So, let's hear how gender has nothing to do with biology.  Trust the science?  Or believe delusions?  

So, now you'll have agree with the links I have posted over and over again on this site showing that brain scans of transgender individuals match the gender which they identify as.  

So, now you'll have agree with the links I have posted over and over again on this site showing that brain scans of transgender individuals match the gender which they identify as.  

Well, I haven't seen any of your links.  Here's one I found:  Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

It's important to note that the study concluded transgender brains share some characteristics of non-transgender brains.  That means they're not the same.  Of course, the unspoken ramifications of these studies is that transgender is a birth defect.  However, that would no doubt cause a political uproar from those attempting to exploit the condition to obtain a political advantage. 

The political implication is that transgender is a natural disadvantage requiring societal sacrifices to institutionalize the disadvantage.  An institutionalized disadvantage would require transgender individuals to be perpetual victims of their own biology resulting from a birth defect.  That would transform transgender into something like Downs syndrome.

brain scans of transgender individuals match the gender which they identify as.  

Match?  I am reading similar in some ways and different than both male/female in others in this study, but it is more to wade through than I can fully comprehend.  

It is doubtful that there will ever be a definitive answer unless the question "What is a normal brain for anyone?" is settled.

However, most studies have shown the majority of transsexuals are also homosexuals - as did the one below.  The social problems of having a male body and wanting heterosexual males to consider them to be a replacement for a natal female?   And if homosexual males are attracted to male bodies and not males who have altered their body to look female?   

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism - PMC (nih.gov)

Actually, you have seen my links.  You poo-pooed them at the time.  Studies of brain scans show that transgender brains match the gender they identify with.  

Yes, match.  I've posted links many times and you all poo-pooed them. 

Yes, match.  I've posted links many times and you all poo-pooed them.

There are ongoing studies or is there 100% agreement that there is a 100% match with the 100% agreed upon female brain?

That would not be science.  Science is continually researching looking for more data and continues to evolve as more is learned.

Well, if you had read my original links, you would know the answer to those questions.  Why should I repeat what I've posted over and over again and which you all dismissed?  Answer, I shouldn't and I won't.  You all had your chance when I posted the links (multiple times).  

Actually, you have seen my links.  You poo-pooed them at the time.  Studies of brain scans show that transgender brains match the gender they identify with.  

The comment history only goes back 1 year.  Nothing there.  You apparently remember by response but you can't remember the links I was responding to?  

The only links I've found suggest that brain scans of transgender brains only match some of the characteristics of the gender they identify with.  That means a transgender female does not have a female brain; only portions of the brain appear to be female.

If the developed brain structure does not match the developed sexual structure of the body then that must be the result of a birth defect of unknown cause.

And the discussion of transgender only reinforces that the brains of males and females are different.  The biological differences between males and females include differences in brain structure which also implies differences in brain function.  That's been a standing theory for thousands of years and science has not refuted that theory.

Oh, I know the links I'm referring to which are the same ones you responded to.  I just refuse to post them again after you all poo-pooed them.  Then you post this which actually confirms the information in those links.  LOL 

That comment is a load of passive aggressive nonsense.    If “your links” make your point to this new seed, then share them for all to judge.

Expecting everyone here to believe you because you can’t be bothered and/or because you simply said so, doesn’t compute.

Not in the least.

You've all seen them and poo-pooed them, so no I will not repost those links.  I'll tell you what conservatives always say, and I quote "do your own research".  But, I'll at least give you a starting point -  the Cleveland Clinic. 

Oh, I know the links I'm referring to which are the same ones you responded to.  I just refuse to post them again after you all poo-pooed them.  Then you post this which actually confirms the information in those links.  LOL 

Well, I don't know the links you are referring to.  If your refusal provides a sense of vindication then congratulations.  But at this point you are only patting yourself on the back and I don't care.  Go ahead, have a blast.

Not a link …. More passive aggressive garbage.

Oh, and my comment wasn't meant to be passive aggressive, it was meant to be an assertive communication - direct and to the point.  

And, you'll not get a link.  I've already told you that.  You should have paid attention when I posted them over and over and over and over again.  

lol …..

Damn straight I'm patting myself on the back after you posted this seed that confirms my links that you all poo-pooed, attacked me for, and basically said were junk science.  

Laugh all you want.  This seed proves my comment and links correct.  

Laugh all you want.

Oh I am, more with each comment I read ….

Good because I don't give a fuck what you want.  I gave you a starting point to do your own research.  If you're too lazy to do it, then that's a YOU problem.    

That's a great gif of you burying your head in the sand.  

Well, I don't know the links you are referring to

I don't either.  However, I googled Cleveland Clinic transgender studies and found links to a podcast between psychiatrists about treating transgender patients.  

In this podcast, the discussion said there was similarities not an exact match which is what I have read elsewhere.  Hopefully, there will be peer reviewed published papers by biologists (or whoever studies the actual development of the body) to give more insight on why the brain is developing to contrast with the genitalia instead of connect with it.  And to what degree. 

Psychiatrists are acting as if they are neurologists and biologists.  Why is this being allowed?

Gender Dysphoria (clevelandclinic.org)

The post-mortem studies, which focused on male to female transgender brain, found out that the volumes of transgender women were similar to that of cisgender females in certain areas, such as the central nucleus of the bed stria terminalis or interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus. So these are areas that are essential in sexual behaviors, and the fact that the transgender female brain resembles the cisgender brain was important. And then people also looked at some gray matter volumes and cortical thickness. And again, transgender brains showed similarities to the identified gender even before they started hormonal treatment. So these were some very important structural differences that were shown. Then when it comes to the functional findings, the FMRI findings of the transgender brain versus the cisgender brain, the self body image networks become very, very important because what was shown was that within the self body image networks, there was decreased connectivity in the transgender population compared to the cisgender population, showing that there was a problem, or there was an issue with body self -perception when it comes to transgenders understanding their own bodies.

And which was very, very important. And then the second functional studies looked at brain activation studies. So in these conditions, people were given certain tasks and the activation of the certain brain areas were looked at. And again, transgender people showed a lot of similarities to their identified gender as opposed to their biological gender.

So in light of all of these findings, we brought the concept of brain gender, because currently, when we are talking about gender, it is the common understanding is that your genitalia determines your gender. But what we're saying is that the brain actually is the main source when it comes to understanding your own gender and your gender identity. So we're bringing the term the brain gender, which can be different than your genitalia. So that's one concept. The second thing is when your brain doesn't match the body that you're in, you find yourself in this cognitive dissonance your entire life, right? So the external world is telling you that this is your gender, but your personal experience is different. So that creates a dissonance. And when you combine the brain gender and the dissonance, then that's how we get the gender dysphoria.

Glen Stevens, DO, PhD :  To go a little bit further. One of the advantages we have here is a 7-Tesla MRI. Have you found that helpful? Is it gleaned any new information?

Murat Altinay, MD:    We are in the process of developing some research studies in that area. So our team in mood disorders, we use the 7- Tesla and we find it very beneficial, but we haven't been able to use that for the transgender population just yet. But, there are some studies that we are working on, which might come into fruition in the near future. Yeah.

Psychiatrists are acting as if they are neurologists and biologists.  Why is this being allowed?

There is debate on this issue in the medical field.  As there should be.  We also need to have this debate in the public square to better understand who and what is providing the information on transgender.

The philosophy of psychiatry and biologism - PMC (nih.gov)

In the philosophy of psychiatry, there has been an ongoing dispute about the capabilities and limits of the bio-natural sciences as a source of methods and knowledge for quite some time now. Still, many problems remain unsolved. This is at least in part due to the regrettable fact that the opposing parties are far too rarely prepared to swap ideas and to try to increase their mutual understanding. On the one hand there are those—psychiatrists as well as philosophers—who maintain a more mentalistic and/or phenomenalistic view of the psyche and its disturbances. On the other hand there are researchers who follow biologically inspired strategies: Since the human mind is something through and through biological, mental diseases, too, can and should be explained and treated biologically. Even though there are examples of fruitful collaboration, in general the split prevails. One often gets the impression that both sides remain in their “trenches”, busy with confirming each other's opinions and developing their positions in isolation. Even though there are also examples of fruitful collaboration, the split leads to several shortcomings:

1. Good arguments and insights from both sides of the debate get less attention than they deserve.
2. The further improvement of each position becomes harder without criticism, genuinely motivated by the opposing standpoint.
3. The debate is not going to stop, at least not in the way it would finish after a suggested solution finds broad support.
4. Related to this, insisting on the ultimate aptness of one side is just plainly wrong in almost every case, since undeniably, most philosophical positions usually have a grain of truth hidden in them.

In sum, many controversies persist with regard to the appropriate methodological, epistemological, and even ontological level for psychiatric explanation and therapies. In a conference which took place in December 2011 in Muenster, Germany, we tried to contribute to a better understanding about what really is at issue in the philosophy of psychiatry. We asked for a possible common basis for several positions, for points of divergence, and for the practical impact of different solutions on everyday work in psychiatry.

The present Frontiers research topic is a fruit of that conference. Since psychiatry is a subject too wide to be covered   in toto , this research topic collects six target articles, each focusing a particular aspect. They are accompanied by a number of commentaries providing both critical and supportive arguments.

I don't either.  However, I googled Cleveland Clinic transgender studies and found links to a podcast between psychiatrists about treating transgender patients.  

In this podcast, the discussion said there was similarities not an exact match which is what I have read elsewhere.  Hopefully, there will be peer reviewed published papers by biologists (or whoever studies the actual development of the body) to give more insight on why the brain is developing to contrast with the genitalia instead of connect with it.  And to what degree. 

Psychiatrists are acting as if they are neurologists and biologists.  Why is this being allowed?

When science is motivated to seek validation and vindication does it remain science?  I expect that the majority of these scientific studies are attempting to establish a validating correlation rather than discover a true causal explanation.  It's not science searching for an answer; it's science searching for excuses.

Let me ask you this:  If an individual can transition from one gender to another with the application of medical therapies then why doesn't that suggest that transgender is, in reality, a treatable malady?  Medical treatment to overcome and prevent a transition would be just as valid as medical treatment to obtain a transition.

If these studies discovered the causal relationship that explained why someone would be transgender then it would be possible to reverse the condition.  Understanding the causes would allow developing treatments to overcome and prevent a gender transition.

At this point scientists are only searching for grant funding.  We're no closer to understanding if the condition is caused by exposure to environmental pollutants, the affects of contaminants in the food supply, or a defect occurring during gestation.  But the mere fact that a transition can be speeded through medical treatment suggests that transgender is actually a treatable condition that can be prevented. 

It's actually rather amazing that a misfire in nature has been considered desirable.  And excuses won't alter the fact that transgender denotes a problem with nature that may be a warning sign.  The rise of transgender individuals may well be a red flag that human science and technology has screwed us again.

Science in academia goes off the rails regularly.    Where the scientific method of discovery is often ignored or revised due ever present bias.

Look no further than this place for empirical data on that problem.

Good questions and observations.

Children are being used as lab rats for profit by the pharmaceutical companies.  I am thoroughly disgusted with anyone who promotes this.

Science in academia goes off the rails regularly

Lots of data fabrication, which is why so many studies can't be replicated. For instance, the study that received great fanfare here and elsewhere purporting to show women were major participants in hunting animals in hunter gatherer societies. Turns out it the authors manipulated/misused the underlying  data to generate the politically popular headlines.

The Captain Obvious study.    
Noice!

"I have in my phone the numbers of at least 200 women in straight relationships who can and will give you PhD-level analyses of these differences. The implications will have subsections and footnotes. You let me know. It’ll honestly be hard to get them off the phone once it starts."

I'm having a hard time getting my science from the National Review, which is a political paper.

This is my daughter's field of study, and we have discussed this at length. There are so many outliers and that number directly correlated to the percentage of both gay and transgender people, which is between 9 and 10%.... so again, even if I took that study as reliable, it is confirming what my daughter says.

Btw, genetic variations are always present, and comparing someone with Down syndrome to someone who is gay, transgender, or even ADHD does not equate.

So the link I provided is unacceptable?

What are the list of accredited studies that are published online so this subject can be addressed from various proven accredited scientific research?

I am finding this confusing because so much of it is based on politics and emotion instead of accredited scientific research that is respected in the scientific community.

Some more research...

His and Hers: Sex Differences in the Brain - PMC (nih.gov)

Why Has the Field Been Slow to Catch On?

One reason neuroscience has been slow to understand the need to compare male versus female research results might be that sex differences in the incidence of human disease, like differences in brain structure, are apparent when considering averages across large populations. This gives the impression that differences between males and females are simply quantitative variations on a common theme: each sex has or does something, but one sex has or does more of that thing than the other sex. If that were true of all sex differences, then comparison of males and females at a molecular level might not matter much because results from one sex would apply, perhaps with minor differences, equally well to the other. But sex-specific molecular mechanisms and latent sex differences change that calculation.

The existence of latent sex differences makes it clear that molecular mechanisms targeted for drug development can be sex-specific, even in the absence of differences in behavior or disease. It follows that drugs derived from molecular studies in only one sex could be ineffective or have unanticipated consequences in the other.

The next time you hear about a sex difference in the brain, consider whether claims about its implications for brain function have really been tested. And the next time you hear about a new brain study in animals, find out whether the results apply to both sexes. It may be that the best way to persuade scientists to get serious about sex differences is for non-scientists—who, after all, pay the bills for federally funded research—to demand that they do.

Scientists at Stanford 

I googled for the Stanford study cited in the article.  This is what I found in Science Daily.  

Study identifies distinct brain organization patterns in women and men | ScienceDaily

Study identifies distinct brain organization patterns in women and men

Date: February 19, 2024 Source: Stanford Medicine Summary: Researchers have developed a powerful new artificial intelligence model that can distinguish between male and female brains. A new study by Stanford Medicine investigators unveils a new artificial intelligence model that was more than 90% successful at determining whether scans of brain activity came from a woman or a man.

How do the brains of necrophiliac's differ from people who are not necrophiliac's?  Does gender matter?  Is it neurological or social? Both?

When we look at what we really know, it shows how little we actually know.  If we truly understood people, then we would never be surprised by anything they do.  

Animals have no concept of what we call morality.   And even in our species, the rules of morality differ significantly.  Morality depends on the morality of the group in charge.  This is why we have various groups of men at the top of the Christian and Muslim sects fighting for supremacy to control the lives of others.  There is nothing moral about it.  It is control.

However, when scientific observation and research is considered more valid than a religion-based society, we might be a more tolerant society through understanding instead of condemnation.

Psychologists viewpoints on necrophilia - 

The Building Blocks of Necrophilia | Psychology Today

would of course differ significantly from a scientist's view who observes it in other species.

How Gay Duck Necrophilia Was Discovered | TED Talk | Live Science

With all the interest in   duck sex   these days, a lecture by the scientist who discovered gay mallard necrophilia seems timely.  

In a   TED Talk   posted online this month, Dutch biologist Kees Moeliker, a curator at the Natural History Museum Rotterdam, explains how he became the first scientist to document homosexual necrophilia in ducks.

Moeliker was working in a new glass wing at the museum that turned out to be a "true bird killer." Not understanding the concept of glass, birds were constantly flying into windows and dying upon impact. On June 5, 1995, Moeliker heard the bang that changed his life.

On that day, when he looked outside for the building's latest victim, Moeliker saw the hapless male mallard with a live one nearby. The live male duck then mounted the dead one and started copulating with it.

"I'm a biologist. I'm an ornithologist. I said, 'Something's wrong here. One is dead; one is alive; that must be necrophilia. And, look, both are of the male sex — homosexual necrophilia,'" Moeliker told the audience. Ready to take notes, the researcher went outside and watched the live duck trying to have sex with the corpse for 75 minutes before picking up the dead bird and freezing it.

"I knew I had seen something special, but it took me six years to decide to publish it," Moeliker said in his talk. The research earned him the 2003   Ig Nobel biology prize , and now that Moeliker has made a name for himself in the realm of animal-sex oddities, people all over the world send him their own peculiar observations.

"Believe me, if there's an animal misbehaving on this planet, I know about it," Moeliker said, showing examples of the pictures he has received: a moose trying to copulate with a bronze statue of a bison in Montana; a frog trying to have sex with a goldfish in the Netherlands; and a cane toad trying to have sex with a victim of road kill (notably in the missionary position — a rarity in the animal kingdom).

Moeliker has used the anniversary of his strange discovery (June 5) to hold a "Dead Duck Day" at the museum, where researchers discuss with the public new ways to prevent birds from colliding with windows.

It’s not really news that men’s and women’s brains are built and function differently. However, it isn’t a simple matter of one or the other. Brain structures and functions exist on a spectrum, and can manifest in ways that contradict their typical associations with chromosomes, hormones, and gonads. So, for some people, the solution is to adjust hormones or the body to match what is happening in the brain. That is much easier than trying to change the brain.

The most important thing is our collective reaction to this. We shouldn’t disrespect people because they live with this conflict or treat them as some kind of societal threat. We should operate from compassion, and not irrational fear.