Not in high regard. While there are indeed studies “supporting” this theory, the issue is that this only stands true when taking the authors conclusions at face value. Any ounce of critical analysis applied, and the theory falls apart. But why? The vast majority of these studies are HEAVILY confounded by other variables known to promote the same outcome (i.e., co-occurring homosexuality and/or the administration of cross-sex hormones). Many studies have inadequate controls, and some (such as Kurth et al., 2022) have faulty methodology and statistics which consistently biases the results in favour of the stated hypothesis. It’s not a good literature and is plagued with issues. Those telling you otherwise haven’t (or cannot) work out the issues, and I guarantee will take authors conclusions as gospel, rather than critically analysing the data within the original papers and coming up with their OWN understanding.

The day neuroscience confirms this “gender identity”, I’ll happily quit and hand back my PhD 😂😂

I don't usually post studies from my actual research field, but this paper is cool. We typically think of phosphorylated tau (p-tau205) as a biomarker of Alzheimer's disease pathology in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), but an interesting new study suggests it also plays an important physiological role in memory. In mice, tau phosphorylation at T205 (p-tau205) increases during the initial encoding of a memory, helping to selectively recruit neurons into a precise memory-associated ensemble (engram). Interestingly, preventing this phosphorylation does not impair initial learning or immediate recall, but disrupts the precise reactivation of memory-associated neurons and impairs long-term recall weeks/months later. This suggests that p-tau205 may help establish the neural circuitry required for memories to remain accessible long after they are formed. For the Alzheimer's field, this raises an interesting possibility: could the pathological dysregulation of tau phosphorylation disrupt its normal physiological role in memory formation and persistence? Rather than viewing phosphorylated tau solely as a marker of pathology, we may also need to consider what happens when its normal functions are altered during disease progression: Paper: Tau T205 phosphorylation modulates engram cell recruitment and remote memory in mice - PubMed

Normative sex differences are not even particularly well-characterised in the human brain in the first place. While univariate differences definitely exist (small in size and usually sporadic), sex differences are much better understood as multivariate and probabilistic. Individual anatomical features overlap substantially between sexes, yet their combined distributions and covariance structures can produce considerable group separation without requiring consistently sex-biased neuroanatomical landmarks. Knowing this, the transgender neuroimaging literature has substantial methodological limitations. Studies frequently use inconsistent male–female reference groups, with inadequate control for sexual orientation and/or “gender-affirming” hormone exposure. Both variables can independently influence anatomical measures, potentially producing apparent cross-sex shifts that cannot necessarily be attributed to “gender identity” or its developmental origins. Other studies are insufficiently designed to distinguish competing hypotheses, while some employ flawed and questionable statistical approaches, inadequate brain-size correction, small samples and underpowered analyses, increasing the risk of unstable or misleading findings. Independent replication is also limited, with reported cross-sex patterns varying considerably across studies, brain regions, imaging modalities and analytical methods. Demonstrating that a transgender group differs from same-sex controls does NOT establish that its members resemble the opposite sex, nor does a shift in selected regions establish a coherent, multivariate pattern of cross-sex neuroanatomical organisation. The existence of brain scans is not in dispute. What remains unestablished is whether the reported differences represent a reliable, generalisable cross-sex phenotype rather than alternative biological or methodological explanations.