This article about brain plasticity by Neil and Briar Whitehead posted on Anglican Mainstream caught my attention for several reasons. Some relate to classes I teach but for this post, I am interested in discussion surrounding the main reason the Whiteheads wrote about neuroscience: sexual reorientation.
I have a few questions.
Sex and gender researchers working in the belief that the brain and its functions were more less set, believed they might find evidence that homosexuality was hard-wired in the brain. They looked for signs that parts of the brain used in sexual activity were different in homosexuals and heterosexuals, that, for example parts of a homosexual male brain might be more like a woman’s.
Almost without exception these numerous studies produced contradictory conclusions, and were not replicable. Although gay activism sought to use some of these findings to argue homosexuality was biologically ingrained, the most that can be said scientifically about them is that IF any differences exist they are probably the result of homosexual behavior rather than the cause of it. But it is clear now that no-one is stuck with the type of brain they were born with. Our assumption now should be, change is possible in many behaviors – sexual orientation not excluded – and extraordinary effort will produce extraordinary change.
I don’t agree with this assessment of the state of research. We are on the beginning edge of research regarding sexual orientation differences in the brain and some of those differences seem striking. The work of Savic in particular has found some differences in gay and straight males in areas of the brain which may or may not be modified by experience. This study was just last year; there has not been time to publish replications. What research do the Whiteheads refer to here? This is an ongoing process which the Whiteheads describe as though the research program was in some mature state with many contradictory studies. I believe this is a extremely premature statement:
the most that can be said scientifically about them is that IF any differences exist they are probably the result of homosexual behavior rather than the cause of it.
What evidence has been demonstrated that sexual behavior can make these differences? I would like to know what studies have contradicted the Savic research and other studies which demonstrate brain differences, not just in symmetry but responses to sweat, serotonin and visual cues.
The Whiteheads then discuss brain training, noting that musicians and cab drivers have enlarged areas of the brain which are used for the specific tasks used frequently. They then leap to sex.
Monkey experiments have shown that artificial exercise of three digits on the hand increases the area of the brain associated with those fingers and decreases the other regions proportionately.(1) Violinists have a grossly enlarged area of the brain devoted to the fingers of their left hands. Those who learn a juggling routine for three months produce observable small changes in the small-scale structure of the brain, and these changes reverse when they stop.(3)
London taxi drivers have an enlarged area of the brain dealing with navigation. Is this innate? No. London bus drivers on set routes did not have this enlarged area, and on retirement of the taxi drivers, the brain area involved diminished.(6) Taxi-drivers were not born that way, but developed the brain area through huge amounts of navigation and learning, and only maintained it through constant use. We change our brains at the micro-level through the way we exercise, and anything we do repetitively especially if associated with pleasure (e.g.) sexual activity. So, if brain scientists did find real differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, this was probably the result of different sexual behaviors, not the cause of them.
Do we have any research that demonstrates brain areas which enlarge based on frequent sex? Or straight sex or gay sex? I know of none and the Whiteheads offer none but this appears to be what they are suggesting. They also suggest that gay and straight sex might bulk up different brain areas thus reflecting activity rather than causing it. I know of no research which indicates different brain areas for sexual arousal. This study by Safron et al seems to provide evidence against such an idea.
Now here is where stand up comics should get some material.
Doidge sums up the extraordinary plasticity of the brain with the words, Use it or lose it. (Or, for those trying to drop an unwanted behavior, Don’t use it, and you’ll lose it.)
Even if part of the brain is strongly associated with a particular sexuality it should be possible to change it. Stopping a sexual activity and avoiding stimulation of that brain region, and plunging into some other intense brain activity for months would lead to a diminishing of the intensity of that sexual response. Months is about the timescale of first significant change. That can be true for learning a musical instrument too!
Doidge’s conclusion about sexuality is that “Human libido is not a hardwired invariable biological urge, but can be curiously fickle, easily altered by our psychology and the history of our sexual encounters.” and “It’s a use-it-or-lose-it brain, even where sexual desire and love are concerned.” This would apply both to same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction.
If we train hard enough, an activity can become automatic and we pay it less conscious attention. That is particularly true of playing a musical instrument. Many of the basic techniques like chords, scales and arpeggios, are so deeply learnt that we don’t think about the details and indeed can’t if the music is fast. Details of driving, throwing a ball, reading, even tying shoelaces don’t and often can’t demand full attention. Anything we do often, we often end up doing automatically. In the same way it can seem that sexual orientation is so deeply embedded that it is innate. But, really, it is no more innate than any complex skill we have worked at to the point where we can do it without thinking e.g. seemingly automatic placement of left-hand fingers on guitar strings to produce a C chord.
Hey, what did you do this summer? Well, I learned to play the…
Changing sexual orientation is like learning to play a musical instrument? Should we have straight lessons? Community colleges could offer them in their continuing education departments. New slogan: “We put the adult in adult development!”
I apparently will need to get this book by Doidge. Whitehead doesn’t offer any of the research Doidge relies on for his startling new discovery about music instruments and sex. I wonder if there are any such studies. Whatever techniques Doidge is aware of, perhaps he ought to share them with Exodus since the changes reported by Jones and Yarhouse do not seem to reflect this new found brain plasticity. (I made this modification here because I have since learned that Doidge does not advocate any techniques of orientation change.).
I suspect this passage in the Whitehead article is deeply insulting to many ex-gays and ex-ex-gays alike (New reparative therapy slogans: “Just train it!” “You’ve got to train it to gain it”). How many such persons have essentially followed this approach: don’t use and you’ll lose it. However, they didn’t lose it.
The Whiteheads then suggest that male and female differences are largely due to experience after birth:
Male and female behavior – let alone homosexuality and heterosexuality – is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In fact, only one quarter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is developed through learning and experience (environmental input). We can be confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by learning and behavior.
I think researchers in hormones might quarrel with this. I am aware of a recent study which found associations between fetal testosterone levels and sex-typed behavior at age 8.5. Testosterone has an organizing function in the brain prenatally but it is unclear whether it does at or before puberty. There is way too much unknown I believe, for dogmatism here. As with the rest of the claims, I would like to see this research much more than studies about driving and music.
The Whiteheads conclude:
Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather: what change is not possible?
Well, at the end, an idea is all we have. Essentially, the Whiteheads suggest that because brain plasticity has been associated with driving, musical training and regaining use of motor function, it should be true of sexual orientation change as well. As noted, there are some problems with his facts and no direct evidence for the hyperbolic title of this article.
UPDATE: My comments above about Norman Doidge’s book were made prior to reviewing it. I have since been able to read through parts of it and believe it is a valuable contribution for a lay audience. He does not offer techniques of sexual reorientation nor does he liken orientation change to learning a musical instrument. Neil and Briar Whitehead make those far-fetched connections, not Dr. Doidge. My reaction to the book was solely based on the selective quotations from the Whiteheads. I am sorry if anyone made an impression regarding Doidge’s book based on this post. Readers are encouraged to read the related posts linked below.
Related Posts:
NARTH authors again mislead readers: More on brain plasticity and sexual orientation
My Genes Made Me Do It and brain plasticity
I don’t have time to figure out where these threads get derailed and I don’t need a comment to point it out but does anyone have anything else to say about Whitehead’s shameful misrepresentation of Norman Doidge’s book and/or the topic of brain plasticity and sexual orientation?
Oh, and Eddy
The story wasn’t a parable. There was no message to extract.
It was the literal tale of how the real Ronald Reagan told his real daughter Patty about how his real friend Mr. Hudson preferred kissing real men over kissing the real Doris Day.
Warren,
Good point. Sorry
Nope. Shameful pretty much sums it up.
Just for clarification:
This is erroneous.
The concept of shame was mentioned in at least 7 posts between Sept 7 at 7:31 when it was first introduced (I think) and the following evening when I posted the main comment being criticized in the quoted sentence. Ann, Michael, David and Debbie all made comments regarding shame.
Warren, sometimes good things come up serendipitously when a thread makes a slight bend in the road. Sometimes, it goes entirely the other way down meaningless rabbit trails. I thought this slight detour was meaningful in some regards, FWIW.
You know you’ll never be able to keep that from happening with the level of commenting done on this blog. People like to converse, not just be Johnny One Notes when there may not be anything else to say on the original topic.
The Whiteheads got beat up enough already.
OK, I see this did get rather verbose since I last checked in, more than I realized. Warren is right. Man, y’all like to talk.
I don’t mind too much when the conversations are respectful and productive. This one seemed to be getting lost in differences over homosexuality which just are unlikely to shift in response to these conversations.
I am not sure the Whiteheads have been beat up enough. I would like to see some acknowledgement from them that they did not represent Doidge properly. That they knowingly quoted his words in such a way as to create an impression which he directly countered on the very page they cited. Lots of people who read the Anglican Mainstream site and now the PFOX site will go away thinking that the well respected Doidge thinks sexual orientation is as flexible as musical training. And this is not because Doidge is unclear, but because the Whiteheads willfully misrepresented him. NARTH excels at this and Christians continue to rely on them for information and either look the other way or send me critical emails when I expose it.
When readers and Christian leaders start demanding better and accountability publicly, then I will think perhaps we can let up. Quite a few Christian leaders read here, even though they do not comment. Where are they? Why is there no call for honest scholarship? No call for bearing true witness? I have no desire to call out gay offenses when so called conservative groups and Christian “scholars” ignore or defend this stuff.
Beat ‘em up some more, Warren! It’s very disturbing that Christian groups who aim and claim to help the homosexual still affiliate with individuals who “willfullyt misrepresent” the facts and equally disturbing that they continue to affiliate with NARTH — an organization that “excels” at it..
Warren–
I realize that this particular topic thread has its limitations but I want to go on record saying that:
Someday I hope we can discuss the viability of plasticity sans acrimony.
Perhaps you’ll stumble upon a study where they’ve actually studied and reported according to standards of ethics.
I’ll give my opinion of why they don’t respond, Warren, but I don’t think that would be well appreciated. The problem is that Christianity is with respect to homosexuality, inhuman. The religious aspects are not defensible, except to produce a god which is inconsistant concerning that mutually-shared love which seems necessary for the human animal’s life and well-being. In short Christianity demands an unChristian response to homosexuality.
.
Your Christian leaders thus see that the fundamentalist response to homosexuality – that is to oppose it at every turn – is the only way to address it, whether psychologically, socially, politically, and religiously, because the gnosis of Bible demands it to be so. And you are exposing new knowledge which destroys that Biblical gnosis which in modernity has been invested in psychology by most Christian sects. While you destroy that aspect you do not provide a lifeline for their form of Christian thinking to survive beyond the light of knowledge you shine.
Debbie, Ann, Warren: Thanks for the kind words regarding my blog.
Regarding shame (apologies for revisiting off topic tangent), I feel that my homosexuality is no more shameful than my unsightly toenails–it’s a part of me that I’d prefer to be otherwise. Shame for aspects of my body or sexuality over which I have no control is inappropriate (and often felt by children and adolescents… and adults) while shame about aspects of myself that result from my own poor choices can be constructive.
To clarify, my being gay is not shameful, but that makes it no less a problem. I hold that reproduction is a key purpose of the reproductive system, and my being gay is a de facto deficiency, not open to debate.
Regarding NARTH, I’m pleased to see you taking them to task, Warren, as I’ve noted a number of articles that have been disingenuous at best. Having said that, I do feel that genuine academic work that is tied to NARTH in one way or another is unfairly ignored out-of-hand by the academic community, and that’s a… well, a shame.
@Lynn, I’m not terribly familiar with this blog and the frequent commenters, so my apologies if this is already abundantly clear, but my religion, at least, has what seems a perfectly defensible view of homosexuality. In particular, I believe that my wife and I will be together forever in roles that require us to be of opposite gender. Procreation, in particular, is a non-arbitrary issue that (somehow) frequently is absent from the discussion.
L,
Very well said – thank you for making the distinction. Children cannot figure out these feelings on their own and if left unchecked, I think they can turn into an enduring mindset. Adults acknowleding shame when they do something against what they know and believe to be right, can use that as a deterent in the future.
There is a part of me, whether irrationally or not, that wonders whether my being gay is worthy of shame in this sense or not (i.e., something completely outside my control and unrelated to my behavior, or something that has been, at least in part, influenced by past poor choices). This may be relevant to the discussion on plasticity if such plasticity exists and results from some culpable behavior… either laziness or deliberate effort.
Regarding brain plasticity – I do not follow the Whiteheads and cannot definitely say if they have credibility or not. I honestly hope, and it is my bias, that the brain does have plasticity regarding many life circumstances. It is never what we feel or believe in that really matters because at least we are feeling, and with that, we are given choices which is very cool – my concern is when, for whatever reason beyond our control, we cannot fully feel and experience that which we want to and are told we should just accept that. I am reminded of Gary Sinese in Forrest Gump when he was told he would never walk again. He believed them and sank into a downward spiral until he got mad at God and was able to say how mad he was at being limited. Not too long after that he was fitted with artificial legs and became alive again. He walked with a limp but was happy – he was able to overcome the limitation and his spirit was alive again. The human spirit is meant to expand and thrive – not contract and/or stay stagnant. Regarding SGA and brain pasticity – I hope more research will be conducted. I think the more we do, the more we will be intrigued to find out how important brain plasticity is. I would think it had a close resemblence to resiliance – which is one of the most important thing an adult can teach a child.
L,
Having same gender attraction, as a child or adult, is not, in and of itself, anything to be ashamed of.
Yeah… exactly, whatever power you give it, it then possesses over you. It doesn’t make it right or give it a defense. It just makes it so in your life – if not thereafter.
Michael,
After meeting you I remember thinking on the way home that agreement was really not the issue, understanding each other was. I understand you more now that I ever have. When we talk about subjects rather than each other, much can be learned and much can be understood. Agreement can be boring – understanding can be cool.
Michael,
Forgot to add – it is very cool to defend your positions rather than yourself – it keeps opinions to the topic/subject rather than you personally.
Lynn,
The same can be said about whatever power you that which you believe in and then it possesses you. It does not make it right or give it a defense.
Sorry, I left out a word – it should have said -
Lynn,
The same can be said about whatever power you give that which you believe in and then it possesses you. It does not make it right or give it a defense.
Yeah, but what do I believe in? Seemingly, it’s nothing (unless you want to start throwing in all my reasoned conclusions). Yet, I recognize that there are all sorts of people and things that have a measure of power over me. Such as nature, which is extant in time, disease, accidents, and people, such as those I love, police, idiots who run the stock market, etc…. But to give some non-thing power over my life that has no real efficacy (other than not to believe gives some who are rather self-righteous ideas that they are better than me), well, that is why I am an atheist.
Warren, you have justifiable frustration over the duplicity you are observing in some leadership circles that could be called Christian, and certainly in the individuals and organizations that handle touchy research. You said something that makes me understand more fully where you are currently in your thinking. Thanks.
My old pastor, gone now, used to say, “If it’s Christian, it ought to be better.” Better, maybe, but more forthright, certainly. People expect us to represent a higher standard. Why those purporting to be Christian believe they can misrepresent the truth with impunity is beyond me. There is a certain mandate-mindset that blinds, I guess. We see it across the spectrum of ideologies.
Thanks, Ann. I will try to do that. Hard to do sometimes when the comments made seem to be against me personally — rather than rebuttals of my positions. I will try not to bite the bait.
Michael–
I know you and I get to wrangling but I hope you’ll at least consider what I’m saying here.
One of the reasons that comments seem to be made to you personally is that you often, without invitation, make it personal. A discussion is moving along on an issues level and, suddenly, it hits you personally and you respond with that. When this happens, it’s difficult…almost impossible…to respond without addressing you personally.
If you’re being baited, I guess that would make me the ‘master baiter’. I’ll do what I can to curtail that habit response.
Ann, once again, thanks for the reminder. I am not quite sure how not to take things personally when they hit on a very personal leve. Perhaps I need to sign off for a time, disconnect, pray, reflect.
I also need to learn how not to be sarcastic, snarky, demeaning, controlling, disrespectful — in other words, to model by behavior after the more experienced and polite commenters here on the blog — you for example.
Ann: One more thought about taking things personally — although I know this is off the topic… How do you not take it personally? How to do not get defensive? Do you just shrug your shoulders? Write your critics off as nut jobs? Pretend it doesn’t hurt?
Growing up gay, one tends to hear a lot of negative messages about being gay — the name-calling and bullying at school, the shouts of “homo” and “sissy” and “fag, the beatings by the “tough boys”, the teachers that looked the other way.
The books at the public library that declared you were mentally ill, sick, disordered, probably abused, a victim of bad Moms and Dads who made you gay.
The religious pronouncements that you will not go to heaven, are not really saved, do not have enough faith, don’t really love Jesus.
The self-righteous ones who suggest that you are amoral or immoral because you are gay, that you aren’t really serious about following God, that you don’t believe the Bible, that you are making excuses for your sin.
The being fired, being rejected, being stabbed, having a best friend murdered for being gay, having friends and partners die of AIDS, having the church refuse to do the funeral, hearing the suggestion that AIDS is God’s punishment and proof of the evil of homosexuality.
These are my experiences — but sadly, they are still not uncommon. Gay people still face overt and covert hatred, injustice, prejudice and fear. I am not saying that anyone here supports the mistreatment of gays, but when you hear “something must be wrong with you if you are gay” messages often enough, is it any wonder that some of us get a bit touchy?
Michael–
Honestly, I’m not trying to be haranguing. Do you see where at 10:10 AM you said to Ann that you would try to keep to the issues and not get so personal…and yet you follow with a litany of very personal stuff…
I’m honestly trying to stay out of your personal stuff but you continue to bring it into almost every conversation…just as you reintroduced it once again in the above quote. It’s either a part of the conversation or it isn’t. I personally don’t think we should be able to bring things into the discussion that we don’t want to be scrutinized or questioned.
Beyond that, though, I resist your conclusion because I think it’s a cop-out. You knew from the beginning that this website had bloggers from various points of view…you asked for and gained their respect for your voice and opinions. If that weren’t true, you wouldn’t still be blogging here a few years later. Yet, you say things like
Seriously, now, doesn’t that go with the territory? Doesn’t that go with what you knew to be true when you first started blogging here? Didn’t you know that some of us were of a Biblical persuasion that it was wrong? Are you saying that our opinion that it is wrong is so off base and so offensive that you have a right to be touchy whenever we say what we believe? Don’t you pronounce your point of view that it isn’t wrong over and over? Why should you be so offended when we speak our point of view? That doesn’t seem to equal the respect that you’ve expected and received from us. Yes, our opinions differ very very much. We all know that! We knew that coming in. We aren’t the people that fired you…that took your partners away…that stabbed you and murdered your friend…we are the people who have entered into dialogue with you. IMHO, if we’re going to have productive dialogues, the touchiness has got to be reckoned with.
Warren–
I realize my post has no real connection to plasticity but neither did the one I’m responding to.
Ann: Hope you have a good night.
Michael,
I think it is impossible not to take it personally. That is the reason I think it is best to talk about subject matters and not cite yourself as an example. It is impossible not to get hurt or be defensive so please don’t put yourself in the position for anyone to critique you personally in response to something you wrote about yourself. Only those people you love and are close to deserve to know you personally – everyone else can talk to you about subjects and things, etc.
My heart is hurting just reading this. I am so sorry anyone, including someone I care about, has experienced this. I will fight against it any and every time I can.
Yes, I know – again, my heart hurts thinking about how you and so many others were hurt – I am so sorry – if I could change any of the past and have had it be different for you, I would – in a minute.
Yes, I know – I often wonder what Jesus would have said to them – perhaps the same thing he said to the people stoning the woman – those of you without sin, throw the first stone. Pride is a funny thing, isn’t it? I believe it is the sin that hurts God the most because it divides people.
This begs the question – why would you or anyone else listen to them when we have that small, still voice to listen to instead? Self-righteous and I do not get along at all. I will take a loving friend to talk with any day over a self-righteous peson who boasts that they know more about God than I do. Remember what the Bible says about false prophets. I think you might have met some in your life. Chose carefully who you listen to – I personally like what Jesus said, “Follow me” – that makes more sense to me than “Follow them”
I know – it hurts.
No, it is no wonder.
Regarding brain plasticity, sexual orientation, children, shame, loving adults, etc. – here is a story that has it all. Does anyone remember Alex and Derek King? They are brothers who’s mother left them to be raised by their single father. An adult male neighbor befriended them, expecially Alex who was 12 and began a sexual relationship with him. Alex fell in love with him and began to call and identify himself as gay. Long story short, the boys were influenced by this man to kill their father and subsequently served seven years for the crime. Both boys were helped emotionally and financially by loving people who didn’t know them but wanted to help. Rosie O’Donnell helped financially for lawyers who would advocate they be tried as children instead of adults. Others grew close through visits and eventually took them in as family members. The love and care and intervention of these loving adults made all the difference in their emotional well being. As to Alex and his sexual orientation – he has a girlfriend and no longer identifies himself as gay. Could this be brain plasticity and/or the intervention of a loving and caring adult, or just the separation from the man he once loved so he could put the circumstances of his life then in perspective? I don’t know but enourage anyone interested to watch the hour long video on the Dateline site.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/
Ann,
I was intrigued by this news. Fascinating. I would like to see an update every two years or so. I wonder what will happen to the young men once they brother up again and share the same lving space. Will they be left to their own devices? Will the revert back to old behaviors? What trials face them that may not be ready for and will the adults in their lives today still regard them with the same grace and kindness?
I sure hope ewverything works out. I have apprehensions about the two of them living together.
Wow. That stopped me cold. You are absolutely right. As usual. I will try to heed your good advice. Thanks for your kindness. Really, have a good night, Ann. I am glad we met. Peace to all who post here.
Got it. Nothing personal. Issues only. Subjects and things. I think I can do that.
Michael,
Right – remember, when you reference yourself, you direct the conversation toward you and that leaves open the possibility to be criticized. When you are referring to subject matter, even if it is personal to you, the conversation is about that subject and not YOU. Subject matter puts people on even ground – personal matters do not. Since we cannot ever control how others, it is best to control ourselves – we cannot set boundaries for others, only ourselves
Mary,
I thought exactly the same thing about them living together. It seems Alex has thrived living with his adopted family and Derek has done well too. I would think the loving and caring people who intervened in their lives will stay with them. I honestly think this intervention has made all the difference. Loved what Alex said about Depok Chopra too
I am sure there will be hiccups along the way, however, like you, I sure hope their path continues the way it has and that they continue to look to the future instead of the past. I do think this story speaks to the human potential and how that should always be encouraged.
Mary,
I am also curious as to the kind of counseling they got while incarcerated. I wonder what approach Alex’s therapist took in addressing the gay identity he had. Was he encouraged to accept it and told he did not have a choice in the matter or was he treated as a unique individual and given the opportunity to reason his feelings out and understand them or was he told he was too young to make any kind of determination about the rest of his life? I wonder if it would be a good case for theapists to study and learn from – just not sure. I know I found it interesting and in line with what I know about children and young adults in the foster care system.
Violin playing is a behavior. It can change the brain. But makes this, that someone change the brain to like violin or someone change the brain to like music or someone change the brain to have more feeling of the tact?
@Ann: In the Video the sentence
don’t feel like many same sex attraction. And it is no new thing, but rare in this direction. How many say at this age: “I’m straight” and have then a coming out? At this time you must sort your thoughts about attraction, feelings, and the new hormone-throbbed sexuality.
Just a sudden inspiration with no meaning: Have he a girlfriend because he had no mother? Would he repair his brokenness with a sexualized relationship?
Ann,
Do you happen to know where anyone can get articles(academic ones) on these two young men?
It will be interesting to follow the stories of these young men…while at the same time recognizing that it might be best to allow them to move on into some semblance of normal lives without undue scrutiny.
I’m thinking that we could learn some things about plasticity from the journey of the one brother but his experience may say more to self-identity and labelling than it does to sexual orientation plasticity. If, for the sake of argument, the lad was orienting straight and then got turned to a gay identity, his ‘going straight’ would be seen as a return to his norm–or perhaps an undoing of the damage caused. This would not be compelling to someone who never felt destined for heterosexuality or straightness but was considering the merits of plasticity. The possibility that a gay orientation is inborn or is God’s created intent for an individual would be a major brain factor to be reckoned with. 1) If it is inborn or is God’s intent for an individual, then plasticity would be a war against the created self. 2) If it isn’t actually inborn or God’s intent, if the individual believes that it is, this would impact any motivation towards plasticity. I’m assuming that in the case of this young man, it likely wasn’t difficult to convince him that he was the victim of bad influence, therefore he wouldn’t have either of those blocks to plasticity.
We can still learn from it, I’m sure, I’d simply cautious that we not we use it as a model for plasticity in general.
Erik(a) Schinegger (born 1948), a intersexual (pseudohermaphrodit with inline genitals) who is now a real man with own daughter and second wife, imagine till 1967 that she was propably a lesbian. So he said 2005 in the film about him. After the Operation he was like an lazar, the sport organisation would like to have a women an a operation in this way, but with a good doctor he choose the other way. And he was at first a real macho with sporstcar, etc. to secure his male identity.