Interesting article

[Lisa Maren]

Hi everyone

Here's an article that makes interesting mention of some "compelling" evidence of the hormonal effects on the human fetus.

Enjoy!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19940301-000025.html

Hugs,
Lisa

[Marla S]

I might be wrong, but this article reads a bit like Ms. Baxter picked up something here and there without doing a profound investigation, and doesn't really know what she's talking about.

In particular this

In a different case study, in a freak accident, a baby boy's penis was burned off during what was supposed to be a routine circumcision by electrocautery. After some agonizing soulsearching, the parents decided to authorize sex-change surgery to turn him into a her. (Wait for it, it gets weirder.) Amazingly, this boy had an identical twin brother, which made it possible to compare two genetically identical individuals raised as a boy and a girl. (Never mind the fact that the boy's hormone-producing testes were removed--remember we're talking about prenatal influences here.)

The upshot? Except for some tomboyish tendencies (sorry), our hero became the perfect little girl, the very picture of adorable femininity. She even asked for a doll house for Christmas, versus the toy garage her brother had wanted.
reminds me a lot of the Reimer case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer), which actually had the opposite outcome as written by Ms Baxter.

As for the AGS girls. I can't see any relation to me; my genitals are completaly normal related to my chromosomes.

[Maria2004]

I might be wrong, but this article reads a bit like Ms. Baxter picked up something here and there without doing a profound investigation, and doesn't really know what she's talking about.

:lol: Agreed :thumbsup: (well your reply tickled my funny bone, but the fact that the individual in question ended up commiting suicide is not so funny)

[Kate Simmons]

Doll houses do not a little girl make, nor toy garages a little boy...................!:straightface: EKR

[Calliope]

In the end, there may be subtle differences ...

It's the last gasp of 1970s orthodox unisex feminism.

Anyone interested in hormones should pick up a copy of the recently-published The Female Brain by Louann Brizendrine, MD.

Although her book is frustrating because she never once goes into the issue of TG.

[Lisa Maren]

I agree this author comes across as a bit... dodgy. Now that I'm in Psych grad school I'm always told to cite my resources in anything I write (and she really didn't do that). She also misses a point or two here, a distinction or two there.

The one thing that I take away from this article is that while tomboyishness does not a boy or girl make, it does seem to be the case -- if you forget about masculine and feminine for a moment -- that the hormone had some effect on the girls' behavior (if the hormone was the only difference). In the 1950s I don't imagine girls were encouraged to behave in that manner, so even though the behavior is not intrinsically masculine per se, it does seem to have been strong enough to resist societal pressures at the time as well as being different from the sisters. But that's the most one could make of it, not an argument for masculinization.

I remember reading about a boy similar to the one in the article whose penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident -- and he did not grow up to be a girl. He wanted reconstruction to become male again. The author also completely forgets the critical post-natal period during which hormones have an effect. Hmmm, slightly problematic oversight, yes? So, the fact this author uses that as a defense for her argument is ... well, I'll be charitable in my description: not exactly scientific.

Oh, one other thing worth mentioning. Dr. Kimura, the one claiming the compelling nature of the hormonal evidence, is Japanese. We know the social attitudes towards women in Japan (loosely that men are superior and women should serve them). We might not want to overlook that factor.

Hugs,
Lisa

[princessmichelle]

One irony struck me:

the author noted that ambiguous genitalia were "corrected"- and ignores the implications of her own use of the term "corrected." This in an article about changing concepts of gender!

Princess Michelle

[Lisa Maren]

One irony struck me:

the author noted that ambiguous genitalia were "corrected"- and ignores the implications of her own use of the term "corrected." This in an article about changing concepts of gender!

Princess Michelle

Good call, Michelle!

Hugs,
Lisa

[Karren H]

Well for me knowing about that or any other cause and effect means.....NOTHING!!! Won't change the way I feel or what I love to do so it isn't worth remembering.....:)

Love Karren

[JenniferR771]

Marla S,
you are correct regarding the David Reimer case from western Canada. It made an interesting book. Title something like "The Boy who was raised as a girl". The article ignores the facts--she was not at all happy as a girl and reverted to being a boy about age 15. Eventually married a woman and adopted children. Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins was his main (and misguided) doctor.

[Maria2004]

Well for me knowing about that or any other cause and effect means.....NOTHING!!!

Love ya Karren. :hugs: :dance:

Maria

[Kate Simmons]

Love ya Karren. :hugs: :dance:

MariaIll drink to that Maria. Next round is on me gals. What's your pleasure (and I don't mean dressing!)?:happy: Ericka Kay

[noname]

That's one of the best articles I've read in a long time. I like what is said in the closing paragraphs, stating nothing is predictable when it comes down on the individual level. I very much wish people would start to look at people as individuals and not groups.

[Audry]

I read all that over coffee this Morning... and in conclution, I can only say this,,
Bah!! humbug,,, If it feels good do it!!!!:rolleyes: audry girl...

[Diana West]

It really doesn't address the "late bloomer."
I read many posts here of how many man started crossdressing later in life. As for me, it really didn't interest me until a couple of years ago.
I mean someone may make a case that the desire was always present, but repressed. But that doesn't make sense. I mean if you've repressed it for 40 years, then you've got 40 years experience at controllng the urge. Why suddenly start indulging in an activity that society does not accept/understand, or would jeopardize your standing in your community, or could put your marriage/family life at risk? There has to be something more than just genetics.
I can't really believe that I am crossdressing now because of the chemicals in my mother's body when I was being formed. For me, it just doesn't make sense.

(Besides, isn't it time we stop blaming our mothers for everything? LOL)