Trans News/ Issues

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

Please forgive my ignorance on the subject of hormone therapy, but I fail to see how testosterone in and of itself would give someone an unfair advantage. I am old and there was no girls wrestling team when I went to high school, but if there were at 5' 11" and 180 lbs I could have easily beaten most girls and boys in my weight class, as I had a very muscular upper torso ,without testosterone therapy.
Greco Roman wrestling is more about upper body strength and center of gravity. (I am assuming that anyone wrestling is being aggressive, it is not a passive sport.)
Please enlighten me as to how the testosterone gave an advantage.

That being said I do believe that transgendered youth should be participating on the teams of their gender identity, not the gender on their birth certificates.

The issue isn't whether or not some girls can beat some boys. Of course, they can, and do...in all sports.

However, natal men's bodies have more testosterone than natal women's bodies. All things being equal, they are naturally stronger (testosterone is responsible for the increase in muscle mass men have).

There is no difference between a female bodied person on testosterone and a male bodied person who produces their own testosterone. The levels of testosterone in the natal male and in the trans male, are the same. The amount of testosterone prescribed to a trans man is the amount that will mimic the same testosterone levels of natal males of the same age.


P.S. Please consider not using the term "transgendered". People are transgender, they are not "transgendered".

[StoicStone]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The issue isn't whether or not some girls can beat some boys. Of course, they can, and do...in all sports.

However, natal men's bodies have more testosterone than natal women's bodies. All things being equal, they are naturally stronger (testosterone is responsible for the increase in muscle mass men have).

There is no difference between a female bodied person on testosterone and a male bodied person who produces their own testosterone. The levels of testosterone in the natal male and in the trans male, are the same. The amount of testosterone prescribed to a trans man is the amount that will mimic the same testosterone levels of natal males of the same age.


P.S. Please consider not using the term "transgendered". People are transgender, they are not "transgendered".

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

Hi, Stoicstone. I don't have time to respond right now, but I just wanted to quickly tell you that you are on point with your language. I am glad you did not take offense to my correction and appreciate your openness to information on this topic. Of course, i find all things trans related to be interesting!

I will circle back and respond tonight.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

The trans boy wanted to wrestle on the boys' team and they would not allow him to.

I don't know how to explain the issue of strength any better than I have.

If you believe that a 17 year old boy has an advantage over a 17 year old girl, than this trans boy (who is taking testosterone), would have the same advantage.

I believe that those who have testosterone as the primary hormone flowing in their bodies (cis males, and trans males who are on testosterone), should compete against each other. I believe that people who do not have testosterone as their primary hormone (cis females, and trans female who are on testosterone blockers), should compete against each other. I believe that if a trans boy, who is NOT on testosterone wants to compete with the boys, that is his right. He is coming from a place of disadvantage, not advantage. I would have difficulty with a trans girl competing against cis girls if she was not taking a testosterone blocker. I believe that competition should start from a place of being on equal footing, not with one person having an advantage over another.

Supplements that supposedly increase testosterone do not work in cis women. They only work in men.

[StoicStone]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The trans boy wanted to wrestle on the boys' team and they would not allow him to.

I don't know how to explain the issue of strength any better than I have.

If you believe that a 17 year old boy has an advantage over a 17 year old girl, than this trans boy (who is taking testosterone), would have the same advantage.

I believe that those who have testosterone as the primary hormone flowing in their bodies (cis males, and trans males who are on testosterone), should compete against each other. I believe that people who do not have testosterone as their primary hormone (cis females, and trans female who are on testosterone blockers), should compete against each other. I believe that if a trans boy, who is NOT on testosterone wants to compete with the boys, that is his right. He is coming from a place of disadvantage, not advantage. I would have difficulty with a trans girl competing against cis girls if she was not taking a testosterone blocker. I believe that competition should start from a place of being on equal footing, not with one person having an advantage over another.

Supplements that supposedly increase testosterone do not work in cis women. They only work in men.

I agree that transgender youth should compete with the biological gender they identify with.
cisgender males have their entire life to build their muscle mass, so they have a clear advantage. The only real way to make 1 on 1 sports fair would be to measure muscle mass, and adjust the divisions of competition on that basis instead of weight, pero that is not likely to happen (people resist any kind of change).

I thank you for your patience and understanding and for the knowledge you have imparted to me. I have found another site that will give me more specific information on my grandchild's situation (MtF). I will bother you no further. I apologize for the intrusion into your conversation. Again, thank you very much for the insight.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

I agree that transgender youth should compete with the biological gender they identify with.
cisgender males have their entire life to build their muscle mass, so they have a clear advantage. The only real way to make 1 on 1 sports fair would be to measure muscle mass, and adjust the divisions of competition on that basis instead of weight, pero that is not likely to happen (people resist any kind of change).

I thank you for your patience and understanding and for the knowledge you have imparted to me. I have found another site that will give me more specific information on my grandchild's situation (MtF). I will bother you no further. I apologize for the intrusion into your conversation. Again, thank you very much for the insight.

No interruption whatsoever! As a trans man I appreciate the opportunity to educate people on anything related to transition, or the community. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.

[cricket26]

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/26/brief-july-26/

[cricket26]

[DapperButch]

Dr. Christine McGinn, a well known, well respected trans surgeon has offered to complete transgender surgery for free for those military personnel who are already scheduled for surgery through the military. She said that some are scheduled for surgery very soon.

She is amazing. I am actually pretty surprised since she is a surgeon who continues to not take insurance. I suspect that her veteran status is what really propelled her to do this. She was a flight surgeon who was once nominated as best flight surgeon in the entire Navy.

I am so impressed!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/tra...ntv/index.html

[DapperButch]

I don't know why I didn't think this would really happen....

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017...an-now-policy/

Though the policy—called “A Guidance Policy for Open Transgender Service Phase Out”—has not yet been made public, sources familiar with the planning said it would encourage early retirement, usher out any enlisted personnel after their contract is up, and would fire trans officers up for promotion. Basically, said a source, “the administration wants to get rid of transgender service members as fast as they can.”

No one yet knows what will happen to the service members currently fighting in combat. The new policy does allow trans service members to continue serving but apparently does not offer any protection from harassment or other efforts to get them to quit.

[Kätzchen]

Dapper???? Did you see the early morning news headline that a terribly tragedy occurred yesterday? An Transgendered girl was brutally beaten to death and their eyes were gouged out too!

Just horrific, the hate that's out there!

LINK:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/sheriff...-a-hate-crime/

[DapperButch]

I am not holding my breath that this will "stick", but it is a good sign...

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a White House policy barring military service by transgender troops, ruling that it was based on “disapproval of transgender people generally.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found the administration’s justification for the ban, which was set to take effect in March 2018, to be suspect and likely unconstitutional. She ruled that the military’s current policy should remain in place.

“There is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all,” the judge wrote in a strongly worded, 76-page ruling. “In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the White House’s proposed policies likely violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, writing that “a number of factors — including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself — strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious.”

Monday’s ruling was seen as an encouraging step for supporters. It stops a plan to discharge all transgender troops, allows current transgender troops to re-enlist and permits transgender recruits to join the military starting in January.

“She basically wiped the slate clean,” said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for Lesbian Rights who represented the plaintiffs, adding that while the ruling could be appealed, he was confident that it effectively marked the end of the ban because the judge said it violated the Constitution.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not impose an injunction on the ban on sex reassignment surgery because she said it did not apply to any of the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that in blocking the entire policy, the ruling effectively shelved the ban on sex reassignment surgery as well.

President Trump announced in a series of Twitter messages in July that American forces could not afford the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender troops, and said “the United States Government will not accept or allow them to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” A presidential memorandum released in August required all transgender service members to be discharged starting in March 2018.

The announcement blindsided many in the military, which had been moving ahead with plans to integrate transgender troops, based on a 2016 study commissioned by the military that found that allowing transgender people to serve openly would “have minimal impact on readiness and health care costs” for the Pentagon. It estimated that health care costs would rise $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year, representing an almost unnoticeable 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in spending. The study also projected “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.”

Civil rights groups immediately sued the administration on behalf of transgender service members, arguing that the ban was discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law. A number of lawsuits are still pending.

The government had asked that the case be dismissed, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the motion, writing that while “perhaps compelling in the abstract,” the government’s arguments for dismissal “wither away under scrutiny.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly was nominated to a lower court in the District of Columbia by President Ronald Reagan and was named to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.

The suit was filed by GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of five unnamed transgender women serving in the Coast Guard, Army and Air Force. Many of the women had served for years as men and had been deployed to war zones before coming out to commanders when the ban was lifted in 2016. One is a few years from retirement, according to court documents. Another told her commander she wanted to keep serving, but would resign if the military moved to forcibly discharge her.

Big, huge news today,” said Lt. Cmdr. Blake Dremann, a Navy supply corps officer who is transgender and is the director of Sparta, an L.G.B.T. military group with more than 650 active-duty members. “A lot of people’s lives were put on hold. They thought their careers were ending. This means we can continue to serve with honor, as we have been doing.”

Petty Officer Eva Kerry, 24, who is transgender and is training to operate nuclear reactors, said the ruling lifted an obsessive dread over the impending end of a Navy career she loves. “I remain optimistic that the Constitution I swore an oath to will continue to protect the rights of all Americans,” she said on Monday.

The decision is the latest in a series of controversial White House policies halted by the courts, including limiting travel from predominantly Muslim countries and withholding federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cities. Asked for comment, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the Justice Department was reviewing the ruling.

“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps,” the department said in a statement, calling the lawsuit “premature” because the military was still reviewing the policy.

The decision is a blow for social conservatives, who have pushed to curtail transgender policies since the ban was lifted in 2016. In June, some Republicans in Congress unsuccessfully sought to force a ban on sex reassignment surgery by attaching it to the annual military spending bill. In response, Mr. Trump made a far bolder move to ban transgender service members entirely.

At the time, Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, openly praised what she said was the president’s willingness to put national security first. On Monday, her press secretary said she would not comment on the ruling.

Democrats in Congress, who in September introduced legislation to protect transgender troops from discharge, were quick to mark a victory.

“Federal courts have again beat back the sinister specter of discrimination bred within the Trump White House,” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in a statement. “This court order will allow our transgender troops to continue serving based on their ability to fight, train, and deploy — regardless of gender identity.”

Logan Ireland, an Air Force staff sergeant who was not involved in the lawsuits, said he and other transgender troops were hopeful but cautious. He said the president could still take steps to discharge them.

More than anything, the Afghanistan veteran, who leads security forces, said he hoped the end of the ban would allow him to concentrate more on his work.

“We want to go back to serving,” he said. “There are troops that work under me, there is work to be done. We want to do it. After all, we are here for our country, not who sits in the White House.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/u...-ban.html?_r=0

[*Anya*]

An Embattled North Carolina Seeks to Outrun a Law’s Bitter Legacy

By ALAN BLINDERNOV. 4, 2017

RALEIGH, N.C. —

North Carolina wanted its reputation back.

Worn down by about a year of battles and boycotts, its leaders cut a deal in March to repeal a law that had restricted restroom access for transgender people. But North Carolina is finding that it is easier to plunge into a culture war than it is to leave one behind.

“This isn’t like the Cold War where it came, it went, it was over and people didn’t worry about it anymore,” a longtime Republican strategist, Carter Wrenn, said.

The day-to-day debate, Democrats and Republicans often note, has receded, and the national uproar that buffeted North Carolina beginning in March 2016 has largely abated. Still, a battered and weary state is slogging through a landscape of residual damage that some observers warn will not fade quickly.

The state’s most powerful elected officials just recently sparred, in effect, over the matter of who should be allowed to use which restrooms in publicly owned buildings. The politics of House Bill 2, as the now-repealed law is still commonly known, has also touched mayoral races in Charlotte and Raleigh.

States like California and New York have kept their bans on public employees using tax dollars for nonessential trips to North Carolina. And some transgender residents remain so anxious that they time meals to avoid the need to use public restrooms.

“It’s kind of like one of those hangovers you get in college that lasts for a few days,” said Matt Hirschy, the interim executive director of Equality North Carolina, an advocacy group. “Unfortunately for us, it’s going to last for a few years, at least.”

In a state where partisan rancor is a bipartisan pastime, people still marvel at how quickly and broadly H.B. 2, which required people in publicly owned buildings to use the restroom that corresponded with the gender listed on their birth certificate, reshaped perceptions of North Carolina.

The law was championed by Republicans, who argued that it was crucial to public safety and a rebuff to an overreaching city government in Charlotte, and attracted some Democratic support.

Critics organized a staggering backlash to a measure they called intolerant, anachronistic and contrary to generations of political moderation in North Carolina. Some of the nation’s most influential corporations openly attacked the law; the N.C.A.A. said it would stop hosting championship events in this sports-crazed state; and the Justice Department, under President Barack Obama, brought what could have become a momentous civil rights lawsuit.

About a year after the law took effect, with the potential economic costs projected to run into the billions of dollars, officials struck a deal that transgender rights groups attacked as a “fake repeal” that did not strip away the intent of the measure.

The national outrage ebbed anyway, business groups and convention planners appeared mostly satisfied, and the N.C.A.A. relented.

But, in a signal of how North Carolina has so far been unable to outrun the law’s legacy, political tensions flared again last month when Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, proposed a settlement in related litigation. As part of the deal, Mr. Cooper agreed to declare that “transgender people are not prevented from the use of public facilities in accordance with their gender identity.”

The General Assembly’s leading Republicans, who either declined to comment or did not respond to interview requests, swiftly condemned the proposal as “a stunt” that proved that Mr. Cooper “acted in bad faith and lied about wanting to end the focus on H.B. 2.” (A federal judge in Winston-Salem is considering the proposed settlement.)

Indeed, Republicans contend that any lingering discussion about the law and its repercussions is driven only by transgender rights activists, their elected allies and the news media.

“There is no escape because there are certain interest groups that want to keep bringing it up, and the media loves it, too,” said Pat McCrory, the Republican former governor whose support for H.B. 2 contributed to his defeat last November, when Donald J. Trump easily carried North Carolina.

“Most of us, including me, would just as soon move on,” Mr. McCrory added. Mr. Cooper, who said in March that the repeal legislation “cannot be the only step,” defended his decisions and said, “They set the fire, and I’m working to put it out.” “I think most North Carolinians believe we are moving in the right direction, but many of them know we still have more work to do,” said Mr. Cooper, whose actions last month were timed for the day before the deadline for proposals for Amazon’s second headquarters. “But I believe that North Carolina is a welcoming place and a great state to do business. We have taken enough important steps to signal to the world that we’re open for business, and it’s pretty clear that businesses are responding in a positive way.”

Strategists on both sides of the debate agree that voters have tired of talk about H.B. 2, but there is no consensus on how much the law will influence next year’s elections.

“I find it highly unlikely that you will find the national money trying to make North Carolina a cultural battleground state at the legislative level,” said Art Pope, a conservative financier who served in Mr. McCrory’s administration.

A poll conducted by Elon University in April found that about two-thirds of North Carolina’s registered voters thought the state’s reputation had worsened in the year since the law’s approval. Issues like the economy and education now appear most crucial to winning over state voters, but surveys suggest that residents remain irritated over H.B. 2 and the issues that surround it.

“I think the volume has been turned down,” Mr. Hirschy of Equality North Carolina said. “The fervor is still there in our community, and if you ask our opponents, their fervor is still there.”

Perhaps so, to the possible political benefit of both sides. An influential group of religious conservatives recently produced an advertisement complaining that a candidate for mayor of Charlotte “endorsed a radical, national L.G.B.T. agenda allowing men in women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.” The election is Tuesday.

But for many of the state’s transgender residents, estimated at nearly 45,000 by a research institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, H.B. 2’s repercussions do not play out on television screens.

They are reflected, transgender people said, in quick decisions about whether to have a second cup of coffee and in choices about how much to share about themselves in conversation.

“Before, whether or not you identified yourself as being transgender to someone was based on whether or not you perceived them as an ally or someone who would be O.K. with it,” said Candis Cox, an activist who is a transgender woman. “Now, what we have is a climate in which you really have a lot of trepidation about trusting people because we have now seen that people can seem to have all of the support in the world for you but have ulterior motives.”

And there is a measured sense that the fury of the H.B. 2 debate could someday be rekindled. On this matter, at least, there is some agreement. “What we’re seeing is a kind of holding of the breath,” Ms. Cox said. “That’s where we’re at right now because we were dealt this awful blow, and it’s waiting for the other shoe to drop. We don’t know where we are. The people who supported H.B. 2 — the citizens, the politicians — we know that they’re still there.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/u...-law.html?_r=0

[DapperButch]

Transgender Candidate Danica Roem Wins Historic Election to the Virginia State Legislature
The 33-year-old Democrat will be the first transgender person elected and seated to a state legislature.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics...inia-election/

[Mopsie]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Transgender Candidate Danica Roem Wins Historic Election to the Virginia State Legislature
The 33-year-old Democrat will be the first transgender person elected and seated to a state legislature.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics...inia-election/

You beat me to it - was going to post on this. So proud of my state tonight!!

[DapperButch]

Just a reminder that today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.

[DapperButch]

Most people have probably heard by now, but we are now allowed to enlist.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politi...ist/index.html

Although trans service members weren't being kicked out, they weren't allowed to reenlist either. I believe that they were supposed to be removed if they were to move to a higher rank, however (?).

This link includes Dr. Christine McGinn who had agreed to perform surgeries for free for those service members who were already on her schedule for surgery (she is a Veteran). She said that in November she received a check from the government for the surgery that was already scheduled, for a pt. who had already been transitioning through her (could have been electrolysis, HRT, already had vaginoplasty but was getting a revision, ?).

Sooo for those of you who have had your heart on the military, go for it before they have a "change of heart".

[DapperButch]

Obituaries

Ben Barres, transgender brain researcher and advocate of diversity in science, dies at 63

By Matt Schudel December 30, 2017

Ben Barres, a neurobiologist who made groundbreaking discoveries regarding the structure and function of the brain that may have implications for understanding Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative disorders and who, as a transgender man, became an outspoken opponent of gender bias in science, died Dec. 27 at his home in Palo Alto, Calif. He was 63.

His death was announced by Stanford University, where he was a professor of neurobiology in the medical school. The cause was pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Barres was one of the world’s leading researchers on glial cells, which are the most numerous structures in the brain but whose purpose was almost a complete mystery.

“Until Ben grabbed hold of this, there was very little known about what they did in the brain,” Beth Stevens, a Harvard University professor and MacArthur “genius grant” recipient who studied with Dr. Barres, said in an interview. “He made a remarkable number of discoveries and launched many avenues of research. He started a whole new field.”

There are three primary types of glial cells, or glia — microglia, oligodendrocytes and astrocytes — but before Dr. Barres began to look at glia, their functions were poorly understood. Most researchers concentrated on the brain’s neurons, which send electrical impulses.

Trained as a physician, Dr. Barres had an early interest in diseases of the brain. Other scientists had noticed that irregularly shaped glial cells were often found near damaged brain tissue, and Dr. Barres began to study whether the glia affected other structures in the brain.

“He has made one shocking, revolutionary discovery after another,” Martin Raff, a biologist at University College London who once trained Dr. Barres, told Discover magazine in August.

Dr. Barres sought to understand the normal functions of glial cells to understand what happened when things went awry. Among other things, the glia appeared to help neurons form synapse connections to transmit electrical signals throughout the brain. Some glial cells (oligodendrocytes) wrapped around neurons like insulation, making them work more efficiently.

Dr. Barres also discovered that some glial cells — the astrocytes, in particular — could have harmful effects. In what he described as “the most important discovery my lab has ever made,” he showed in a 2017 article published in the journal Nature that the glia could undergo changes or secrete substances that could damage neurons and other cells in the brain.

In other words, glial cells might contribute to the degeneration of brain tissue that is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, as well as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), glaucoma and other conditions. Dr. Barres’s work holds promise for other researchers to explore ways to treat or prevent such debilitating illnesses.

“He laid the groundwork for many other scientists,” Stevens said. “He’s really cracked open a whole new phenomenon.”

Dr. Barres began his scientific career when he was known as Barbara Barres. After undergoing hormone treatments and surgery, Dr. Barres became known as Ben Barres in 1997. His experience led him to become a powerful advocate for women and other marginalized people he believed were denied opportunities in a scientific world dominated by men.

I have this perspective,” he told the Associated Press in 2006. “I’ve lived in the shoes of a woman, and I’ve lived in the shoes of a man. It’s caused me to reflect on the barriers women face.”

In 2005, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers attributed the relative dearth of female scientists to the “intrinsic aptitude” of women. The next year, Dr. Barres published a scathing essay in Nature, in which he wrote that the ad feminam statements by Summers and other scholars were “nothing more than blaming the victim.”

“The comments,” he wrote, “about women’s lesser innate abilities are all wrongful and personal attacks on my character and capabilities, as well as on my colleagues’ and students’ abilities and self-esteem. I will certainly not sit around silently and endure them.”

Dr. Barres cited studies showing that boys and girls had comparable test scores in mathematics and science but that the college science departments, tenure committees and grant-awarding panels were overwhelmingly controlled by men.

Two Harvard professors jumped into the fray, with one, political scientist Harvey C. Mansfield, calling Dr. Barres “a political fruitcake” and another, psychologist Steven Pinker, complaining that Dr. Barres had “reduced science to Oprah.”

.“If a famous scientist or the president of a prestigious university is going to pronounce in public that women are likely to be innately inferior,” Dr. Barres wrote in his Nature essay, “would it be too much to ask that they be aware of the relevant data?”

Citing his own experience, Dr. Barres recalled that, after his transition to life as a man, he led a seminar at an academic conference. A colleague overheard another scientist say, “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s.”

Dr. Barres wrote that in everyday transactions as well as in academic circles, “people who don’t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect” than when he was living as a woman. “I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man.”

[‘A towering legacy of goodness’: Ben Barres’s fight for diversity in science]

Dr. Barres was born Sept. 13, 1954, in West Orange, N.J. His father was a salesman.

From the age of about 4, Dr. Barres, who had a fraternal twin sister, preferred boys’ toys and clothing. For Halloween, the young Barbara Barres dressed as a football player or soldier.

“I felt like a boy,” Dr. Barres said on the “Charlie Rose” show in 2015. “The brain has innate circuits that determine our gender identity. And so being transgender is not a choice that I made.”

Dr. Barres had an early interest in science and became the first member of his family to attend college. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he later wrote, “I was the only person in a large class of people of nearly all men to solve a hard math problem, only to be told by the professor that my boyfriend must have solved it for me.”

After graduating from MIT in 1976, he received a medical degree from Dartmouth in 1979. He later enrolled in graduate school at Harvard, working nights as a physician. He received a PhD in neurobiology — his second doctorate — in 1990.

Dr. Barres then studied at University College London before joining the Stanford faculty in 1993.

When Dr. Barres was 41 — and still known as Barbara — he developed breast cancer, a disease his mother died of at about the same age. He underwent a mastectomy.

“I said, ‘While you are there, please take off the other breast,’ ” Dr. Barres said on “Charlie Rose.” “Since this cancer runs in my family, he did agree to remove the other breast.

“And I just can’t tell you how therapeutic that was. I felt so relieved to have those breasts removed.”

Dr. Barres later read an article about a transgender man who had undergone a female-to-male transition.

“I realized for the first time in my life,” he said in 2015, “that there were other people like me and that I might be transgender.”

He began to take testosterone, which led to a deeper voice, a beard and male-pattern baldness. Meanwhile, with the full encouragement of his Stanford colleagues, his scientific work continued without interruption. (Dr. Barres also had prosopagnosia, sometimes called face blindness, which made him unable to recognize faces. He identified people by their voices, hairstyles or other sensory cues.)

In addition to running a laboratory with 15 to 20 researchers, Dr. Barres taught classes in the medical school and became chairman of the neurobiology department. He also developed Stanford’s master of medicine program, combining clinical work and research, and became an informal adviser to female, gay and transgender science students.

Researchers at his laboratory were an unusually diverse group, with women often outnumbering men. His former students now run research labs at Harvard, Duke University, New York University and elsewhere.

“It was the most fun and creatively dynamic environment I’ve ever worked in,” said Stevens, the Harvard scientist who was a postdoctoral fellow in Dr. Barres’s laboratory from 2004 to 2008. “He created such a tight family. These are not just scientists working at the bench. These are people who are working together and helping each other.”

Dr. Barres had two surviving sisters and a brother.

After learning of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis, Dr. Barres arranged for other scientists to take over his laboratory, wrote recommendation letters and gave interviews about his journey as a woman and later as a man through science.

“I feel like I have a responsibility to speak out,” he said. “Anyone who has changed sex has done probably the hardest thing they can do. It’s freeing, in a way, because it makes me more fearless about other things.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.fe1ee560057e

[JDeere]

http://www.afterellen.com/general-ne...of-a-drag-show

What do y'all think?

[charley]

Originally Posted by JDeere

http://www.afterellen.com/general-ne...of-a-drag-show

What do y'all think?

Here is one thing I do not understand at all, what is a Terf? I read the article and didn't get what was going on... Someone care to explain... And what is with this violence? Personally, I do not accept violence as a valid solution to any conflict.