or men as they claim in order to, say, avoid punishment in the form of on-line harassment, wide social condemnation, loss of one's job, etc. But for that matter, depending on the circumstances it may well be means-to-ends rational to affirm whatever the dominant ideology/religion, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Metaphor]

You're just saying the same thing again. So my response is as above, and your position is without question as untenable as, say, someone who says brain differences have zero influence. And you're still trying to do the switcheroo.

Non. Toni believes that male and female brains are different, but that this difference has no causative effect on the gender pay gap. This conjunction of beliefs is very unlikely to be true.

My position, however, is internally valid. Things that do not exist cannot be causative influences on other things. Even if I were wrong about my premise (that the patriarchy does not exist), my reasoning is not wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're just saying the same thing again. So my response is as above, and your position is without question as untenable as, say, someone who says brain differences have zero influence. And you're still trying to do the switcheroo.

Non. Toni believes that male and female brains are different, but that this difference has no causative effect on the gender pay gap. This conjunction of beliefs is very unlikely to be true.

My position, however, is internally valid. Things that do not exist cannot be causative influences on other things. Even if I were wrong about my premise (that the patriarchy does not exist), my reasoning is not wrong.

Read my post again. I edited it, possibly while you were typing yours.

What position of yours is internally valid? Your point to toni? Yes, that is valid. It is your own position about patriarchy in return that is not. Sophistry and red herrings do not get you out of that.

For example, some men may have attitudes that could reasonably be described as in at least some ways being patriarchal (often though not necessarily always this will involve sexism). It is undeniably the case that there are such men (and probably some women too). This does not require the existence of 'the patriarchy' as a distinct or complete entity. The behaviour of the people who have at least partly patriarchal attitudes can have a causative effect, so your latter point is not valid.

 

[Metaphor]

You're just saying the same thing again. So my response is as above, and your position is without question as untenable as, say, someone who says brain differences have zero influence. And you're still trying to do the switcheroo.

Non. Toni believes that male and female brains are different, but that this difference has no causative effect on the gender pay gap. This conjunction of beliefs is very unlikely to be true.

My position, however, is internally valid. Things that do not exist cannot be causative influences on other things. Even if I were wrong about my premise (that the patriarchy does not exist), my reasoning is not wrong.

Read my post again. I edited it, possibly while you were typing yours.

What position of yours is internally valid? Your point to toni? Yes, that is valid. It is your own position about patriarchy in return that is not. Sophistry and red herrings do not get you out of that.

For example, some men may have attitudes that could reasonably be described as in at least some ways being patriarchal (often this will involve sexism). It is undeniably the case that there are such men (and probably some women too). This does not require the existence of 'the patriarchy' as a distinct entity. The people who have at least partly patriarchal attitudes can have a causative effect, so your latter point is not valid.

That individuals can be sexist (or "patriarchal") is not something I've denied. I've denied the patriarchy.

 

[ruby sparks]

That individuals can be sexist (or "patriarchal") is not something I've denied. I've denied the patriarchy.

No kidding. I know that already. And I myself did not say 'the patriarchy'. You did, although without defining what you meant by that. I could agree that 'the patriarchy' does not exist in quite the way it is typically described or conceived of by many feminists, or in typical feminist ideology.

Patriarchal attitudes and behaviours however, which do exist and are what I meant by patriarchy, have both individual and socially systemic (including legacy) and structural aspects to them though, and are causative. This is not something that is disputable among reasonable analysts. Even trying to limit it to only some individuals is understating it. No question about that.

And just to be pedantic: "That individuals can be aggressive is not something I've denied. I've denied the term 'the aggressors". In some ways that wouldn't make sense.

Basically, your position is as untenable as for example toni's, in a different way (even toni would probably agree that brain differences have at least some causative influence on for example differences in pay by gender, but she will probably stress other causes, perhaps including sexism and patriarchal factors). You both try to understate some things, possibly for ideological or personal reasons.

 

[Toni]

I'm asking you, if you actually believe that men's and women's brains to be systematically different, why do you not also believe this could be a cause, or partial cause, of the gender pay gap?

As you point out, it would seem inconsistent not to agree that differences in brains are at least a partial explanation for the latter.

Toni probably overstates the role of social influences (such as patriarchy), and you probably understate them. But there will almost certainly be both factors, and they will probably be interacting.

I overstated nothing.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn’t say you had, in that particular instance. In that instance, what you did was avoid answering the question directly, thus avoiding agreeing that brain differences seem likely to account for at least some differences in career choices and work patterns, which in turn seems likely to account for at least part of the gender pay gap.

My opinion as to your position or what I think it probably would entail is based on your general posting. But avoiding answering the question directly would fit with what it seems to me to involve.

 

[Toni]

I didn’t say you had, in that particular instance. In that instance, what you did was avoid answering the question directly, thus avoiding agreeing that brain differences seem likely to account for at least some differences in career choices and work patterns, which in turn seems likely to account for at least part of the gender pay gap.

My opinion as to your position or what I think it probably would entail is based on your general posting. But avoiding answering the question directly would fit with what it seems to me to involve.

I did answer the question. Metaphor simply doesn't like the way I answered and apparently, neither do you. That's not my problem.

Metaphor decided to derail this discussion of whether gender is determined by X and Y composition alone. I stated that brain structures in male to female transsexuals more closely resemble female brain structures than male brain structures, and female to male transsexuals' brain structure more closely resembles male brainstructure.

Metaphor decided to revive another issue about whether brains determine wage gap. In response, I stated the following:

Speaking for myself, I refuse to believe that the structure of men's brains is such that it forces them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it.

I understand that this is not the answer that Metaphor was looking for and indeed I was merely following his derail a little further. I do not believe that men are biologically compelled to undervalue the accomplishments and labors of others or to deny others equal opportunity to engage in meaningful or productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it. That is entirely a different topic of discussion or most probably, a different set of topics for discussion than this thread which is supposedly about whether transwomen should have to suppress testosterone production in order to participate on women's competitive teams. Throughout this discussion, Metaphor has repeatedly denied the validity of transexuals actually existing as anything other than a figment of their imagination. I introduced the long and well established fact that some brain structures are demonstratively different when comparing male brains to female brains. In fact, this is the most prevalent explanation for why some individuals, often with the usual XX or XY configuration experience gender dysmorphia and feel the need to physically transition or simply view themselves as different than the gender they were assumed to have when they were born.

If Metaphor would like to discuss whether brain structure differences are the reasons that there is a wage gap or disparity in career choices or field choices between men and women,then he should start that thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. So that’s why you avoided answering his question directly.

Fair enough.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If Metaphor would like to discuss whether brain structure differences are the reasons that there is a wage gap or disparity in career choices or field choices between men and women,then he should start that thread.

He might not be capable of starting the thread until a college student makes a comment on the subject matter, or a tweet about it goes viral, or some other minor event which lets him title a thread 'This week in feminism:...'

 

[Toni]

Ok. So that’s why you avoided answering his question directly. ??????

Fair enough.

I did answer his question directly. It is not my fault if he or you are unable to understand what I wrote or that it was a direct answer.

 

[ruby sparks]

I did answer his question directly.

I see. I must have missed that part then.

 

[J842P]

I did answer the question. Metaphor simply doesn't like the way I answered and apparently, neither do you. That's not my problem.

Your answer did not address the question Metaphor asked.

Metaphor decided to derail this discussion of whether gender is determined by X and Y composition alone. I stated that brain structures in male to female transsexuals more closely resemble female brain structures than male brain structures, and female to male transsexuals' brain structure more closely resembles male brainstructure.

You've stated this, but you've provided no evidence. Or even an adequate description of what you mean by "brain structure". Generally, human brains are not very sexually dimorphic, there are some statistical, gross anatomical differences in male and female brains, things like ratio of grey to white matter (women have a higher ratio of grey matter to white matter than men). There are also things like relative proportions of venticular volume, honestly, I don't recall the differences, they are hardly large and generally seem unimportant. Perhaps the most salient difference is the aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area. However, this is reproducibly dimorphic among mammals, actually. And the difference exists in humans. I've never read or seen any study that looked at this area in transpeople.

I have seen studies based on fMRI, but even those studies have relatively modest conclusions, and honestly, fMRI is one of the weaker forms of evidence. And even in those studies, IIRC, it is that certain differences in these purported functionally dimorphic regions have some greater similarity between transwomen and females than transwomen and non-trans males. Not that overall brain structures of transwomen are more similar to females than they are to typical males. The study I seem to recall only looked at transwomen, not transmen.

But again, I see this claim stated all the time and rarely do I see good evidence provided. I'm not denying that there have been some interesting results from small fMRI studies. But it's hardly a cut and dry result - given that sex differences in fMRI patterns are tenuous to begin with.. Some would say that fMRI is a tenuous technique altogether!

So to me, it seems you are overstating this. Although, I don't think it is particularly relevant to the overall discussion.

Metaphor decided to revive another issue about whether brains determine wage gap. In response, I stated the following:

Speaking for myself, I refuse to believe that the structure of men's brains is such that it forces them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it.

I understand that this is not the answer that Metaphor was looking for and indeed I was merely following his derail a little further.

No, it simply doesn't answer Metaphor's question at all, because the question wasn't "are there structures in men's brains that force them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it". Rather, this seems to me that you are question-begging, assuming your preferred explanation regarding the wage gap, namely, that men refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it, and that this explains the wage gap, and that you have no reason to believe that some brain difference explains that behavior. So it is pretty dishonest to claim you have answered Metaphor's question, at least directly.

Throughout this discussion, Metaphor has repeatedly denied the validity of transexuals actually existing as anything other than a figment of their imagination. I introduced the long and well established fact that some brain structures are demonstratively different when comparing male brains to female brains.

It isn't a long and well established fact. It is, at best, a tentative conclusion from a handful of small studies.

 

[Metaphor]

I did answer the question. Metaphor simply doesn't like the way I answered and apparently, neither do you. That's not my problem.

No, you didn't answer. You said you refuse to believe men's brains cause the to undervalue women's contributions. That is not the only mechanism that a gender pay gap could occur.

I'll ask again: do you think the difference in men's and women's brains has any causative effect whatsoever on the gender pay gap?

Metaphor decided to derail this discussion of whether gender is determined by X and Y composition alone.

No. Gender is a thought in your head.

Throughout this discussion, Metaphor has repeatedly denied the validity of transexuals actually existing as anything other than a figment of their imagination.

In what universe have I denied that transsexuals exist?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it simply doesn't answer Metaphor's question at all, because the question wasn't "are there structures in men's brains that force them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it". Rather, this seems to me that you are question-begging,...

FFS, it doesn't take much to see her answer was NO.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it simply doesn't answer Metaphor's question at all, because the question wasn't "are there structures in men's brains that force them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it". Rather, this seems to me that you are question-begging,...

FFS, it doesn't take much to see her answer was NO.

No, her answer isn't "no". Her answer was an obfuscation and an answer to a different question I did not ask. The implication might be 'no', but Toni should clarify.

I asked "do the differences in men's and women's brains contribute to the gender pay gap".

Toni's "answer" was "I do not believe men's brains compel them to undervalue the contribution of other people's labour", which is well and great, but it's the answer to a question I did not ask. Toni's answer is one way a gender pay gap could arise due to brain differences, but not the only way a gender pay gap could arise due to brain differences.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it simply doesn't answer Metaphor's question at all, because the question wasn't "are there structures in men's brains that force them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it". Rather, this seems to me that you are question-begging,...

FFS, it doesn't take much to see her answer was NO.

No, her answer isn't "no"....

It is true that Toni did not just say "NO". But that does not mean that a reasonably literate open minded adult who is interested in honest discussion cannot parse the answer to mean "No".

 

[Metaphor]

No, her answer isn't "no"....

It is true that Toni did not just say "NO". But that does not mean that a reasonably literate open minded adult who is interested in honest discussion cannot parse the answer to mean "No".

No. It is only a "no" that is implied by her silence after ruling out one specific brain-based mechanism.

At the moment, I do not know Toni's stance on other brain differences that may contribute to the gender pay gap. Hell, even her first response doesn't talk about sex-based brain differences, only that she believed there was no mechanism compelling men to act in a certain way.

 

[Toni]

Your answer did not address the question Metaphor asked.

It did, if not to his satisfaction.

You've stated this, but you've provided no evidence. Or even an adequate description of what you mean by "brain structure". Generally, human brains are not very sexually dimorphic, there are some statistical, gross anatomical differences in male and female brains, things like ratio of grey to white matter (women have a higher ratio of grey matter to white matter than men). There are also things like relative proportions of venticular volume, honestly, I don't recall the differences, they are hardly large and generally seem unimportant. Perhaps the most salient difference is the aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area. However, this is reproducibly dimorphic among mammals, actually. And the difference exists in humans. I've never read or seen any study that looked at this area in transpeople.

I have seen studies based on fMRI, but even those studies have relatively modest conclusions, and honestly, fMRI is one of the weaker forms of evidence. And even in those studies, IIRC, it is that certain differences in these purported functionally dimorphic regions have some greater similarity between transwomen and females than transwomen and non-trans males. Not that overall brain structures of transwomen are more similar to females than they are to typical males. The study I seem to recall only looked at transwomen, not transmen.

But again, I see this claim stated all the time and rarely do I see good evidence provided. I'm not denying that there have been some interesting results from small fMRI studies. But it's hardly a cut and dry result - given that sex differences in fMRI patterns are tenuous to begin with.. Some would say that fMRI is a tenuous technique altogether!

I provided a selection of articles that discuss the differences in some structures in the brain between male and female brains, upthread, in different levels of reading and scientific complexity. It was only a very short selection of the many that are easily available on the internet. I used google. I’m certain that you could find articles that suit your interest level if mine do not suit you.

Metaphor decided to revive another issue about whether brains determine wage gap. In response, I stated the following:

Speaking for myself, I refuse to believe that the structure of men's brains is such that it forces them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it.

I understand that this is not the answer that Metaphor was looking for and indeed I was merely following his derail a little further.

No, it simply doesn't answer Metaphor's question at all, because the question wasn't "are there structures in men's brains that force them to refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it". Rather, this seems to me that you are question-begging, assuming your preferred explanation regarding the wage gap, namely, that men refuse to recognize the accomplishments and value of others' labor, or to allow them equal opportunity to engage in meaningful and productive employment or to fairly compensate them for it, and that this explains the wage gap, and that you have no reason to believe that some brain difference explains that behavior. So it is pretty dishonest to claim you have answered Metaphor's question, at least directly.

Metaphor framed the question hoping to elicit a certain kind of answer that would play into his own prejudices about wage gaps, etc. and on what he believed I would answer.

I provided an answer that I believe was more complete than Metaphor was looking for.

Throughout this discussion, Metaphor has repeatedly denied the validity of transexuals actually existing as anything other than a figment of their imagination. I introduced the long and well established fact that some brain structures are demonstratively different when comparing male brains to female brains.

It isn't a long and well established fact. It is, at best, a tentative conclusion from a handful of small studies.

I disagree and apparently so do brain scientists. And google.

 

[Toni]

No, her answer isn't "no"....

It is true that Toni did not just say "NO". But that does not mean that a reasonably literate open minded adult who is interested in honest discussion cannot parse the answer to mean "No".

No. It is only a "no" that is implied by her silence after ruling out one specific brain-based mechanism.

At the moment, I do not know Toni's stance on other brain differences that may contribute to the gender pay gap. Hell, even her first response doesn't talk about sex-based brain differences, only that she believed there was no mechanism compelling men to act in a certain way.

As to my ‘silence,’ I actually have a lot of other things to do than to respond to whatever you demand. Participation is voluntary and for me, as time and interest allow.