I just got home

...from class, from being in San Diego for 26 hours, and from running all over the place the past few days.

I turned on the TV as I was eating a bowl of cereal later than probably recommended. A program called 30 Minutes Bay Area (which is very similar in format to 60 Minutes) had just started a section about the science of being gay. It seemed similar to the program that aired last Sunday on the regular 60 Minutes that talked about Professor Bailey and his group's look at the same stuff.

The program started with a look at gay sheep, and how their brain area looks surprisingly similar to the brains of gay men that were studied in the early 90's (which I believe also included a few transsexuals...although I could be wrong) in which one specific area is smaller than a heterosexual man's brain and resembles that of a woman's brain. They also introduced a pair of identical twins, one gay, one straight. They pointed out that when one twin is gay, the other is gay 50% of the time. With this data, it begins to show that being gay is definitely related to your genetics, but also highly related to other factors...possibly those that could be found during development in the womb or simply from upbringing.

It's kinda nice that people are doing research on the reasons for being gay. The dangerous part is adding validity to being gay. What if they reach a point where they say that some of them are gay by genetics, but others do not show any biological signs of being gay? Are they less valid at being gay? Also, if a test showed a person was gay, but he was actually straight, what type of stigma would that throw on him, and would he be secure with his sexuality after being told he was genetically gay?

A friend of mine recently mentioned that it would be valuable if transsexual research were being done as well. What if there is a gene for it...or something that happens in the womb that leads to the development of the gender identity dysphoria? The same danger exists for transsexuals if some are found to have genetic or biological reasons, but others do not show signs....some will have their transition validated, but others may be considered less valid without any of the markers.

The other big problems is that gay research is just now getting started. I doubt any large studies of transsexuals will happen any time soon. My friend mentioned that some rich person needs to step forward and help with funding the research...that transsexual women's brains should be analyzed with MRI's. She suggested testing before and after HRT, but I also suggested that the brains of all transsexuals should be reviewed as well. One test would show if the brain changes with HRT, and the other would look for any differences between transsexuals and their heteronormative counterparts.

The even larger problem, besides the lack of money to begin such research, is that there aren't that many transsexuals...although I do know a few that would probably be up for helping with research. Society thinks they have nothing to gain by doing such research, but if there was a simple test that could catch GID (or being gay) early on, I know a lot of us would have tackled things a lot sooner. I caught another recent article on trans youth, and how some are getting started so early they never really lived as their genetic sex. One labeled himself MTM...because he never lived his life as a girl. Wild.

For us older transitioners, though, it would be nice to have leading edge technology helping us. I mean, I've had a bit of money help me out with surgeries, but it would have been nice to have simply grown some stuff on my own. I asked my therapist (who is also an MD) a while back if HGH (human growth hormone) could be added to my own hormone therapy in the hopes of my second puberty having as good a reaction as my first. She said it wouldn't since I was already mature, but I wonder if anyone has ever even done a study on it. Could it be that if HGH was taken with HRT, things would develop better than simply popping a blue or purple pill each day?

[EDIT: After receiving a note concerning my status as an 'older transitioner', I simply meant anyone going thru transition past their first puberty. I know there is a bit of a rift between young, old, mid, etc., but I didn't mean to infer anything beyond someone going thru transition either during their first puberty or after.]