4 ms·

fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia. So while we may treat it as a psychological condition, it, l

by IX-103 2y ago

fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia. So while we may treat it as a psychological condition, it, like many other psychological conditions, also has an underlying biological basis.

_heimdall 2y ago
Correlation still doesn't tell us too much though. In general its nearly impossible to find likely causation for psychological conditions. That doesn't mean the links aren't there, its seems likely to me that there is a biological factor, its just really hard or impossible to design proper studies for causation.
- trescenzi 2y ago
  Sure but the point of research is to improve understanding. Today there is correlation, tomorrow we find causation. Are you suggesting we should stop looking for a physical cause of depression? Many neurologists believe that psychological conditions map onto physical structural or chemical differences. Maybe that is the case, maybe that’s not the case but we use the tools we have to do that research so that we can better understand, and if necessary treat, these conditions.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I'd be very curious to see how causation may be found for most psychological conditions. I'm sure there are ways I haven't seen or considered, but it seems really difficult to structure a study that would lead towards potential causation. Traumatic brain injuries are one standout, though even then I think its just correlative as no one is going to attempt a study that intentionally causes TBIs in the test group.
naasking 2y ago
> fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia No they haven't, that study was debunked. There is currently no physically detectable way to identify gender dysmorphia or trans identity, there is only self-report.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  If someone started grinding up those pill things and putting them in your salt shaker, you wouldn't be able to prove that you didn't like the results - unless we can believe self-reports.
  - naasking 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      What special privileges?
      - naasking 2y ago
        Sex-segregated spaces for one. For another, is anyone obligated to call a Catholic priest "father" simply because his beliefs give him a special title? Of course not. Clearly gender is not treated this way.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Believing swlf-report for an n of 1 question of personal preference is very different from trusting a self-report survey meant to extrapolate the results of one cohort to a larger audience.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- RajT88 2y ago
  Unfortunately in this debate, two sides of any given argument from a study cannot even agree on what criteria counts as "debunked". I have seen people use many states of being for a study being in a "debunked" state: Peer pointed out methodological issues Retracted Another study found something in conflict with first one Somebody with a PhD just said it was wrong (regardless of field) Somebody without a PhD said it was wrong, but has domain experience Author of the paper proven to be biased in some way Author of the paper proven to be a cheat (but nothing specific about the paper) And so on...

by IX-103 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

Correlation still doesn't tell us too much though. In general its nearly impossible to find likely causation for psychological conditions. That doesn't mean the links aren't there, its seems likely to me that there is a biological factor, its just really hard or impossible to design proper studies for causation.

trescenzi 2y ago
Sure but the point of research is to improve understanding. Today there is correlation, tomorrow we find causation. Are you suggesting we should stop looking for a physical cause of depression? Many neurologists believe that psychological conditions map onto physical structural or chemical differences. Maybe that is the case, maybe that’s not the case but we use the tools we have to do that research so that we can better understand, and if necessary treat, these conditions.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'd be very curious to see how causation may be found for most psychological conditions. I'm sure there are ways I haven't seen or considered, but it seems really difficult to structure a study that would lead towards potential causation. Traumatic brain injuries are one standout, though even then I think its just correlative as no one is going to attempt a study that intentionally causes TBIs in the test group.

naasking 2y ago

> fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia No they haven't, that study was debunked. There is currently no physically detectable way to identify gender dysmorphia or trans identity, there is only self-report.

whatshisface 2y ago
If someone started grinding up those pill things and putting them in your salt shaker, you wouldn't be able to prove that you didn't like the results - unless we can believe self-reports.
- naasking 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    What special privileges?
    - naasking 2y ago
      Sex-segregated spaces for one. For another, is anyone obligated to call a Catholic priest "father" simply because his beliefs give him a special title? Of course not. Clearly gender is not treated this way.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Believing swlf-report for an n of 1 question of personal preference is very different from trusting a self-report survey meant to extrapolate the results of one cohort to a larger audience.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
RajT88 2y ago
Unfortunately in this debate, two sides of any given argument from a study cannot even agree on what criteria counts as "debunked". I have seen people use many states of being for a study being in a "debunked" state: Peer pointed out methodological issues Retracted Another study found something in conflict with first one Somebody with a PhD just said it was wrong (regardless of field) Somebody without a PhD said it was wrong, but has domain experience Author of the paper proven to be biased in some way Author of the paper proven to be a cheat (but nothing specific about the paper) And so on...