> > I don't think there is any solid basis to say this.

> The history of eugenic programs as well the blocking of male/female sex hormones to inhibit sexual development or for transitional purposes should reveal a solid basis. Brain/body are capable of recovering close to a genetic baseline, at least up to some age.

Showing that some effect can result from some cause is not sufficient to show that it does result from that cause. To be honest I don't even follow exactly what claim you're making here. But even if you show that e.g. certain mental problems can result from reduced or increased blood flow to certain areas of the brain, it does not follow that that is always the cause.

You're resting big confident assertions on "I read this somewhere, go look it up." In fact biology and mentation are complex and we don't have the whole picture. It's easy to put together whatever "just so story" you want by rearranging fragments of evidence, but it doesn't make it true.

> Showing that some effect can result from some cause is not sufficient to show that it does result from that cause.

Definitely something I should have cleared up: it's utterly useless to claim or proof that some mental problem is caused by some reduction in bloodflow in some part of the brain, but I believe it is beneficial to know, if you are afflicted, that it's an area worth investigating, rather than assuming that your personality, your brain or your mind lack innate, exogenous mechanisms to deal with anxiety, depression and or other stuff.

> You're resting big confident assertions on "I read this somewhere, go look it up." In fact biology and mentation are complex and we don't have the whole picture. It's easy to put together whatever "just so story" you want by rearranging fragments of evidence, but it doesn't make it true.

Science philosophy starts somewhere. I'm sure at least some of it started in garages =]