Hatred is a desire to eliminate something no matter what value it may have to others. — Philosophim

I like this definition very much. I, too, think that hate involves a desire to get rid of the thing you hate.

You're trying to prevent something horrific from occurring. — Philosophim

This brings up the question: Is hate ever justified?

Sometimes I just think the human species is made up of a great number of people all trying to do the best they can. Everyone is just trying to do the best they can, and no-one is ever the bad guy in their own story. This doesn't mean we should excuse deviant or hateful behavior, but so many things can go wrong with brain development, and sometimes that brain development produces deviant or hateful behavior. Of course, the safety and security of the society must come first, but that doesn't mean we need to hate the person who is a victim of their own brain development.

I have seen unloved people become the most loving people in the world to others because they wouldn't dare deprive to others what was deprived to them. — Philosophim

Interesting observation. Why are some people able to break the cycle, and others aren't?

Hate is what punishes criminals. — Philosophim

But wouldn't a justice system better operate with objectivity?

Hate is what allows us to kill your fellow man when they are trying to kill you. — Philosophim

Are you talking about personal self-defense, or war?

I do wonder whether hate needs to be involved in either one.

The world is unfortunately not a nice place at times, and hate is a very useful emotion to have when there is a need to destroy something in it that is very harmful. — Philosophim

But if subjectivity trumps objectivity, sometimes innocents end up getting hurt.

Our goal as those interested in philosophy is not to try to eliminate or vilify these emotions, but find practical and reasonable ways to apply them for the benefit of mankind. — Philosophim

No, I would not vilify the hater. But I also can't see any practical application of hate.

At the level of conscious awareness in humans, love and hate express the play of equilibrated and disequilibrated functioning. We love what enhances and reinforces the stability of our goal-directed activities and hate what threatens to interrupt them. Fundamentally then, while the awareness of love and hate emerge through the evolution of consciousness, the primordial origins of the play of love and hate predate biological evolution. We find ourselves thrown into relatively stablizing or destabilizing experience just as inorganic processes constantly cycle through organizing or disorganizing phases. It would make no sense to say that love and hate are arbitrary evolutionary adaptations, as though in some other part of the universe there are creatures who evolved differently, such that they are devoid of the experience of love and hate, or they love to hate and hate to love. — Joshs

Oh wow, this is fascinating. Thanks so much. And our prime directive as living organisms is to maintain homeostasis - in all of our systems. Balance is nature's rule. When we meet destabilizing factors, hate is among our repertoire of coping mechanisms. When we meet stabilizing factors, we are attracted to them. For some people, hate gets them to the middle, for others, love gets them to the middle.

This idea of balance pervades all aspects of our life. I am reminded of Plato's Golden Mean - that virtue exists in the middle ground between any two extremes.

But yet everyone's experiences with hate and love are different. I suppose this means that we each develop our own personal spectrum that includes love and hate, and our point of survival would thus be different for different people.

Evolutionary biology is many things, but a philosophical epistemology it is not. — Wayfarer

Of course, understanding the biological underpinnings of hate is not enough. But it’s reasonable to allow biology to inform philosophy. From that understanding, philosophical questions (of both morality and politics) arise. Just because a behavior is biological in nature does not mean that that behavior is “good.” But still, I have the need to understand the source of hate at its root.

With that understanding, I am less likely to judge the hater, even if I judge the hate. First, in the micro view, I want to note that hate hurts the hater. If you are consumed by hate, you cannot be a happy person. If happiness is the goal of life, if peace of mind is what we all want, it follows that hate disturbs that. I'm curious as to why anyone would choose hate.

And even if you understand that hate is a normal and natural response, it does not follow that haters should be able to act on their hate with impunity. In the macro view, hate can be weaponized and used against entire groups of people. This leads to a discussion about hate speech, and whether all speech should be “free.” Should hate speech be criminalized?

Some think it shouldn’t – that words and actions fall into different categories. But hate speech can be a powerful incitement to violence. Should one be free to spread hate? My answer is no. Hateful speech is a form of assault, and interferes with the safety and security of the targeted group, as well as negatively affecting the public order. The less fights in a society, the more stable the society is.

But what of governments that spread harmful propaganda seemingly without consequence? Should power be the factor that determines, by removing, limits? Hate + power can be a deadly combination, especially when there is a large segment of the population receptive to the message of hate, and willing to act on it.

But plenty of organisms survived for billions of years without love or hate, language or tool-making, and many of the other abilities that characterise h.sapiens . The trope that whatever characteristics we possess must have contributed to our survival, is an attempt to reduce those abilities to a kind of lowest common denominator with other species. — Wayfarer

I don't agree with the "lowest common denominator" point-of-view, and I am sorry if that seemed implied in what I was saying. Indeed, I am well aware of the great variation that exists among species - and variation does not dispute the theory of natural selection. Natural selection instead explains the variation we see.

we diverge from them in ways much more significant than the biological. — Wayfarer

I imagine you are talking about our high level of consciousness, as well as cultural attributes, like science, art and religion. I would counter with - if not for the biological basis of our brains, none of that would have developed.

evolutionary explanations have occupied the void left by the abandonment of biblical creation myths (to which I do not at all subscribe) as a creation story. — Wayfarer

I think this statement may confuse cause-and-effect. It's not that the loss of the supernatural caused the rise of science, but that the increased knowledge provided by science tended to put the supernatural aside.

‘survival of the fittest’ (a term not coined by Darwin, but later endorsed by him) can be used to justify liberal political structures and economic theories, to say nothing of eugenics. — Wayfarer

And that would be based on a misunderstanding and a misuse of the theory. "Survival of the fittest" does not refer to the most powerful, or strongest, or greatest, but rather refers to reproductive success due to being the best "fit" in a particular environment - best able to get what they need and avoid danger, and so the chances of their offspring surviving to reproductive age increases.

The Case Against Reality, which claims that h.sapiens don’t see reality as it is because perception is adapted to survival, not to truth. This is the ‘fitness beats truth’ theory. A Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, argues along similar lines to a different conclusion - that if rational insight is the consequence of evolutionary adaptation, then we have no reason to presume it must be true. — Wayfarer

This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. I can't agree, though. I think the prevalence of humans engaged in art and science dispel this idea. I think humans are very interested in truth. We are very curious creatures, after all. Curiosity rewards our dopamine pathways.

But - this does make me think of confirmation bias, and that might fit your theory. But this brings into play the whole "belonging to the group" motivation. So, maybe, our evolutionary drive to belong to the group trumps our need to know the truth. There's that old adage about forgoing difficult truths for comforting lies. Might this in part explain adhering to a religion?

Evolutionary psychology is a legit scientific discipline with important things to teach but I don’t think it ought to be viewed as an adjudicator for philosophical questions. — Wayfarer

No, not an adjudicator, and I don't think that can even happen. Science asks the "how?" and philosophy asks the "why?" that springs from that. I don't think philosophy should ignore science, but allow it to inform it.

The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?

It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs. — Ecurb

There is a place for both science and art - after all, they both have the same goal, and that is the pursuit of truth, just using different methods. Each individual, according to their own interests and abilities, can decide which path better suits them, or if indeed they want to take both!

It's a lens, but not the essence itself. — Astorre

I suppose it is the essence I'd like to get a better understanding of

It's that if I try to doubt the starting premise, the entire superstructure will crumble. So, I'm the one who doubted your starting premise. Defend it. — Astorre

Well, I guess that would require a defense of the theory of natural selection. An important feature of the theory is that evolution proceeds in the direction that confers advantage to a population, and I accept that conclusion. At root are our biological characteristics. But as mentioned, every advance in evolution comes with both benefits and costs. We need a threat-detection system, no doubt. But is hate the cost of that threat-detection system?

Love and hate are less obvious. — Ecurb

They don't exist alone, but are outcrops of the universal human mental capacity to process distressing signals. How they are processed will depend on many factors, including learned behavior.

If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally? — Ecurb

Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too.

I'm merely asking that you refine my opening sentence so that it can be delivered in defense of your life's work. — Astorre

Thank you for making me look at it again. Appreciated. Yes, the word "everything" is much too broad and imprecise. I have changed the opening sentence. thanks again.

Here's the new one:

and one of the many things that I told my students is the traits and characteristics associated with our physical structure - including neurological circuits - survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage. — Ecurb

I think you are introducing the notion of "neutral traits" - and they certainly exist. For example, blue eyes evolved from brown eyes, but blue eyes have no functional advantage over brown eyes. Yet, in some regions in the world, blue eyes are more common.

But I was not thinking about these kinds of variation within traits, and so I apologize for my imprecision. I was thinking in more general terms of traits taken as a whole. We all have eyes, and those eyes gave us the evolutionary advantage.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true.

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous. — Ecurb

No, we have to limit that claim to human traits - not how they were applied culturally

Since this question is being asked on a philosophy forum, I'll be answering philosophically, which may not quite meet your expectations. — Astorre

Sounds good. Thank you for replying.

I'd like to start with your opening statement: "Everything about us has survived because it gave us certain advantages in the environment in which we lived."

This statement is imprecise and can be interpreted in several ways:

1. We possess everything necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we may also possess something else.)

or

2. Everything we possess is necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we possess only what is necessary, and that what is not necessary has died off.) — Astorre

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, but I did not mean to imply those two interpretations.

No, evolution did not give us everything we need. Only what made us "good enough" to survive in that particular environment. The usual example cited is if a predator is chasing you and your buddy, you don't have to be faster than the predator, only your buddy.

Natural selection is not a process that produces perfection, only what is "good enough." If I consider any part of my structure or function, it evolved because it served some purpose during my evolution that helped me survive. And natural selection proceeds by a process of "costs and benefits" - and if the benefit outweighs the cost - evolution proceeds in that direction.

And yes, I am aware of vestigial functions and structures - things that once served a purpose but are not so important anymore.

Then why should anything exist for a purpose? A purpose for creation presupposes a creator. What if it's all purely accidental? Why should anything exist in us at all, rather than not? (This doesn't contradict the theory of evolution.) — Astorre

I think we need to separate "functional purpose" from "higher or divine purpose" -

Current science does hold that the evolutionary process is a random one.

may stem from a judgment and a predisposition. A great deal of reasoning seems to me to be motivated or framed by prior emotional dispositions, values, and preferences. — Tom Storm

I agree. I would add to that list one's self-image

Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted? — Tom Storm

We evolved to "fear the stranger" - and to protect ourselves if we did not know if they were friend or foe. But hate seems to grow out of this useful instinct if it is taken to an extreme. Hate is not necessary for self-protection ...

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc. — Tom Storm

yes, I was thinking along these lines.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something. — Tom Storm

I like this description very much.

In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised. — Tom Storm

Relevant to the question I raised about proximity

So what do we have? Are you trying to integrate an understanding hatred into your world view? — Tom Storm

For me personally, I do not hate. I do not know what hate feels like. But we see whole groups of people actively expressing and acting on their hate and while I know it is a multi-faceted and complicated question, I am trying to gain some understanding in the context of a shared humanity.

From a grubby, scientistic and evolutionary perspective, there is every reason to see why hatred might be regarded as having advantages. — Tom Storm

Yes, back to my initial point - it must have provided evolutionary advantage. But it seems like it's being misused or misapplied in the context of the present day world. Sort of like how our fight-or-flight response gone out of control is causing all sorts of stress-related illnesses.

Does hate serve a purpose?
— Questioner

It can keep you safe. — Sir2u

I do wonder, though, how often the threat is real and how often it is made up in the head.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

Neither are relevant to the topic. — Sir2u

I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?
— Questioner

Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door. — Sir2u

Good point. I was thinking only in terms of interpersonal or intergroup relationships

I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment. — T Clark

I too think that hate involves all three of these things, and takes them a step beyond, and that implies that hate is a reaction. A reaction to what? I believe it's a reaction to some harm that we perceive has been done to us. I used the word "perceive" because hate is not always justified. Often, it is the product of misconceptions and a lack of full understanding.

It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational? — T Clark

The biology says that we do use our rational faculties in the brain in formulating hate. So maybe, the question is not whether it is rational or irrational, but if it is based on the quality of the input reaching that rational part of the brain. Is what we believe about the person we hate true? And in interpretation, is our focus only on how we fit into the equation, or do we try to see the other side?

I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions. — T Clark

For some, it sure does serve an emotional purpose. Taking this to the extreme, there seem to be people who need to hate. This leads me to wonder what is the true source of their hate. Personal trauma? Self-hate? Projection?

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means. — T Clark

Love works really well close-up, but hate can work really well at a distance, especially when we are talking about between groups of people. For example, whipping up hate against perceived enemies is a hallmark of authoritarian rule.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

I don’t think this question makes any sense. — T Clark

Our brains develop in part according to the stimuli they receive. In the absence of love, the hate circuit rather than the love circuit becomes fixed in the brain?

Is hate a stronger force than love?
— Questioner

I don’t think either love or hate is a force. — T Clark

But they can provide impetus to action

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post — T Clark

i was thinking of love as a constructive force, and hate as a destructive force

Our natural love is not the opposite of hate, it’s the opposite of indifference. — T Clark

Good point. But from the earliest evolutionary beginnings of love, all other forms of love evolved.

I remember reading something that love first appeared in our ancestors as a mother's love.

But, in the wider context, indifference does not lead to action. Love and hate can both lead to action. So, in their application - in their causing actual behavior - they do have opposite effects.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

The gut response is to say that hate is irrational. But the science seems to suggest that love is more irrational than hate.

Love and hate use the same brain circuits in the brain. Both the hate circuit (and that for contempt and disgust) and the love circuit include parts of the brain called the putamen and the insula, found in the sub-cortex of the brain. This particular circuit’s function seems to be to process distressing signals.

But there is a significant difference between the neurological processing of love and hate. Large parts of the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.

Are you open to the possibility that more than just this one facet of sexual behavior is traceable to brain wiring? That perhaps a whole host of behaviors originate this way, and are connected on the basis of a single mechanism? And that the reason many see only sexual attraction as associated with innate brain wiring is that it is the most tangible and identifiable sexual
behavior? Others point to aggression, perceptual processing, voice modulation, gait, posture and many other subtle aspects of behavior as being shaped and organized by the same innate brain structure that dictates who we are attracted to. — Joshs

Excellent. Thank you.

I am countering his approach with a model which connects the brain region he is talking about with functional properties uniting a wide range of behaviors, including sexual preference, aggression, perceptual of color, sound and touch, aspects of vocalization , posture and gait. I believe that sexual preference and aggressiveness are linked, and originate in the affect-perceptual organizing function of this brain region. I call this constellation of affective-perceptual-behavioral tendencies gender. Sexual preference cannot be understood without seeing how it derives from the holistic organizational capabilities of this brain region. In making this claim I am not denying the contribution of socio-cultural factors. The biological and the social are inextricably intertwined with regard to gender behavior. — Joshs

Very well said.

but you didn't say they were misrepresenting anything — Philosophim

Actually, I did. They refuted supposed claims that were never actually made, like locating a specific “gender area” of the brain, or that any one brain is “100% male or female” and that male and female brains “do not look different.” No- one has ever claimed these things, so their approach was less than honest. Please re-read my post above.

Remember how I've said, "Everything is the brain"? So are our sociological concepts. The difference is these are learned and reasoned through, and not innate. What you need to demonstrate is that if someone says, "Women should wear top hats," and someone else says, "Women should not wear top hats," that there is some region of the brain that innately is going to believe this. — Philosophim

Yes, social mores are learned. Gender identity is not.

We don't expect that there would be one specific region that determines gender. No-one has claimed that. That is not how the brain works. But in previous posts I have mentioned some particular regions that might be involved. And another important aspect is the connectivity between these regions and how they function.

Remember that there are two definitions for gender, and that we are discussing the sociological aspect, not the synonym for sex. — Philosophim

You can't make up your own definition of gender that invalidates all the current scientific research and expect people to accept it without question. No, there are not two definitions of gender. Gender is the sex that you identify with. Identity is a mental construct of the brain.

No, what type of hat a sex should wear is 100% what gender is. — Philosophim

No. Your gender is the bent towards either male or female in the way you perceive, process, interpret and make meaning in this world, of which an important aspect is how you fit into the world.

but you need to show a study between people's different opinions about how a sex should behave in public — Philosophim

Here's the problem - gender is not about how a particular sex should behave in public. It's about a particular state of mind. (And now I have fallen to repeating myself).

What I've noted is that gender is a prejudice against the sexes, and elevating it over sex is sexism. — Philosophim

Only if you use your erroneous definition of gender.

Yes, I'm aware the trans community tried to grab and re-use the word for themselves regarding gender identity so they could accuse people of being bigots — Philosophim

This is an unfounded accusation (and rather wild) and tends to call into question your insistence that you do not have an agenda

I'm talking about treating gender dysphoria — Philosophim

The medically accepted treatment is gender-affirming care.

I'm also not noting that people don't have gender identities. I'm merely noting they are prejudiced subjective opinions about the sexes. — Philosophim

This would be inaccurate.

For example, if I'm a male who lives in a culture that says, "Men should never cry," yet I cry without caring about what society thinks, I do not have gender dysphoria. If as a woman, I liked to wear top hats in a culture that was against women wearing them, and I did without worry, I would not have gender dysphoria. — Philosophim

i strongly encourage you to read some transgender memoirs to gain a better understanding of the transgender experience.

Gender Dysphoria- Clinically significant distress and sense of unease that may lead to increased levels of depression and anxiety that have a harmful impact on daily life. This distress is caused by a person’s gender identity not matching how they feel within. This often occurs when a trans person is forced to match their gender identity and expression to their assigned sex at birth. Cisgender people can also experience gender dysphoria when dressing as the opposite sex.
https://aghope.org/en/blog/sogie-terms-and-definitions-understanding-the-lgbtqia2s-community-2022-6?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=11348411711&gbraid=0AAAAAD7UOl-E4otwZ5aEHO12spjLEEXj6&gclid=CjwKCAiAu67KBhAkEiwAY0jAlR1hi4rPCt1twfZXFYCSWDNVLMH1nwNrYiyoTVFvTBvRKFwZ8X2vwhoCnGEQAvD_BwE — Philosophim

I'm not sure why you chose to cite some random volunteer (nonscientific) organization - but in any case, their definition is wrong, and appears to have been written by someone who didn't understand gender dysphoria. According to the American Psychiatric Association, here is the correct definition:

“gender dysphoria,” - refers to the psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.

And to add to the above from the same site:
Gender- refers to the socially constructed characteristics of people, including gender norms and the roles we play. — Philosophim

No. According to the APA (on the same page linked above):

gender identity - one’s psychological sense of their gender

From my observations, transgender treatment is to learn to accept your own personality differences and eliminate the prejudice and sexism a person has about the sexism. I don't have a full picture, — Philosophim

I urge you to read up more about the transgender experience.

I think much of the confusion arises because you haven't got a clear picture of what gender identity is. It is not about what people tell you to do. It is instead something innate, something formed in the brain by the way thoughts are processed, and in the vast majority of cases these thoughts are processed with either a male or a female influence.

hat just means that he asked ChatGPT to do his homework for him, and it gave him that paper. — Leontiskos

using a search engine as a tool is not having anyone "do your homework for you"

I cited papers, not Chatgpt
— Questioner

Your source has https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com <-

You need to be reading your own papers please, not typing into chatGPT and citing things. Do your own research, ChatGPT is not yet a good source of research. — Philosophim

there's no difference between using Chatgpt as a search engine and using Google as a search engine

I quoted the papers, not Chatgpt

The site has citations to several articles, its one of many things to read. The real enemy is "I will not read or listen to you because you have an agenda". — Philosophim

But if the source begins with misrepresentations, I am unlikely to consider them unbiased, and therefore likely to call into question anything else they say

This is not a gender study, this is a sex differences study. We have to be careful to not accidently conflate the wrong meaning of gender in the discussion. We are using gender as the sociological concept, not a synonym for sex. Sex expectations are biological. Remember that gender is "Women should wear top hats." If we could find a brain section that correlated with this sociological belief, then we could demonstrate gender in the brain. — Philosophim

But I am not using gender as a sociological concept, but an aspect of identity at least in part determined by brain function.

No, it is not the type of hat one should wear, but patterns of thinking that emerge from neurological function.

this is a sex differences evaluation, not a gender evaluation of the brain. — Philosophim

How do you think the differences in male and female brains are manifested?

And I could easily ask "Why are you so fixated on the notion that gender might be determined in utero?" — Philosophim

Because that is what all the evidence points to.

What if we could isolate it to a misunderstanding and train the person to simply have a better understanding of their body? — Philosophim

This sounds dangerously like advocating for "conversion therapy" which has been been roundly denounced by all major medical associations. Conversion therapy is unsuccessful and in fact leads to psychological distress. If you are looking for a science-backed approach, this is not it.

You can find a long list of medical associations at this link that have made a statement in favour of gender affirming care. Here is one typical statement, from the American Psychological Association:

This policy statement affirms APA’s support for unobstructed access to healthcare and evidence-based clinical care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary children, adolescents, and adults.

Furthermore, this policy statement addresses the spread of misleading and unfounded narratives that mischaracterize gender dysphoria and affirming care, likely resulting in further stigmatization, marginalization, and lack of access to psychological and medical supports for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary individuals.”

"The American Psychological Association has adopted a resolution opposing efforts to change people’s gender identity, citing scientific research showing that such actions may be harmful.

The resolution, adopted by APA’s governing Council of Representatives on Feb. 26, aligns with the association’s stance against similar efforts aimed at changing people’s sexual orientation.

“There is a growing body of research that shows that transgender or nonbinary gender identities are normal variations in human expression of gender,” said APA President Jennifer F. Kelly, PhD. “Attempts to force people to conform with rigid gender identities can be harmful to their mental health and well-being.”

I hope you will pay particular attention to the last paragraph of the copied statement.

you still have not demonstrated why gender is not prejudice, and sexism when taken as being more important in law and culture than sex. — Philosophim

I think I have. Gender-affirming care is about affirming identity, not enforcing whatever cultural mores may exist. Besides, your position assumes that all of the male gender, or all of the female gender, hold the same cultural mores, and this is of course a false premise.

Please do better than chatgpt again. — Philosophim

I cited papers, not Chatgpt

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8.pdf — Philosophim

I went to this paper, and the first sentence literally read:

Both transgenderism and homosexuality are facets of human biology, believed to derive from different
sexual differentiation of the brain.

Another general site with more studies demonstrating the brain science is still very much not settled. https://www.transgendertrend.com/brain-research/ — Philosophim

This is not a scientific site, but a site with an agenda.

A couple of the claims they make:

"scientists have found no separate innate ‘gender’ area of the brain which is fixed at birth." - No sh*t - that has never been claimed. Please re-read my cites.

"there is no 100% ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain" - again, no-one has ever claimed this

"In reality male and female brains do not look very different from each other." - the valid research does not look at "what brains look like" - but how they function

So, I would advice some critical reading on your part.

HeM = Heterosexual Male
MtF-TR = Male to female transgender (post hormone therapy which is known to alter the brain)

"Like HeM, MtF-TR displayed larger GM volumes than HeW in the cerebellum and lingual gyrus and smaller GM and WM volumes in the precentral gyrus. Both male groups had smaller hippocampal volumes than HeW. As in HeM, but not HeW, the right cerebral hemisphere and thalamus volume was in MtF-TR lager than the left. None of these measures differed between HeM and MtF-TR. MtF-TR displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized. The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception." — Philosophim

That study is from 2011 and used MRI. There is more recent research that uses fMRI and contradicts those findings.

Overall our neuroimaging results suggest that the basic visuospatial abilities are associated with different activations pattern of cortical visual areas depending on the sex assigned at birth and gender identity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9010387/

Taken together, these four structural MRI studies provide preliminary evidence that regional cortical volumes can be modulated by gender attributes, especially in the frontal lobe.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922008539

Females had greater GMV in several areas including the thalamus, postcentral gyrus, triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus, orbital part of middle frontal gyrus and medial superior frontal gyrus in both hemispheres, middle occipital gyrus and middle cingulate gyrus in the left hemisphere, and the inferior parietal lobule and caudate in the right hemisphere, and bilateral cerebellum. Males had greater GMV than females only in the right inferior occipital gyrus.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00244/full

Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2310012121

So - the question that remains is - why are you so fixed against the notion that gender might be determined in utero?

compounded by the fact it's common knowledge women "don't have to be smart". — Outlander

I'm not sure where you're from, but this is not true in my neck of the woods.

If you're attractive, or you have something a man wants (you know what), you never really have to become educated or develop your character much beyond that of a child's. Men will literally open doors for you for no real reason other than the fact you exist. That's common sense. — Outlander

No, sorry, that's 1950s

and perhaps even from a genetic background that generally retains youthful (female) characteristics. — Outlander

I can't imagine what "genetic background" this is

Women are attracted to straight lines — Outlander

Or to a man's kindness

The average man is a primal, low-brow being who cares primarily about one thing: His self. — Outlander

This does not describe the many men I know.

if you can't control yourself and look at another person, whoever they are, without having an overwhelming urge to fornicate, you have a mental disorder. — Outlander

I just don't think this accurately describes the average person. (Maybe Trump)

the human experience, is so much greater than simplistic physical pleasures. It should be at least. Don't you agree? — Outlander

For sure!

As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender. — Philosophim

During the intrauterine period a testosterone surge masculinizes the fetal brain, whereas the absence of such a surge results in a feminine brain. As sexual differentiation of the brain takes place at a much later stage in development than sexual differentiation of the genitals, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Most of the anatomical, physiological and neurochemical gender-related differences in the brain occur prenatally. The sexual differences in the brain are affected by sex steroid hormones, which play important roles in the differentiation of neuroendocrine system and behavior.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24592097/

… our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb … There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19403051/

On average, males and females showed greater volume in different areas of the cortex, the outer brain layer that controls thinking and voluntary movements. Females had greater volume in the prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, lateral parietal cortex, and insula. Males, on average, had greater volume in the ventral temporal and occipital regions. Each of these regions is responsible for processing different types of information.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/sex-differences-brain-anatomy

In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation predominated in females.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316909110

In sum, these results demonstrate that stDNN together with IG procedures, which capture dynamic brain characteristics and their importance to sex differences classification, identifies sex-specific brain features that are differentially predictive of cognitive profiles in females and males.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. — AmadeusD

That the body reacts faster than the mind is well established scientifically:

Your body reacts before your mind during triggers because your nervous system constantly scans for danger through a subconscious process called neuroception. This automatic threat-detection system, located in primitive parts of your brain, evaluates safety and risk without requiring conscious thought.

I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. — AmadeusD

Well, this would go against well-established practices of how the scientific method is used. In any one study, there must be one independent variable and one dependent variable, and all other variables that might affect the outcome of the dependent variable must be controlled. So looking at autistic/nonautistic/trans/cis - introduces too many variables.

Because they adequately explain the results. — AmadeusD

Well, this introduces a totally new hypothesis and suggests a new study to be done!

This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward.. — AmadeusD

yes, honestly, I did too wonder too if I was choosing the right word. I changed it to "elements" and then changed it back. Facilities or capacities may be better words.

It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions. — AmadeusD

Good addition to the discussion. Yes, I do understand that interoception and alexithymia are two different aspects of internal body function, but they are connected in the loop that contributes to self-identity.

When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body.

This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin. — AmadeusD

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender.

These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case. — AmadeusD

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization.

As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.

The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.

I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much. — AmadeusD

It all made perfect sense to me. I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion.

I’ve been reading this morning about two psychobiological processes: interoception and alexithymia – and especially as to how they relate to transgender persons and self-identity.

Interoception is the ability to connect with and interpret the body’s internal signals. A sensory, or neurophysiological capacity, it’s like a data stream coming from the body to the brain.

Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. Signals may be received, but it’s not always possible to make sense or meaning out of them. (The result of alexithymia is often a feeling of disembodiment.)

Research shows that the lower interoceptive coherence in transgender individuals corresponds with worse mental-health outcomes.

Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia.”

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies.

This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.”

And indeed, studies show that gender-affirming care improves interoception and decreases alexithymia – a decrease associated with increased emotional clarity:

“Alexithymia changes were found after gender-affirming hormone therapy for transgender women in both fantasizing and identifying … These findings suggest a considerable influence of estrogen administration and androgen suppression on brain networks implicated in interoception, own-body perception and higher-level cognition.”

This also appears to support the research that shows that gender transition, by treating self-alienation, restores and strengthens diachronic unity.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim. — ChatteringMonkey

My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity.

massively apprecaite the far more nuanced and polite tone of this exchange. Sorry for any part i've had in creating the previously tension-laded one. — AmadeusD

Nothing to be sorry about. I appreciate your attention, and your sharing your point-of-view.

Suffice to say I disagree with your approach to transgender identity, but I feel that we have reached the point in the conversation where I would fall to repeating myself, or arguing, so I'll leave the last word on this to you.

That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. — AmadeusD

Yaniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. I don't think she is representative of the vast majority of transgender persons, and should not be used as the example to represent the community. She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people.

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is the crux of the matter for you? Well, Christian marriage is certainly available to those who desire it, It's not going away. But some chose alternative lifestyles. Why should they not be given that choice?

Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma — ChatteringMonkey

I think framing human rights as dogma in a negative light, yet advocating for Christian marriage for all, is somewhat an inconsistent position.

Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract. — ChatteringMonkey

Some traditions should be questioned and critiqued.

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer. — ChatteringMonkey

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender.

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of traditions are you talking about?

If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights.

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. — ChatteringMonkey

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of the abuses of WW2.

1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. — ChatteringMonkey

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country?

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language. — ChatteringMonkey

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining.

So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view. — AmadeusD

Yes, there are extremists in all groups. But the outliers should not decide the rule. We need to look to leadership to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of its citizens. For example, the policy coming out of the Trump administration has led to transgender persons fearing for their lives.

and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play. — AmadeusD

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview."

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?
— Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com — AmadeusD

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "out of existence"? — AmadeusD

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I meant the executive order Trump signed January 20, which in part states:

Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

The vast majority of "rejection" trans people endure, as it were, is to do with their behaviour — AmadeusD

I think an important part of what I said is "rejection by those closest to them" and it is wholly unfounded that this rejection stems from their "manic behavior"

hen I think you'll find the vast, vast majority of people you claim this about are actually not going through this as-stated and self-perception has coloured their take. — AmadeusD

Sorry, this goes against everything I have read about the subject. No doubt, it is complicated, psychologically, but the starting point has to be to believe them.

I know this firsthand from several personal friends or acquaintances. — AmadeusD

Why? What did they tell you?

t's "apply your same logic and see where it leads". I can see why this isn't going particularly deep. If I were saying "yeah, well look at this" you'd be right. I didn't. I gave you another vessel to pour your view into and see how it looks. I take it that it looks ugly? — AmadeusD

It's invalid because young white men do not face the same misunderstanding, ignorance and prejudice that transgender persons do

It is a fact that some people are deluded. It is also a fact that some people are afflicted by delusion. — AmadeusD

"Delusion" and "affliction" are not characteristic of the transgender identity. A delusion is a break from reality, and transgender identities are real. Also, you would no more say that a cisgender male is "afflicted" by his brain because it is a male brain - it is just the brain he has. Same idea with transgender people - it is just the brain they have.

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition."

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it. — ChatteringMonkey

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me.

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in. — ChatteringMonkey

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010). — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting"

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. — ChatteringMonkey

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?

In any case, certainly you are not arguing against those characteristics contributing to a society's stability?

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does. — ChatteringMonkey

This opens the door to harm done to others.

Who's "them"? Trans people??? — RogueAI

I think you are referring to this:

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile. — Questioner

if so, no, I meant the anti-transgender faction

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, I did say that. It's an ideology adhered to by a wide swath of different groups

nd historically a pretty unusual one at that. — ChatteringMonkey

is this meant to discredit it?

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue. — ChatteringMonkey

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society.

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society. — ChatteringMonkey

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself.

That's scary. — RogueAI

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile.

can you concede that you have significantly underestimated detransitioners? — Jeremy Murray

No. The stats I find this morning are similar to the stats I have previously posted:

The point-prevalence proportions of shifts in requests before any treatment ranged from 0.8–7.4%. The point-prevalence proportions of GnRHa discontinuation ranged from 1–7.6%. The point-prevalence proportions of GAHT discontinuation ranged from 1.6–9.8%.

Of those who do seek detransitioning -

Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.

Trans people definitively do not lack institutional support and accomodations in the West. — AmadeusD

This is not true in the US. They have been executive-ordered out of existence.

So, is it just that other people don't accept your self-image? That's true of most people. It is rare to find a group lacking resilience such that the world not conforming to their self-image is considered a 'potentially fatal' aspect of their situation. — AmadeusD

I think this fails to understand how central gender identity is to transgender persons and that it often results in full-person rejection by those closest to them.

But I think the analysis which starts with "you are telling me x, therefore x is the case" is probably the worst approach. — AmadeusD

I think this fails to understand that the best person to tell you who they are is the person telling you who they are.

You could apply this to young white men, who are in fact, not given support by institutions and are given the opposite. — AmadeusD

An invalid "whataboutism"

Schizophrenics are not upset because the world wont conform to their delusion - it is the delusion which supports the upset. I am not running together being trans and being schizophrenic, though they share aspects. I am merely trying to make it clear that taking the afflicted at their world is a problem. A big problem. — AmadeusD

Ah, but you have introduced the words "delusion" and "afflicted" - signaling a prejudice that does not accurately describe the transgender experience

Here is Kinnon Makinnon's substack. Try anything he writes. You will find nuance. — Jeremy Murray

Thank you for that, but I cannot say that it revealed much to me that I didn’t already know, or posted about.

Transgender persons experience psychic distress. Yes, they do, no sh*t, but let’s be clear this co-relation does not indicate a causation - that transgenderism does not cause the mental stress per se, but rather it boils down to a lack of support.

As the article makes clear:

… high levels of psychosocial stress and elevated scores on the nonsupport scale, reflecting a strong perception of lack of social support.

… it may reflect a heightened need to communicate suffering, possibly as a response to stigma or barriers to being taken seriously in clinical settings.

… Elevated externalizing patterns and substance-related problems may reflect maladaptive coping strategies developed in response to chronic minority stressors such as discrimination or interpersonal rejection.

And the treatment required focuses again on social support -

… a trauma-informed approach that builds resilience against chronic social stressors and discrimination is also likely beneficial.

… developing social connections to buffer against the observed pattern of social inhibition and perceived stigma.

… There is an urgent need to address suicidality and the perceived lack of support.

I am non-partisan and ProTrans.

You, apparently aren’t, since you can’t be bothered to do basic research, as demonstrated by your lack of basic knowledge on the subject throughout the thread. Again, just do the Google search. Or try Ben Ryan and his hazard ratio sub stack. — Jeremy Murray

Please share your research with us.

I read this thread from beginning to end before posting. I believe your 'stats' have already been debunked. — Jeremy Murray

Lol, I do wonder who is standing on ideology