GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

Interesting article here for anyone that hasn't seen it. It's a study about gay people, but it might have some relevance to TS people. Somehow. Maybe. Who knows? Heh. Interesting anyhow.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/...posite-sex.html

Ah yes, they are getting closer and closer to the cause. In a decade they'll be working on the cure.

ahh the cure and the cause ....... fish go deep good tune

That kind of sophisticated research requires massive funding and an academic facility willing to put its reputation on the line to conduct it. What corporation(s) or medical school are going to want to be publicly linked to eugenics, even anti-gay eugenics? The outcry will be "What about diabetes or Parkinson's?" As much as the homophobes would love to see that kind of research, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough public sentiment in favor of that, especially given the priority of true medical problems with a genetic basis.

I've always suspicioned that a key difference between gay and trans (they're not mutually exclusive) is that trans are uncomfortable with their sex, there genitals. Gays, generally, are not. A gay’s genitals are the source of their sexual pleasure, and it would be counter to their best interest to have them surgically removed.

A trans actively pursues having their genitals altered. Then we see loooong posts here about whether they are orgasmic after SRS, and apparently some never are. How many gays would have their genitals surgically altered knowing ahead of time there was a distinct possibility they would never climax/orgasm again for the rest of their lives. In my mind there is a huge difference between gay and trans.

Assuming both trans and gay have the same risks of societal discrimination and family alienation (and I’m not sure they share the same risks – a gay walking down the street or at the family BBQ is still a guy in pants, not a man in a dress), what’s left at risk is their bodies. A trans person gambles everything on the turn of a knife; a gay gambles nothing. And, based on the ENDA debacle, the gay community in the U.S. isn’t even willing to gamble passage of legislative protections to the inclusion of trans.

Having said that, there is also a substantial percentage of trans gals who identify as lesbian. However, they are trans because of their discomfort with their genitals, not because they are lesbian.

Whew, I’ll bet I’ve put my foot in it now.

Actually sounds reasonable to me.

i remember when gay meant happy


gay is sooo 80s/90s they wanna get up to speed as bein ts is the new trend

Personally, and I know this isn't necessarily a popular opinion, I think the separation of gay and trans at the biological level is not useful.

If you believe our identity and behaviors are biologically founded (soul or spirit aside), then generally the difference between male and female would be tendencies towards two different sets of physical and behavioral characteristics.
Physical genitalia, how our brain is wired for the genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, social identity, etc. would all fall into gendered or sexual elements of who we are. Sexual preference, I would consider, is also a gendered behavior, with upwards of 90% of humans tending towards mates of the opposite sex.

Biologically, we're made up of billions of cells, trillions of synaptic connections, etc. It makes sense to me that the various portions of our brain that relate to gendered behavior such as social interaction and temperament, somatic identity, and sexual preference would vary greatly from person to person, although tending towards two polar genders.

So, in short, I consider sexual orientation a gendered behavior, and don't necessarily believe it's useful to separate gender and sex at the biological level.

I'm not quite so big on the scientific explanations of these things, though I wonder why they're looking for opposite sex brains in gay people rather than trans people. It begged the question, "what the fuck?" since being gay is just this thing that is more acceptable to society as time goes by ya know and it doesn't involve any surgery or anything like that so finding a 'reason' that the poor huddled masses can wrap their heads around to understand 'us' better would be nice. (But I'm not bitter about our social plight, I swear...)

Also, it's weird logic but maybe the thought process itself changes the brain structure instead of vice versa.

I'm not personally so sure on the spirit thing since I'm an atheist, but it's something anyhow and I have an open mind I guess.

It's nearly impossible for me to describe to others how it feels inside to be trans, but I know that to the people closest to me, my coming out was like an enjoyable party 'til they busted open the pinata and all the meat came out.

I would like to see the same kind of study done on a number of transgendered subjects. We already know about the studies done by the Dutch researchers, Swaab, Krujiver, et al, where the BSTC region of transgendered indivicuals more closely matches that of the gender with with they identify. Now, let's find more of the functional differences.

They are doing these studies to find out what makes gays tick. And that will be used in studies exploring "trans" people. What I see is that a "cure" will eventually exist for GID.

Why? Because we may become expensive to insurance companies and Health Care plans, including those from the government.

Since we require surgery, and that surgery is expensive, and allowing for it can open a whole can of worms--yet denying it can create many legal issues, I can see why insurance companies and governments may be interested in a "cure" for GID.

It's not about the gays and lesbians. They are just being used. It's about us.

I agree that the underlying reason for the studies is searching for profits, but I see it coming from a different source. I don't think the big bucks are in cost savings to insurance companies, after all, they can just choose not to cover GID, or whatever acronym people prefer.

I think the profits would be derived from selling a "cure". After all, what parent wouldn't want to spare their child the suffering associated with being, homosexual, or transgendered, or both? A darker take on that same theme is how much would a bigot pay to have their child "cured" of these abominable conditions?

In either case, money would be no object for many people. They would pay whatever it cost.

Well,by the time they come up with a "cure"(IMO)we'll all be pushing up daisys.There's a lot more important things to "cure" than GID that the insurance companys are paying for at this time that are more important than us.

Marcella, my dear, you're allowing your pessimism to override your normally very logical brain. Those at the decision making level of healthcare insurance are doubtlessly aware of these following facts, as it is their business to be aware of them from a business perspective.

#1. Many of our services, especially psychotherapy and HRT, are already being covered under health plans by friendly providers who submit in their claims diagnoses like "Depression" and "Hormone Imbalance" to explain the medical justification of these charges.

#2. The biggest ticket item considered to be "essential" for a transsexual woman, SRS, is between $10,000 and $30,000 (depending on whether one goes to Thailand or visits a greedy, money-sucking whore like Dr. A). This is a procedure that is being done no more than a few hundred times a year (for US patients) and, even were it covered by health insurance, would like exceed no more than 1000 cases a year. Out of $2.7 trillion dollars spent on healthcare in the USA alone last year, this is even less than a drop in the bucket.

Genetic reasearch to "cure" TSism would be far better spent on curing gentically-caused diabetes, a disease that costs $11,744 per patient every year or $116 billion dollars last year. Believe me, we're among the last of their concerns.


From a pure business perspective, this is unlikely. Genetic research at this level is very expensive, and with only a relative few able to afford such a pricey "cure," and cultural tolerance for homosexuality growing more every year, there is insufficient profit potential to pursue such research. The ROI would suck, so only a fanatic would even consider funding it. And people with the kind of money required to finance this kind of research are fanatical about only two things: money and power.

It's too early. Remember what I'm writing here in a decade.

The situation is going to change, and more and more companies will be forced around the world to cover more and more conditions. A "slippery slope" scenario, that can cost a lot of money.

Providing a cure (and I agree with Hope's model, offering it to parents) will mean much greater savings than it means now. I hope I'm wrong, though. People tend to dislike what I say and brand me as pessimistic until it happens. And after, they hate me. It seems many feel Cassandra doesn't just tell what's coming, but causes it.

Well, here is one transwoman who will never hate you, chica. I like the way your mind works, even if you can be Eeyorish at times.

P.S. I think ten years from now we'll still have far more pressing problems. The sample of TS women is just too small vis a vis a much larger population whose medical problems are far more costly. Once they cure diabetes and the huge other host of genetically-caused diseases, they'll still have to deal with what many believe are the genetic predispositions to alcoholism and other addictions. We're far too unimportsnt in the grand scheme of things.

Of note,
Many insurance companies are being forced into mental health parity, where they provide for some number of visits per year, with the standard co-pay.

At say, 20 visits per year, each $100, that's 2k. Antidepressant medication can be quite expensive as well, maybe a few k a year.
Over a career, that can add up...to a much greater cost than, say, treatment of GID.

Covering all of us for GID is a drop in the bucket, compared to say treatment for erectile dysfunction. Something that's often covered, and is honestly a choice.

Covering GID is a drop in the bucket compared to pregnancy coverage, something that is a choice.