[sfem]

I think all this shows is that I am totally incapable of expressing my thoughts in a cogent enough manner to explain what I'm getting at.

I really didn't want there to be a fire to throw fuel over, and I really don't intend to be offensive. Why on earth should I be offended at the idea that there is something wrong with my brain?

I think you explained your points just fine. I had no trouble at all following what you wrote. I did not say you were offended. I also don't think there is anything wrong with your brain.

Well, did you read what I wrote in its entirety or just skim it? I think I explained reasonably well how the symptoms of various mental disorders are removed by taking estrogen. How do you explain that?

I think the problem is that the phrase "mental illness" has a lot of emotional baggage. I know that there is a lot of bad history in our respective cultures that can make this problematic. However, the evidence of a congenital brain developmental disorder, at least in my case, is too great to ignore. I even know what is most likely to have caused it, as my family history includes my mother's mental breakdown whilst pregnant with me.

Of course I read what you wrote. The fact that your mental processes can be altered by hormonal substitutes does not mean you have a disorder. It means your brain is affected by hormones, just like the rest of us. I don't see how you can expect the answer you came up with to be the only possible one. It's one theory. If this stuff were that simple and understood, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd have learned all about it in grade school. The fact is that this is complex phenomena and we don't even know what all the factors are that contribute to it, never mind how they interact.

But what is the reason why it should make me happy? And why should estrogen remove the happiness? Obviously because of my brain disorder - there is no other logical reason.

Don't you mean, no other reason you can think of or that you accept, or maybe that has even been proposed?

As a "higher order" animal, we use clothing the way other animals use fur and feathers (some creatures, eg hermit crab use a form of clothing). The clothing tends to accentuate the features of our sexual dimorphism, broad shoulders and narrow hips in a tuxedo, breasts and hips in dresses. It is the dimorphism that attracts animals so that they breed. It is simple biology.

I would suggest that since breeding behaviour happens between same sex pairs in many species, it isn't as simple as you describe. My dog has had an ongoing affair with our couch pillows for years. I don't think it means he is defective. It just means that the act and the stimulation from the act as not solely tied to reproduction. Most of the attraction you are referring to is artificial for humans. I doubt you'd find anywhere near the same level of attraction (on the mental level) among more primitive human cultures.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. It is the development of our brain that makes us want to present as the opposite gender, and my feeling is that it is better to treat that problem than try to be something we are not.

And my point was that this definition you are using for what is "present as the opposite gender" and "something we are not" is fatally flawed. This is old well-beaten ground. That definition changes with time, culture, demographics, and even geography. It is the stubborn insistence on defining it in some kind of absolute terms that causes almost all our gender related societal problems.

This really wasn't aimed at you because (a) you can cope, even without the PM and (b) you have no intention of transitioning.

I spoke up because it isn't "aimed" at anything or anyone even if you meant it to be. You have a point of view on this that works for you. You want to share it so others who may benefit from it can do so. I think that is very good and helpful and healthy. I do think that there is also value in bringing attention to the parts that don't necessarily hold together in my opinion.

My whole thesis is about the way we are developing a NEW "conformity" where the pressure to conform in traditional gender roles is being replaced with pressure to conform in a new "third / fourth" gender role, even to the detriment of families

This feels alarmist to me.

Well, I have to think you are deliberately misinterpreting me in order to wind me up, or you have seriously misunderstood my point.

I don't wind people up like that. Never have. I am responding to what you posted. I don't think that a lengthy discourse which I believe to have serious flaws should just be left hanging out there as if it was all good. There's just too many younger people reading forums who might think length = value/quality/truth or even just that the last word wins. You can certainly have the last word btw. I don't intend to keep this fire burning.

Or maybe you are religious and don't believe we are animals?

I usually disassociate from sites where religion becomes a discussion factor. I have a serious personal distaste for it. When religion enters a discussion, common sense and logic usually head for the hills. I am not religious in any way, sense, or form.

Can you seriously disagree that, in general, in the animal kingdom a condition that prevents an animal from breeding is abnormal?

That is somewhat misleading. I have this condition we speak of, yet I have children. No impact whatsoever to my gene pool contribution.

Anyhow, I'm sorry to have bored you with my constant repetition of a theme, but I do try to vary it.. Look forward to future iterations!

Keep varying it. Gives us something to discuss.