Why philosophy matters here

"I was born in the wrong body" sounds like a plain description of a feeling. Underneath, it is a philosophical claim. For a body to be the wrong one, there has to be a "me" that is separate from that body, has a sex or gender of its own, and could in principle have lived in a different body. That is a version of mind-body dualism: the view that the mind (or soul, or self) and the body are two fundamentally different things.

The scientific side of the "wrong body" idea, including brain studies, prenatal hormones and identity stability, is covered in Born in the Wrong Body Theory. This page goes underneath that. It explains where the two-thing picture of the person comes from, the main philosophical alternatives, how the picture entered medicine, and why some detransitioners describe the realisation "I am my body" as the point where their distress began to make sense in a different way. It is part of the philosophical frameworks series, alongside embodiment and essentialism and nominalism.

The two-thing picture

Plato: the soul and its prison

The oldest influential Western version of dualism comes from Plato (c. 428–348 BCE). In the Phaedo, set on the day of Socrates' execution, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal and that the philosopher's task is to free it from the body's pull. He describes the untrained soul as one that is "entirely fastened and welded to the body and is compelled to regard realities through the body as through prison bars" (Plato, Phaedo 82e, trans. Fowler). The image draws on an older Pythagorean and Orphic wordplay, sōma (body) and sēma (tomb), that runs through the whole dialogue (Loeb Classical Library introduction to the Phaedo).

Two features of Plato's picture matter here. First, the real person is the soul, and the body is something it is temporarily housed in. Second, the body is a source of error and distortion. If you hold both ideas, it becomes quite natural to say that a body can be wrong for the soul inside it.

Descartes: two substances

The modern form of the theory comes from René Descartes (1596–1650). In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) he argued that he could clearly conceive of himself as a "thinking thing" without a body, and so mind and body must be distinct substances: things that can exist on their own. Mind is defined by thought; body by extension (taking up space). This is substance dualism.

Descartes did not, however, think the mind sat in the body like a driver. In the Sixth Meditation he wrote that "I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in a ship, but that I am very closely joined and, as it were, intermingled with it, so that I and the body form a unit." His evidence was pain and hunger: a sailor sees that the hull is damaged, but I feel my injury (Descartes, Sixth Meditation, trans. Cottingham, Stoothoff & Murdoch). The "pilot in a vehicle" picture that later critics attacked is a cruder version than Descartes himself held. Even the founder of modern dualism saw the self as bound up with the body it feels from the inside.

The interaction problem

Descartes' theory has a famous weak point. If the mind takes up no space and the body is purely physical, how does a decision move an arm, or a pinprick produce pain? In a letter of 16 May 1643, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia pressed Descartes on exactly this: how can an unextended soul cause an extended body to move? (Tollefsen 1999; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), "Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia"). Descartes' answers, including his suggestion that the pineal gland was the meeting point, did not satisfy her or most later philosophers.

This is the interaction problem. It bears directly on the "wrong body" idea: if a gendered self is non-physical, medicine cannot reach it, and it is unclear why changing the body should help. If it is physical, it is part of the body.

Ryle: the ghost in the machine

In The Concept of Mind (1949), the Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle attacked what he called the "official doctrine" inherited from Descartes. "I shall often speak of it, with deliberate abusiveness, as 'the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine'," he wrote, arguing that it was "a category-mistake" (Ryle 1949, "Descartes' Myth").

A category mistake is treating something as belonging to the wrong logical type. Ryle's example is a visitor shown Oxford's colleges, libraries and laboratories who then asks, "But where is the University?" The university is not an extra building; it is the way all of those things are organised. Ryle argued that "mind" is like that. It is not a hidden inner object but a way of describing what a living person can do, tends to do and is doing.

Applied to gender, Ryle's point is sharp. Treating "my gender identity" as an inner object that can be compared with the body and found to mismatch may itself be a category mistake. A person's feelings, preferences, desires and distress are real, but they belong to the living person, not to a second sexed being inside it.

Beyond substance dualism

Few philosophers today defend Descartes' version. The main live positions are summarised below, with what each would make of the claim "I am a woman in a man's body" (or the reverse).

Property dualism

Property dualism accepts that there is only one kind of substance, physical stuff, but holds that conscious experience has properties that physical description leaves out. The best-known modern defender is David Chalmers, who named the "hard problem of consciousness": why there is something it is like to be a brain at all (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), "Hard Problem of Consciousness"; Chalmers 1996).

Property dualism supports taking dysphoria seriously: the felt distress is real, not "just" neurons. But it gives no support to a separate sexed self. The experiences are properties of this organism.

Physicalism and the identity theory

Physicalism is the view that everything that exists is physical, or depends on the physical. Its most direct form in philosophy of mind is the mind-brain identity theory, developed in the 1950s by U. T. Place, Herbert Feigl and J. J. C. Smart. It holds that sensations and thoughts are brain processes, in the way that lightning is an electrical discharge (IEP, "Identity Theory").

Identity theory is the philosophy behind the "brain sex" version of the wrong-body story. If the mind is the brain, then "a female mind in a male body" must mean "a female brain in a male body", which is a testable claim about brains. It is also an awkward one, because the brain is an organ of the body. Its cells carry the same chromosomes as every other cell.

Functionalism

Functionalism defines mental states by their role: what typically causes them, and what they typically cause. Pain is whatever state is produced by damage and produces avoidance and complaint, whether it runs on neurons or silicon. This multiple realisability was the main argument against strict identity theory (SEP, "Multiple Realizability").

Functionalism is the most hospitable mainstream view for a "female identity" in a male body, because it does not tie mental kinds to particular hardware. But it needs a functional definition of "being a woman" or "being a man" as a mental state. Remove the body and its reproductive organisation, and what remains tends to be a list of preferences and temperaments that vary enormously within each sex. The problem moves into the territory of gender stereotypes and essentialism and nominalism.

Embodied and enactive alternatives

A different tradition rejects the inner/outer split altogether. The French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, in Phenomenology of Perception (1945), described the body not as an object the self owns but as the very subject of perception, the "lived body" through which a world appears at all. His analysis of the body schema, the pre-reflective sense of posture and capacity that lets us reach for a cup without thinking, used cases like phantom limbs to show that our felt body is neither a pure brain map nor a mental picture but a lived orientation that can become disturbed and can be reworked through habit (Cambridge University Press, Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, ch. 5).

In cognitive science, The Embodied Mind (1991) by Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch launched the enactive approach: cognition is something an organism does through bodily engagement with its environment, not computation inside a skull (Varela, Thompson & Rosch 1991; SEP, "Embodied Cognition"). The authors drew explicitly on Buddhist mindfulness practice, which links this view to the Buddhism page.

On embodied views, feeling estranged from one's body is real and important. But it is a state of the embodied person, like dissociation, chronic pain or the distorted self-image of an eating disorder. It is not evidence of a second self. And because the body schema is plastic, the estrangement is something that can change. This is explored further on the embodiment page.

How "wrong body" entered medicine

Ulrichs: a female soul in a male body

The modern formula predates transsexual medicine. In 1864–65 the German jurist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs published a series of pamphlets arguing that men who loved men were a natural "third sex". He summed up his theory in the Latin phrase anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa, a female psyche (or soul) confined in a male body (Kennedy, glbtq encyclopedia; Kennedy 1988). Ulrichs' purpose was humane: to argue that same-sex love was inborn and should not be criminalised.

The history matters. The first "wrong body" formula was a theory of homosexuality, not of a separate transgender condition. It explained same-sex attraction by imagining an opposite-sex soul. Many detransitioners' accounts describe the same move in reverse: they came to see their cross-sex identification as tangled up with same-sex attraction they had not accepted (see reframing dysphoria). In Littman's 2021 survey of 100 detransitioners, 23% gave homophobia or difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual as a reason for transition and subsequent detransition.

Benjamin: adjust the body to the mind

The endocrinologist Harry Benjamin's The Transsexual Phenomenon (1966) became the founding clinical text of transsexual medicine. Benjamin described the transsexual person as "deeply unhappy as a member of the sex (or gender) to which he or she was assigned by the anatomical structure of the body, particularly the genitals" (Benjamin 1966, ch. 2). His case for medical treatment was explicitly framed in mind-body terms. After noting that psychotherapy had not changed his patients' convictions, he wrote:

Since it is evident, therefore, that the mind of the transsexual cannot be adjusted to the body, it is logical and justifiable to attempt the opposite, to adjust the body to the mind. — (Benjamin 1966, ch. 6)

The sentence treats mind and body as two things to be brought into line by changing whichever is easier to change. Its factual premise, that the mind "cannot be adjusted", rested on a small number of patients in long psychoanalysis. Later desistance and detransition research (summarised on the born in the wrong body page) suggests that for a substantial minority the mind side does change.

Memoirs and the "trapped" trope

Benjamin's framework was echoed and popularised by autobiographies. The British writer Jan Morris's memoir Conundrum (1974) opens: "I was three or perhaps four years old when I realized that I had been born into the wrong body, and should really be a girl." Later Morris states the dualism outright: "To me gender is not physical at all, but is altogether insubstantial. It is soul, perhaps…" (Morris 1974, NYRB Classics edition; The Examined Life).

Trans scholars have long noted how standardised these stories became. In "The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto" (1992), Sandy Stone analysed Morris and other memoirs and argued that clinics required a single narrative, which applicants learned to tell in order to qualify for surgery (Stone 1992); Jay Prosser's Second Skins made transsexual body narratives its central subject (Prosser 1998). The "wrong body" story was partly a script for being legible to doctors, not simply a neutral report of inner experience.

The decline of "wrong body" in trans discourse

Since the 1990s, much trans theory has moved away from the wrong-body model. The philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher's "Trapped in the Wrong Theory" (2014) set out two dominant models, the "wrong-body model" and a newer "transgender model" built on gender diversity. She found both unsatisfactory and offered a reworked account of her own (Bettcher 2014; Signs issue summary). In current clinical language, the body has dropped out of the definition altogether. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) defines gender identity as a person's "deeply felt, internal, intrinsic sense of their own gender" (WPATH Standards of Care, Version 8 (SOC-8)).

This shift relocates dualism rather than abandoning it. The inner self is still the real fact about the person and the body is secondary; the imagery is just less vivid. Some detransitioners notice this continuity (see below).

The brain-sex version: dualism in neurological dress

The BSTc studies

The most cited evidence for a "female brain in a male body" is a 1995 Nature paper by Jiang-Ning Zhou, Michel Hofman, Louis Gooren and Dick Swaab. It reported that a small region called the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was larger in men than women, and female-sized in six male-to-female transsexuals examined after death (Zhou et al. 1995). A follow-up counted neurons in the same region with similar results (Kruijver et al. 2000).

The limits are serious:

• Tiny samples. Six transsexual brains in 1995; the 2000 study added only one female-to-male case.
• Hormone exposure. The transsexual subjects had taken cross-sex hormones. The authors argued, from comparison cases, that adult hormones did not explain the result, but this could not be tested directly.
• Timing. A 2002 study from the same group found that the BSTc sex difference did not become significant until adulthood (Chung, De Vries & Swaab 2002). If the region only differentiates by sex in adulthood, its size cannot be what gives a young child a cross-sex identity. The authors proposed indirect mechanisms, but the simple "born with a female brain" story does not survive this finding.
• Confounds. Later imaging research in living subjects found complex mixtures of male-typical, female-typical and intermediate features. These were heavily dependent on sexual orientation and on hormone treatment (Guillamon, Junque & Gómez-Gil 2016).

The mosaic brain and its critics

The broader question is whether there are "male brains" and "female brains" at all. In 2015 the neuroscientist Daphna Joel and colleagues analysed MRI scans of more than 1,400 brains. They found extensive overlap between the sexes and concluded that most brains are "mosaics" of features, some more common in females and some more common in males (Joel et al. 2015). A 2021 synthesis of three decades of research led by Lise Eliot reported few male-female differences once overall brain size was accounted for (Eliot et al. 2021).

Critics led by the psychologist Marco Del Giudice replied that Joel's method was built in a way that fails to detect large differences. Analysing many features together, they argued, can sort brains by sex with considerable accuracy (Del Giudice et al. 2016). This debate is real and unresolved. But it matters less to the wrong-body claim than it seems. A brain that can be statistically classified as male is the brain of a male. What a classifier detects is sex, the sex of the body the brain belongs to. Brain-sex research cannot show that a person's sex is different from their body's sex, because the brain is part of that body.

Body-perception theories

A newer line of research moves away from "opposite-sex brain" claims. Ivanka Savic's group in Stockholm has proposed that gender dysphoria is linked to brain networks for self-body perception rather than to a reversed sex difference. A 2019 theoretical paper in eNeuro by Stephen Gliske described dysphoria as a perception condition involving body-ownership, distress and social-behaviour networks (Gliske 2019).

Philosophically, this is a significant move. It treats dysphoria as a matter of how the brain represents this body, which is closer to Merleau-Ponty than to Descartes. Body perception is known to be plastic and to be affected by trauma, dissociation and eating disorders. If the model is correct, it shows no one has the wrong body. It points to a disturbed relationship between a person and their own body, which might be addressed in more than one way (see body dysmorphia and eating disorders and trauma).

What would it mean to be "the wrong sex" for one's body?

Taken literally, the claim needs several things to be true at once:

1. A separable self. There must be a "me" that could have existed in a different body. That is substance dualism, or something close to it.
2. A sexed self. That self must itself be male or female. But sex, in every species where the word has meaning, is a property of bodies: of the reproductive system they are organised around (see intersex and DSDs for why rare developmental variations do not change this). A soul has no gametes. So "a female self" must mean something else.
3. A way of knowing the self's sex. If not through the body, then through introspection: "I just know." But what is being introspected? When people try to say, the answers tend to be preferences, temperaments, interests, desires or distress. These are things found in both sexes, and many of them are cultural ideas about men and women.
4. A normative standard. For a body to be wrong, there must be a correct body it falls short of. Bodies do not come with such a template. A healthy male or female body is not a mistake, though a person may wish it were different.

When these steps are spelled out, the claim tends to reduce to something more modest and more human: I am distressed by my sexed body, and I strongly wish I were the other sex. That statement is true for many people and deserves to be taken seriously. But it is a statement about a person's feelings toward their body. It is not a discovery that the body belongs to someone else. And unlike "my body is wrong", it leaves open the question of why the distress exists and what might relieve it.

"I am my body": how the reframe works

Many detransitioners describe a moment when the two-thing picture dissolved. Several put it in almost exactly the terms of the philosophers above.

You aren’t “in” your body.

You are your body. —ParticularSwanne, desisted female

One desisted woman, in a thread about the origins of gender identity ideas, makes Ryle's argument about the brain:

One thing I recommend to all people, trans, detrans, or having no interest in gender at all--is to get rid of this idea that their self is something separate from the brain. You are your brain. When you say "your brain expects" something, that is you. —novaskyd, desisted female

She continues: "So, if "your brain" expects your body to be different--you expect your body to be different. The question is, why? How important is this? Is that desire changeable?" This is the practical heart of the reframe. Once the mismatch is no longer between two entities, it becomes a desire or distress that belongs to the person. Like any desire, it can be examined, traced to its sources and sometimes changed.

Others describe the reframe in terms that echo the interaction problem:

"Trapped in a body that isn't yours," is the most ideological part. It's your body. There is no such thing as being in a body that isn't yours. If that were true, who has your real body? Who mixed up your body with another? Who made the mistake? —keycoinandcandle, desisted male

So many things wrong with this from a non-dualist perspective too.
Who is the "I" who is in the wrong body?? —sentientmassofenergy, detrans male

Some connect the old picture to living "in their head" and to dissociation:

I think I thought this way for being an overly intellectual person and living so much in my head that I feel that my body just happened to me and wasn’t me, in a sense… Thinking that your mind is completely separate from one’s body is false and unhealthy. —fir3dyk3, desisted female

For some, the change is described as a homecoming rather than a loss:

Also, reconnecting with the biology I once despised lets me feel more human than I ever felt. —Barzona, desisted male

Your body doesn't need fixing, your perception of it does. —Sugared_Strawberry, detrans female

In Littman's 2021 survey of 100 detransitioners, the most common reason for detransition (60%) was becoming more comfortable identifying as one's natal sex. The sample was self-selected, but it shows that the "mind" side of Benjamin's equation changed for many respondents.

Detrans perspectives

Beyond the "I am my body" realisation, several recurring themes appear in /r/detrans discussions of the wrong-body idea.

Gender identity as a secular soul. Some commenters describe gender identity as working like a religious concept:

It really helped me to think of "gender identity" is to transgender as "soul" is to Christianity. It's a token, part of a belief system, given to you. —Rare_Treat_5098, detrans male

Do you believe in souls and God? Because the only way to be born in the wrong body is to believe that God put your soul into the wrong body. —Ok_Bullfrog_8491, desisted female

Others reach for the ancient label for a body-hating spirituality: "Meat lego gnosticism! We are only our brains, our bodies are a prison, etc." (Stanky_Bacon, desisted male). Gnosticism, an early Christian-era movement, held that the material body is a trap for a divine spark. The comparison is polemical, but it captures the Platonic structure described above. See also religion and spirituality.

Brain sex as dualism with a lab coat. Several detransitioners see the brain-sex version as the same idea in scientific clothing:

Brains are also plastic and reflect usage. I believe there are men whose brains show 'feminine' activity (and women whose brains show 'masculine' activity) but in that doesn't make those men female, it makes them feminine males. —love-starved-beast, desisted female

One detrans man notes that the differences researchers do find "seem to exist in parts of the brain related to self image," which he reads as evidence about self-perception rather than sex (UniquelyDefined, detrans male). This is close to the body-perception model above.

Not everyone held the dualist version. Some say they never believed in a gendered soul; "wrong" simply meant hated:

I never understood it to mean having a female soul or whatever. I understood it in the literal sense, that my physical body was wrong because I hated it, and that means I should try to modify it —recursive-regret, detrans male

This is an important variant. Here the wrong-body idea was never a metaphysics but a judgement, "this body is bad", turned into a plan. That reading shifts attention to the source of the hatred: trauma, body dysmorphia, an eating disorder, misogyny or homophobia. These are the themes of reframing dysphoria.

Dualism used for acceptance. Not all detransitioners reject dualism. Some use a soul-and-vessel picture to make peace with their sex. They argue that if the true self is not the body, the body's sex matters less:

The bigger truth is that you are not your body. Your body is not you. It's just the fleshy vehicle through which you get to experience life. —chipdex, questioning own gender identity

The same metaphysics that once suggested change the body to fit the soul can also suggest the soul does not need the body to change. What matters is less whether a person believes in a soul than whether they think the body must be made to match it.

Trapped after all. A painful irony appears in some accounts from people who had medical interventions:

The irony here is there are people who end up feeling trapped in their bodies because of transition. —TheDrillKeeper, detrans male

Trans perspectives

Trans-identified people hold a wide range of views on the wrong-body idea, and many reject it themselves.

Some describe their distress without any sense of a different self, wanting changes to their own body:

No "born in the wrong body" feeling. My chest dysphoria manifested mostly as me not physically feeling like I had a chest… But I recognise it all as my body. I have a good body. It's strong and healthy. I just wish it was differently shaped. —genericName_notTaken, ftm

I want all of this in MY body, not the body of someone else that now belongs to me. —SoSS_, ftm

These are, in effect, non-dualist accounts. The self is the body; the wish is for it to be different. Others hold a brain-based view that closely tracks the identity theory:

I guess ultimately, I do not believe people can change their sex. They change their bodies to better match their brains' internal sense of what their sex is, and the brain communicates that to us via dysphoria and euphoria. —Emily__Lyn, mtf

Some trans commenters are wary of brain-sex arguments for their own reasons: "It opens the door to making people "prove" they're trans enough. It's also a wild overstatement of what those studies (which are interesting!) show" (anemisto, ftm). And some say the "trapped" script made it harder to recognise themselves, because they did not hate their whole body:

I thought to be a woman trapped in a man's body meant you absolutely hated every inch of your body and you would do anything to get out and to transition. —CT0292, MTF

A detransitioner who had been active in trans communities describes the phrase's current status: "it's still used as a basic heuristic to explain being trans to a cis person who doesn't know much about trans people. But nobody will defend it as an accurate description of transness" (sydney-speaks, detrans male).

Assessment

The "born in the wrong body" idea is best understood as a philosophical picture later given medical and neurological forms: Plato's imprisoned soul, Descartes' two substances, Ulrichs' "female psyche confined in a male body", Benjamin's "adjust the body to the mind", the memoir script, and finally brain-sex research.

Each form meets the same difficulty. A non-physical self has no sex and cannot be reached by medicine. A physical self is the body, and the brain shares the body's sex. The evidence for "opposite-sex brains" is small, confounded and contested; the more promising research describes disturbed self-body perception, a relationship between a person and their body rather than a mismatch between two beings. Newer language such as "gender identity" keeps the same inner-self-versus-body structure.

None of this makes gender distress less real. Embodied philosophy takes it more seriously, as something a whole person suffers rather than a signal from a hidden twin. It also opens possibilities the wrong-body story closes off. If the distress belongs to me, I can ask where it came from: trauma, dissociation, body dysmorphia, an eating disorder, homophobia, misogyny or rigid stereotypes about what my sex is allowed to be. I can ask whether it might change. For some people this question leads to profound relief and reconciliation with their sexed body. For others the distress is more persistent. Either way, a picture that tells someone their body is a mistake deserves careful scrutiny before it guides irreversible decisions.

For more on living as a gender non-conforming man or woman without needing a new category, see gender non-conformity without labels. For recovery after detransition, see healing and recovery and the support directory.

References

• Plato. Phaedo, trans. H. N. Fowler. Perseus Digital Library. source.
• Loeb Classical Library (2017). Introduction to Plato, Phaedo. LCL 36. source.
• Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy, Sixth Meditation. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. Cottingham, Stoothoff & Murdoch (Cambridge, 1984). excerpt.
• Tollefsen, D. (1999). Princess Elisabeth and the Problem of Mind-Body Interaction. Hypatia 14(3). source.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia. source.
• Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind, ch. 1 "Descartes' Myth". Hutchinson. excerpt (MIT).
• Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press.
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hard Problem of Consciousness. source.
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Identity Theory. source.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Multiple Realizability. source.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of Perception; discussed in Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception: On the Body Informed, ch. 5, Cambridge University Press. source.
• Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press. review.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Embodied Cognition. source.
• Kennedy, H. Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich (1825–1895). glbtq Encyclopedia. source.
• Kennedy, H. (1988). Ulrichs: The Life and Works of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Pioneer of the Modern Gay Movement. Alyson Publications. catalogue record.
• Benjamin, H. (1966). The Transsexual Phenomenon. Julian Press. IJT electronic edition, ch. 2, ch. 6.
• Morris, J. (1974). Conundrum. Faber & Faber; NYRB Classics edition 2006. publisher, excerpts.
• Stone, S. (1992). The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto. Camera Obscura 10(2): 150–176. source.
• Prosser, J. (1998). Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality. Columbia University Press. publisher.
• Bettcher, T. M. (2014). Trapped in the Wrong Theory: Rethinking Trans Oppression and Resistance. Signs 39(2): 383–406. source.
• Coleman, E. et al. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health. source.
• Zhou, J.-N., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J. & Swaab, D. F. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature 378: 68–70. source.
• Kruijver, F. P. et al. (2000). Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85(5): 2034–41. source.
• Chung, W. C. J., De Vries, G. J. & Swaab, D. F. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience 22(3): 1027–1033. source.
• Guillamon, A., Junque, C. & Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior 45: 1615–1648. source.
• Joel, D. et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. PNAS 112(50): 15468–73. source.
• Del Giudice, M. et al. (2016). Joel et al.'s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences. PNAS 113(14): E1965. source.
• Eliot, L., Ahmed, A., Khan, H. & Patel, J. (2021). Dump the "dimorphism": Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 125: 667–697. source.
• Gliske, S. V. (2019). A New Theory of Gender Dysphoria Incorporating the Distress, Social Behavioral, and Body-Ownership Networks. eNeuro 6(6). source.
• Littman, L. (2021). Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners. Archives of Sexual Behavior. study page, source.