https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804Transphobes have good day quote mining what they life.
Finding this study that shows that brains are monomorphic has reallyprovided relief to me that there was nothing in my brain.
This review does not support your conclusion:
Of note, a similar conclusion is converging from the growing researchon transgender participants’ brains, according to Smith et al. (2015)
who remark that “viewing gender as a binary or dichotomous category has
to be reconsidered.” Rather, a picture is emerging not of two brain
types nor even a continuous gradient from masculine to feminine, but of
a multidimensional “mosaic” of countless brain attributes that differ in unique patterns across all individuals (Joel et al., 2015).
It may be your brain after all. The review supports merely that an MRI
won't be of any help finding out.
It's concerned about what the data does and does not support, rather
than about how things are. In particular it does not conclude that
"brain sex" or neuronal sexual identity does not exist, but rather if
there was such a thing, it doesn't show in the 1-2mm resolution of an
MRI, or isn't consistent across individuals: There is no categorical anatomical difference between the sexes, we can observe as of today. The rhetoric of the paper also seems to target sexist stereotypes (men
smart; women talky-talky) rather than the "trans agenda", as some here
would like to read.
Overall, this shouldn't be really surprising as most of the human brain
is related to our specific universal adaptive intelligence and evidently consists of plastic, somewhat universal or redundant matter. Potential neuronal instances of sexual identity and sexual orientation however are
not human-specific attributes, much, much "older". If they fit in a
mouse, an MRI won't see them, because of poor resolution (1-2 mm). This hypothesis is in agreement with the review at hand:
One tiny exception is INAH-3, which is too small (0.1 mm) to bevisible by MRI but has been independently confirmed by four post-mortem histological studies to be about 1.6-fold larger in men (Allen et al.,
1989; Byne et al., 2000; Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2008; LeVay, 1991). Although discovered by analogy to the rodent SDN-POA and speculated to participate in reproductive behavior, neither INAH-3 nor the SDN-POA has
been assigned a clear behavioral function (McCarthy, 2016).
Fact is, we don't know shit about the brain. No one should weaponize
biology to push a narrative of any presumed clear biological facts.
Genetics and the Brain are beyond our understanding for a long time
still. In biology nothing is not complex in detail (complex isn't the
same as complicated; things are also complicated...). And as a side
note: The whole of sexual evolution isn't really understood to begin
with, as it can not be sufficiently explained with classic darwinism
(some species seem to literally go extinct over silly displays of sexual dimorphism; it may evolve in clear conflict to any survival benefit).
Finding this study that shows that brains are monomorphic has reallyprovided relief to me that there was nothing in my brain.
Of note, a similar conclusion is converging from the growing researchon transgender participants’ brains, according to Smith et al. (2015)
One tiny exception is INAH-3, which is too small (0.1 mm) to bevisible by MRI but has been independently confirmed by four post-mortem histological studies to be about 1.6-fold larger in men (Allen et al.,
Finding this study that shows that brains are monomorphic has reallyprovided relief to me that there was nothing in my brain.
This review does not support your conclusion:
Of note, a similar conclusion is converging from the growing researchon transgender participants’ brains, according to Smith et al. (2015)
who remark that “viewing gender as a binary or dichotomous category has
to be reconsidered.” Rather, a picture is emerging not of two brain
types nor even a continuous gradient from masculine to feminine, but of
a multidimensional “mosaic” of countless brain attributes that differ in >unique patterns across all individuals (Joel et al., 2015).
It may be your brain after all. The review supports merely that an MRI
won't be of any help finding out.
It's concerned about what the data does and does not support, rather
than about how things are. In particular it does not conclude that
"brain sex" or neuronal sexual identity does not exist, but rather if
there was such a thing, it doesn't show in the 1-2mm resolution of an
MRI, or isn't consistent across individuals: There is no categorical >anatomical difference between the sexes, we can observe as of today. The >rhetoric of the paper also seems to target sexist stereotypes (men
smart; women talky-talky) rather than the "trans agenda", as some here
would like to read.
Overall, this shouldn't be really surprising as most of the human brain
is related to our specific universal adaptive intelligence and evidently >consists of plastic, somewhat universal or redundant matter. Potential >neuronal instances of sexual identity and sexual orientation however are
not human-specific attributes, much, much "older". If they fit in a
mouse, an MRI won't see them, because of poor resolution (1-2 mm). This >hypothesis is in agreement with the review at hand:
One tiny exception is INAH-3, which is too small (0.1 mm) to bevisible by MRI but has been independently confirmed by four post-mortem >histological studies to be about 1.6-fold larger in men (Allen et al.,
1989; Byne et al., 2000; Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2008; LeVay, 1991). >Although discovered by analogy to the rodent SDN-POA and speculated to >participate in reproductive behavior, neither INAH-3 nor the SDN-POA has
been assigned a clear behavioral function (McCarthy, 2016).
Fact is, we don't know shit about the brain. No one should weaponize
biology to push a narrative of any presumed clear biological facts.
Genetics and the Brain are beyond our understanding for a long time
still. In biology nothing is not complex in detail (complex isn't the
same as complicated; things are also complicated...). And as a side
note: The whole of sexual evolution isn't really understood to begin
with, as it can not be sufficiently explained with classic darwinism
(some species seem to literally go extinct over silly displays of sexual >dimorphism; it may evolve in clear conflict to any survival benefit).
Scientific <science@is.truth> wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804
Finding this study that shows that brains are monomorphic has reallyprovided relief to me that there was nothing in my brain.
This review does not support your conclusion:
Of note, a similar conclusion is converging from the growing researchon transgender participants’ brains, according to Smith et al. (2015)
who remark that “viewing gender as a binary or dichotomous category has
to be reconsidered.” Rather, a picture is emerging not of two brain
types nor even a continuous gradient from masculine to feminine, but of
a multidimensional “mosaic” of countless brain attributes that differ in >> unique patterns across all individuals (Joel et al., 2015).
It may be your brain after all. The review supports merely that an MRI
won't be of any help finding out.
It's concerned about what the data does and does not support, rather
than about how things are. In particular it does not conclude that
"brain sex" or neuronal sexual identity does not exist, but rather if
there was such a thing, it doesn't show in the 1-2mm resolution of an
MRI, or isn't consistent across individuals: There is no categorical
anatomical difference between the sexes, we can observe as of today. The
rhetoric of the paper also seems to target sexist stereotypes (men
smart; women talky-talky) rather than the "trans agenda", as some here
would like to read.
Overall, this shouldn't be really surprising as most of the human brain
is related to our specific universal adaptive intelligence and evidently
consists of plastic, somewhat universal or redundant matter. Potential
neuronal instances of sexual identity and sexual orientation however are
not human-specific attributes, much, much "older". If they fit in a
mouse, an MRI won't see them, because of poor resolution (1-2 mm). This
hypothesis is in agreement with the review at hand:
One tiny exception is INAH-3, which is too small (0.1 mm) to bevisible by MRI but has been independently confirmed by four post-mortem
histological studies to be about 1.6-fold larger in men (Allen et al.,
1989; Byne et al., 2000; Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2008; LeVay, 1991).
Although discovered by analogy to the rodent SDN-POA and speculated to
participate in reproductive behavior, neither INAH-3 nor the SDN-POA has
been assigned a clear behavioral function (McCarthy, 2016).
Fact is, we don't know shit about the brain. No one should weaponize
biology to push a narrative of any presumed clear biological facts.
Genetics and the Brain are beyond our understanding for a long time
still. In biology nothing is not complex in detail (complex isn't the
same as complicated; things are also complicated...). And as a side
note: The whole of sexual evolution isn't really understood to begin
with, as it can not be sufficiently explained with classic darwinism
(some species seem to literally go extinct over silly displays of sexual
dimorphism; it may evolve in clear conflict to any survival benefit).
Are you familiar with the concept of a "Cluster Concept". Where you have a population spread out in a multi-dimensional space there are often clusters. Volumes of that space with high occupancy with relatively empty spaces between
them. That's the way I picture gender.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:40:00 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,329,035 |