PDA

View Full Version : Crossdressing a lifestyle choice or genetic?



emmicd
11-16-2008, 12:27 AM
I'm a lifelong crossdresser. I love dressing like a girl. I did not choose to be this way. I am not a sissy! I feel this is a part of my genetics and had I not had been born with this I would not dress. To me it's simple. I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

Are you a crossdresser by choice or do you believe in the genetic factor?

emmi

Billie Jean
11-16-2008, 12:34 AM
I too feel that this is just the way I am and not a choice of mine. I am not a sissy nor am I gay, I just love to wear pretty things. Billie Jean

kathtx
11-16-2008, 12:37 AM
I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

Are you a crossdresser by choice or do you believe in the genetic factor?

emmi

Being transgendered is fine with me, regardless of the cause.

However, hhe question of origins of traits is much more complex than "choice" vs "genetics." See, for example, http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Gene-Nature-Turns-Nurture/dp/006000679X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226813568&sr=1-3

PamelaTX
11-16-2008, 01:42 AM
I think that everything is a choice, but genetics and life experience make certain choices easier and more natural than others.

Genetics made me male, but mentally and emotionally I'm both masculine and feminine in about equal measure. The way I express this is through crossdressing (and other things). For me, crossdressing is a choice. A very attractive and natural choice, but a choice nevertheless.

AmandaM
11-16-2008, 01:52 AM
I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

CD Susan
11-16-2008, 02:08 AM
To me it's simple. I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

Are you a crossdresser by choice or do you believe in the genetic factor?

emmi[/QUOTE]

I believe that I was born with this inherent desire to express my feminine side. I certainly did not choose to be this way but rather I feel it chose me. I have been this way since as far back as I can remember. I have learned to accept this part of me and fully embrace it. I cannot comprehend being any other way and would feel strange if I did not have the urge to express my feminine side by crossdressing.

avril findlay
11-16-2008, 02:25 AM
I was born a crossdresser, I couldn't possibly be any other way.

Penelope
11-16-2008, 03:08 AM
I too believe that we are born this way as possibly an abnormal/exessive hormonal thing or our mothers really wanting to have a girl?

No-one has come up with a proven theory just yet.....

hugs

Penelope :hugs:

victoriamwilliams1
11-16-2008, 03:16 AM
I am now starting to think we are born this way, it depends on when the trigger to start was pulled:)

Amanda.D
11-16-2008, 03:21 AM
Hi,
I too have always crossdressed, more so now than ever before. I read somewhere that crossdressing was hereditory and this could be a credible explanation. My father no, my son no, but my young grandson has expressed his desires to be a girl to his mom. He is 8 yrs old and she does not know my secret.
Mandy

Dana
11-16-2008, 03:32 AM
By definition, being that GG's are XX chromosones and XY chromosones, you were born half female from the on-set.

Added to this that the during the first six weeks of gesetation a fetus is essnetially female, with being female the "default" and it requiring a hormonal bath to create a male ~ and given that there are geniune intersexed children that grow up to idenify with either gender, there's a solid argument to be made intersex and transgendered people.

According to the Kinsey Report, the vast majorithy of people (66%) are bisexual.

Since having retired from the military, I am literally amazed and astounded how ignorant, un-educated, illiterate, un-informed the general population is! How many don't even read the local daily newspaper! And how biased they are, as well as the political parties are!

Deborah Jane
11-16-2008, 04:38 AM
I think we,re born like this!
Why would a boy child want to wear his mothers and sisters clothes from such a young age otherwise?
I started wearing my mums tights at about age 5 years old, a bit young to make a lifestyle choice don,t you think?

Paula UK
11-16-2008, 05:21 AM
I too believe that we are born this way as possibly an abnormal/exessive hormonal thing or our mothers really wanting to have a girl?

No-one has come up with a proven theory just yet.....

hugs

Penelope :hugs:

Well, i know that my mother believed (for whatever reason) that she was having a girl. Shed already named her "daughter to be" - Paula! Hence when I popped out i was called Paul.


paula x


Hi,
I too have always crossdressed, more so now than ever before. I read somewhere that crossdressing was hereditory and this could be a credible explanation. My father no, my son no, but my young grandson has expressed his desires to be a girl to his mom. He is 8 yrs old and she does not know my secret.
Mandy

my 8 yr old son has also expressed desire to be a girl!

Kate Simmons
11-16-2008, 05:28 AM
It can be caused by many different things. How it ends up is entirely up to us.

Jess_cd32
11-16-2008, 05:56 AM
I think genetics definatly.

I've seen MRI brain scans on TV of TS's compared to females and they were very similar, but both so very different than that of a straight males scan, hmmmmm, kinda makes you wonder.

Jenniferpl
11-16-2008, 05:56 AM
I was born a crossdresser. My earliest thoughts stared around the age of 6 wanting to be a girl. It just feels right when I am feminine. There was no choice.

Miss Tessa
11-16-2008, 05:59 AM
I'm TS but I know CD is really an inclination that can't be stopped.

It's like an addiction that you have to forget about trying to quit because you won't quit.

I believe it's genetic because most if not all the CD's I've seen do it lifelong.

Janie Gunn
11-16-2008, 06:56 AM
I wasnt 'born' a crossdresser because I didnt get curious and try womens clothes until I was in my thirties. I dont believe in any of these theories because my circumstances are defiant of all that has been suggested so far.

Janie

lynn2c
11-16-2008, 07:06 AM
I don't think that when discussing nature vs. nurture that it can be an "either/or". I do lean heavy on the learned side of most behaviors though. Our genetics can give us a predisposition for certain behavior, but our environment decides if we follow that path. We start identifying with our mother first. That is our caregiver. Why wouldn't you mimic her behavior? Some of us just stay there and reject the male influences that come alittle later.

deja true
11-16-2008, 07:45 AM
Ah-Ha! In the dozens of times I've seen this question come up here, this is the first time I've seen Katie B's concise and clear explanation of the difference between "congenital" and "genetic" expression of traits. And I'm liking it a lot. To me, it feels like the right answer!

"Congenital" gives many of us the rationale for believing that we were born this way, but avoids the almost unprovable (so far) genetic component. And tied to Lynn's idea of the "pre-birth" (but not necessarily genetic) pre-disposition and subsequent early acculturation process in our mother's arms, I'm thinking that this may be the answer for many of us.

This confluence of theories doesn't necessarily have to account for all of us though. Life is a crap shoot, ain't it? And there are numerous ways to make a "7". 6+1, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1...

Genetics, hormonal chemical bath, pre-disposition from mutagenic agents (wiki DES), acculturation, childhood trauma or adult decision...they all can play a part in getting us to where we are now.

Personally, I don't stress about any of this much, 'cos we are what we are. And there ain't no operation or drug or psyche regime or religious philosophy that's ever gonna change us, is there? That's the part I like. I don't wanna be any other way. 'Cos life is good. And, for me, accepting this life has made mine, both deja's and what's-his-name's life, even better.

Bless you all, though, for the hard thought and research you all put into it.

respect & love,

deja

:<3:

Anna the Dub
11-16-2008, 07:48 AM
There is no way I would have chosen this life if it was a 'lifestyle choice'. The anguish and pain I went through in my early years, right up to my 30's, is not something anyone would choose as their life. I believe that I was born this way, I had no choice.

sometimes_miss
11-16-2008, 09:02 AM
For me it is a case of conditioning during development. I never thought I was a girl until someone else told me that. I saw some advantages to being a girl, but didn't think I was one. Then it escalated until I saw it everywhere in my life, and became convinced; surely my elders knew better than I did. So I believed what they told me, and what I interpreted their explanations to mean. When all the parts of the puzzle fit, it's a pretty strong suggestion that the picture you see is the correct one, even if it isn't. A child isn't able to dispute the information; he/she (ME!) doesn't have the cognitive abilities, nor the knowledge necessary. And so, the 'story' becomes reality. I'm like Pavlov's dogs; dress me up, and I expect affection to follow. Despite it no longer occurring, it still feels the same as it did when I was a kid. I feel upset/insecure/lonely/whatever, and want to dress up. So I dress up, associating the feeling of being pretty with the expectation of affection, and to a little bit, I actually feel better after dressing up. The stressor, whatever it is, is gone, I'm only focusing on feeling like a girl. And I often fall asleep while dressed, now able to relax, escaping from the 'real life' problems, into the fantasy world of being a female and focusing on all the things I imagine a woman would, instead of my own crummy life. Genetic? Not me. Choice? Not on your life. Who would choose this? Not me. I'd gladly be rid of it. But that isn't a choice either. So, I live with it.

Ema1234 GG
11-16-2008, 09:13 AM
I think many people fail to really get what the nature vs nurture debate is all about. So many CD's are so quick to jump on the band wagon of "I wouldn't choose this lifestyle for myself so it must be genetic".

But just because you didn't actively choose it doesn't mean that it isn't learnt behaviour? Quite often learnt behaviour can be the result of environmental stimuli that you have absoloutely no control over.

Do you ever remember making an active choice to learn your first language? I'm sure you don't, but language is a learnt behaviour that has resulted from environmental stimuli at an early age.

Now don't get me wrong we do have a genetic predisposition for language, in that we have the phsyical ability to speak and the desire to learn a language but the actual language we learn as a child is the direct result of stimuli in the environment.

Apply that to crossdressing? Perhaps there is a genetic or congenital predisposition to femininity but it is the result of environmental stimuli that causes you to become a CD. For example as a young child you are attracted to feminine things as a result of a genetic or congenital predisposition which causes you to try on some of your Mothers clothing. You enjoy the experience as it causes you pleasure (for whatever reason that may be) encouraging you to do it again and as a result it becomes a learnt behaviour that crossdressing is something that you enjoy doing. Just because you didn't actively decided "you know what I want to be a crossdresser" doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily a learnt behaviour.

Anna the Dub
11-16-2008, 09:20 AM
Apply that to crossdressing? Perhaps there is a genetic or congenital predisposition to femininity but it is the result of environmental stimuli that causes you to become a CD. For example as a young child you are attracted to feminine things as a result of a genetic or congenital predisposition which causes you to try on some of your Mothers clothing. You enjoy the experience as it causes you pleasure (for whatever reason that may be) encouraging you to do it again and as a result it becomes a learnt behaviour that crossdressing is something that you enjoy doing. Just because you didn't actively decided "you know what I want to be a crossdresser" doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily a learnt behaviour.

Hmm, perhaps. But if you have a rake of brothers, who are exposed to the same external stimuli as you are, then why are they all not CD/TS as well? I firmly believe that I was born TS, I had no say in the matter, my upbringing was cold and hard, but no colder or harder than the upbringing my 3 brothers also experienced. And yet they are all typical males, behaving in a fashion deemed 'normal' by society. I, however, am not a typical male, and most certainly do not conform to society's 'normal'. Nature or nurture? For me, I fully believe nature.

Ema1234 GG
11-16-2008, 09:27 AM
Hmm, perhaps. But if you have a rake of brothers, who are exposed to the same external stimuli as you are, then why are they all not CD/TS as well? I firmly believe that I was born TS, I had no say in the matter, my upbringing was cold and hard, but no colder or harder than the upbringing my 3 brothers also experienced. And yet they are all typical males, behaving in a fashion deemed 'normal' by society. I, however, am not a typical male, and most certainly do not conform to society's 'normal'. Nature or nurture? For me, I fully believe nature.

Anna if you re read you'll see I talk about a genetic or congenital predisposition that is likely to work in conjunction to environmental stimuli. Due to the very nature of genetics siblings do not necessarily have the same genetic make up due to the split of chromosomes (sp?). I don't think any of us can pretend to know exactly how it works. Who knows, perhaps you had a genetic predisposition to femininity and when that was combined with your very masculine upbringing it was enough to push you into CDing?

I think it's an intresting topic and certainly one that needs far more investigation before anyone can draw any conclusive answers.

Stephanie Scott
11-16-2008, 09:28 AM
There are likely a variety of factors, including some genetic perhaps, which contribute to the desire or feeling of "bi-genderedness."

That being said, the decision of what to do with that desire is just that -- a decision or choice. Generally speaking, nobody holds a gun to our heads and makes us put on bras and panties. (Obviously, there are cases of childhood trauma and actual "forced-feminization," but I believe that is a tiny exception to the vast majority). To suggest that dressing or acting as the other gender is fait accompli because of genetics infantilizes us and suggests that we are powerless to resist.

There are many things to which we might be "genetically predisposed." That doesn't make it right or moral, though. The question is whether we are genetically predisposed to do something right, wrong, or neutral. (For example, many alcoholics are predisposed genetically to alcoholism, so we don't want to hand them drinks saying they were "born that way and can't help it.")

Crossdressing, in my view, is morally neutral. We give it its moral content by what we do with it.

Anna the Dub
11-16-2008, 09:34 AM
Yes, I do see you point. Perhaps, as you say, I did have a predisposition to femininity, and this coupled with my upbringing led to my gender dysphoria. My earliest memories, though, are of wishing I was a girl. I pretty much do not remember a lot from the age of 4 or so, but I do remember that. I also remember feeling very alone and needing love, which I didn't get (none of us did). I know that my Mother can be a cold, hard unforgiving person, who can also be quite cruel. My brothers (and sister) seem to have been unaffected by their respective childhoods, I , however, am emotionally scarred.

Miss Tessa
11-16-2008, 09:41 AM
I think that since being TG is a rainbow, a spectrum.

And this means that even the label 'CD' has many different types of CD's with differences in motivation.

BrianaMarie
11-16-2008, 09:44 AM
Being a GG, sister of a gay brother and associated with many gay friends.... in my opinion,it's genetic. Not putting the "Gay" stamp on anyone who crossdresses, but the "feeling" and "desire" to crossdress seems to be embedded. In my opinion if it was truly a choice and cross dressing causes so many of you issues in your personal life then you would simply stop and/or not do it. Most of us know that's not possible and that desire seems to override that choice. Why fight it? If it was as simplistic as a "choice" to live this lifestyle, to choose to dress and take on all of the emotional and physical ramifications that come along with it then why would anyone make that choice? I don't believe for one minute that we wake up Gay, or we wake up one day straight, so how would you simply wake up one day and say I'm going to wear a skirt and some pantyhose today. Wether you have always dressed, dressed as a child or waited until you were an adult I would have to imagine that that feeling, desire and thought has always been present. It would seem to be a matter of your environment and how comfortable you are with your surroundings and yourself to express your true feelings. Kudos to all of you who have found yourselves and embrace your genetic disposition!! Raid the closets girls, genetic or not...its your life get to living it!!!

Ema1234 GG
11-16-2008, 09:45 AM
I think it's also important to point out that behavioural traits that are purely genetic are extremely uncommon. Whilst many may have a basis in genetic factors the behaviour is also influenced (to a greater or lesser extent) by environmental stimuli.

I think a good example (and non topical!) which may help to illustrate this is the Herring Gull.

Herring Gull adults have a red spot on their beaks during the breading season. When this is pecked by the chick it encourages the adult to regurgitate food. When Herring Gull chicks hatch they have an instinctive (genetic) behaviour to peck at anything red. In trials they will peck at anything regardless of shape or size, so long as it is red. If this trial is repeated in older chicks they commonly ignore other red objects. Why? Because the original instinctive (genetic) behaviour has been modified through learning.

The whole concept of clothing, make up etc etc is a relatively modern (geneteically speaking) invention. It is highly unlikely that anyone is genetically predisposed to wear female clothing as such, no one is genetically predisposed to wear any clothing as it's a human construct. As a result any genetic or congenital influence on cross dressing is far more likely to be towards an aspect of femininity and through learning this is transferred onto objects such as clothing or make up.

renee k
11-16-2008, 10:07 AM
While I do believe nature, genetics if you will has something to do with why we desire to dress as the opposite sex. In my opinion, being nurtured by your parents is a bigger factor. For example, I was an only child, my mother had to take hormones to get the pregnancy going. Possibly effecting me. As for the nurture part. My father was away from home alot, so me not having a father figure around. Plus my mother would let me wear her shoes around the house and dressed me as girl for halloween on a couple occasions when I was little. Plus giving me lots of help and encouragement when I was in my teens to dress for halloween, not to mention putting a blind eye on my visits to her closet. Sure helped things along. So for me, this was a learned and encouraged behavior that's been with me all my life. Over time I have wished I could transition, but I don't want to upset the applecart as far family and career goes. So I'm happy where I'm at, enjoying the clothes, hair and makeup, that go with being a woman.

Huggs, Renee

Jonianne
11-16-2008, 10:20 AM
Nature or nurture. It probably is a combination of both, varying degrees to different CDers.

I believe people, if left alone, will gravitate to where they get their needs met.

Some male children will prefer playing with females and female things. And visa versa. Some will be happy with both.

However, society has very much an interfering effect on our natural upbringing. I hate it when I see a parent snatch a doll from a male child's hands and threatens him not to touch it again. That will screw us up far more than what they think boys playing with dolls does.

Annie D
11-16-2008, 11:19 AM
The cause of any behavior is constantly questioned and I am like everyone else when I have asked these same questions about and to myself.

Most of us started experimenting at an early age, sneaking into a sister's or mother's bedroom and trying on various articles of clothing. For me, yes, there was a sexual gratification involved. Was I genetically bound to become a crossdresser? I would like to think such, in that way I could absolve myself from this type of behavior.

I spent various times in my life abstaining from dressing, purging, buying, purging, buying but in the end I always came back to my favorite way to dress. Thoughts of transitioning and sex change entered my mind but if I thought I had degenerate behavior wearing women's clothes, the thought of being with a man was even more unacceptable to me. As I have aged, neither the thought of wearing women's clothing nor being with a man hold the same level of distaste. Although, I have never been with a man, I do not find it repulsive at all. I am and have been monogomous for some time and do not intend to change that relationship in the future. I have come to accept my crossdressing as a part of my personality and I have come to realize that whatever someone's sexual preference, it is entirely their business and they have the right to have a happy relationship with whomever they want.

Perhaps I was destined to be a crossdresser at birth, I have given it up for long periods of time but have always returned. I am content and comfortable wearing a skirt, heels, pretty tops and doing my makeup and I choose to do so, even if mother nature made me do it.

Tomara
11-16-2008, 11:34 AM
I also believe like so many other things in our lives that genetics plays a major role in who we are and what we do.
I know when I put on my sisters bra at the age of 6 years old that no one told me to , and no one said it would feel so good , it was already in me .
Tomara

Sallee
11-16-2008, 11:53 AM
Who would chose to be a cross dresser. How many of us have tried to quit and lived in agony over it. It would be like choosing to beat ourselves up. We do that to It is definitely NOT choice.

angelcd23
11-16-2008, 12:15 PM
I feel that this is just the way I am , I don't think i would have just chosen to do it . I am not gay, but I just love to dress up and wear pretty things and look like a woman.

ElaineB
11-16-2008, 12:45 PM
If CD/TG is in the genes then it must be hereditary and there are family patterns we could spot. Has anybody studied these and found convincing evidence for them? Until they have, any talk of it being genetic is just more chatter.

Is it congenital? Are we predisposed to CDing or TGism because of some congenital condition? I do not know, but ... Despite the flames it attracted, the "man-gina" thread was quite an interesting and rewarding read because it showed that a lot of CDers really do have umm... "less manhood". So I cannot rule out such theories.

RavenAndrea
11-16-2008, 12:58 PM
I think the reason for so many classifications for terms like cross-dressers, transvestites and transgendered is because of nature/nurture. I know I am a transgendered (TG) woman because I know inside I really am one. I was unfortunately born with male genitalia. I don't get any thrill from wearing my woman's wardrobe, although like any GG, I feel good if I know I have a hot outfit on and my makeup is looking great.

Andrea

deja true
11-16-2008, 01:17 PM
...neither the thought of wearing women's clothing nor being with a man hold the same level of distaste. Although, I have never been with a man, I do not find it repulsive at all.... and I have come to realize that whatever someone's sexual preference, it is entirely their business and they have the right to have a happy relationship with whomever they want....


As a little aside...this is probably one of the very best of blessings that can be associated with our predeliction.

Self acceptance must lead to the acceptance of others. And that softening and rejection of prejudices carries through not just to gender variabilities but to color, race, religion, social class and on and on...

We're on the very outside of socially acceptable behaviours and this very "outsider-ness" makes us more able to see the value of all of god's children.

kiyohchan21
11-16-2008, 01:20 PM
I think it's a lifestyle choice in my opinion.

KarenSusan
11-16-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm a lifelong crossdresser. I love dressing like a girl. I did not choose to be this way. I am not a sissy! I feel this is a part of my genetics and had I not had been born with this I would not dress. To me it's simple. I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

I agree with that exactly, Emmi

Deidra Cowen
11-16-2008, 01:40 PM
Count me in the we are are born with this as opposed to it being lifestyle. Not sure if it is genetic or maybe some theory I heard where MtF transfolk for example maybe were exposed to fem hormones in the womb. But I do think those brain scans that show MtF look closer to Female brains than Male is very interesting and is a clue that it is biological in nature.

Lifestyle??? Gawd honestly if I could be a manly man and in my case straight...would be much easier way to live life most of the time. Being a CD has a lot of fun moments...but its a lonely road much of the time.

But when I try to quit I get depressed and before you know it I dress up again!

AmandaM
11-16-2008, 02:15 PM
I am as capable of resisting it as a gay guy is capable of resisting his attraction to men.



There are likely a variety of factors, including some genetic perhaps, which contribute to the desire or feeling of "bi-genderedness."

That being said, the decision of what to do with that desire is just that -- a decision or choice. Generally speaking, nobody holds a gun to our heads and makes us put on bras and panties. (Obviously, there are cases of childhood trauma and actual "forced-feminization," but I believe that is a tiny exception to the vast majority). To suggest that dressing or acting as the other gender is fait accompli because of genetics infantilizes us and suggests that we are powerless to resist.

There are many things to which we might be "genetically predisposed." That doesn't make it right or moral, though. The question is whether we are genetically predisposed to do something right, wrong, or neutral. (For example, many alcoholics are predisposed genetically to alcoholism, so we don't want to hand them drinks saying they were "born that way and can't help it.")

Crossdressing, in my view, is morally neutral. We give it its moral content by what we do with it.

renee k
11-16-2008, 02:49 PM
Count me in the we are are born with this as opposed to it being lifestyle. Not sure if it is genetic or maybe some theory I heard where MtF transfolk for example maybe were exposed to fem hormones in the womb. But I do think those brain scans that show MtF look closer to Female brains than Male is very interesting and is a clue that it is biological in nature.

Lifestyle??? Gawd honestly if I could be a manly man and in my case straight...would be much easier way to live life most of the time. Being a CD has a lot of fun moments...but its a lonely road much of the time.

But when I try to quit I get depressed and before you know it I dress up again!

Deidra,

Your spot on with your assesment, I totally agree with you.

Renee

sometimes_miss
11-16-2008, 04:19 PM
Stephanie Scott wrote: There are likely a variety of factors, including some genetic perhaps, which contribute to the desire or feeling of "bi-genderedness." That being said, the decision of what to do with that desire is just that -- a decision or choice.

Yes. But you forgot to factor in how much influence genetic and other forces 'guide' our 'choice'. Sure, I could stop crossdressing, but I'd be a basket case pretty quick. The longer I go without being 'Lexi', the shorter my attention span gets, I get short tempered, my memory starts to go, my sleeping patterns become more erratic, and probably other symptoms that I don't notice because I just feel plain miserable all the time. The constant feeling that I'm in the wrong clothes gets more and more annoying, like an itch that you can't scratch, until it's almost the only thing on my mind. Lets say it's like being on a diet; stop eating altogether and see how much, and how quickly you focus on getting something to eat. The hunger to crossdress is the same way for me...and I suppose, many others as well.


Jonianne said: people, if left alone, will gravitate to where they get their needs met
But which needs become primary? And how does that influence our self image? My primary need wasn't to feel 'normal as a girl'. I was a child starved of affection and of any friendships, offered it by a child abuser, eventually in exchange for sexual behavior. The concept that I was a girl was impressed upon me daily, over and over until it 'stuck'. And when you do that to someone during certain phases of development, it appears to be stronger in shaping self identity than at, perhaps later parts of life. Once convinced, I even became a contributer to my own confusion, adopting observed female behavior and feelings as my own because I thought that was what I was supposed to be.


ElaineB wrote: If CD/TG is in the genes then it must be hereditary and there are family patterns we could spot. Has anybody studied these and found convincing evidence for them? Until they have, any talk of it being genetic is just more chatter.
Not all influences are blatant. Many are quite subtle, and aren't going to show up under casual observation. Example: We know for certain that you can breed animals for temperment. Exactly which genes are involved aren't always so obvious, but you can do it. Other genetic combinations are more likely to influence the individual towards addictive behavior. Knowing that, there are other combinations of genes that will be more likely to steer us towards other behaviors, such as, transgenderism. DNA being the most complicated molecule on the face of the earth, it's the ultimate in arrogance to assume we know everything about how it works. But we're learning.


kiyohchan21 wrote: I think it's a lifestyle choice in my opinion.
Then for you, maybe it is.


AmandaM wrote: I am as capable of resisting it as a gay guy is capable of resisting his attraction to men.
Perhaps a better analogy for the GG crowd here would be 'I am as capable of resisting it as a straight woman is capable of resisting her attraction to men'. Too many 'normal' straight folks believe we 'decided' to be what we are. It's important that they understand how strong the drive is in us to feel, dress, and sometimes behave as female.


Deidra Cowan wrote: brain scans that show MtF look closer to Female brains than Male
The problem is limited sample size, and of course it is unknown how many people scanned weren't open about, or perhaps subconsciously suppressed their gender identity feelings in order to be normal. Lots of people occasionally experience, or act in ways not in perfect alignment with their born gender. How much of that is influenced by genetics or physiology we don't know.

I think the biggest mistake we can make is to assume there is only one cause for this. There are other influences on us as well, as we feel any guilt or shame we seek external causes so that we are to escape those feelings, one reason many of us hope for a purely genetic cause to show up somewhere. Why does one child prefer grape juice while another prefers orange? They're too young to have made 'informed' choices. It's the same with so many other things. We're genetically influenced towards certain things, some more strongly than others, to what degree, well, it's different for all of us. Then we're raised with other influences as well, and you wind up with an adult who is the result of all that.

Schatten Lupus
11-16-2008, 04:23 PM
I see it as both really. The urges are natural, and probably is genetic, but it really is a choice to crossdress, and for me, to transition. It's not like it's gonna kill me if I don't, or someone is holding a gun to my head to make me or not.

Karren H
11-16-2008, 04:40 PM
I have not clue.... I'm driven to dress......

ErikaLadyoftheDesert
11-16-2008, 05:40 PM
I like Paula above was thought to be a girl before I was born and was given a girly name in the womb. I have early memories of wanting to cross-dress and my mother even "encouraged" me to dress up as Wonder-Woman when I was ealry teenage. Till this day that was one of the greatest days in my life!:daydreaming:

Nicki B
11-16-2008, 06:03 PM
I think it's also important to point out that behavioural traits that are purely genetic are extremely uncommon. Whilst many may have a basis in genetic factors the behaviour is also influenced (to a greater or lesser extent) by environmental stimuli.

Um... Ema, I'm left-handed. How was that stimulated environmentally? ~10% of the population is wired the same way.

Perhaps one of the reasons many of us stick firmly with genetics is that so many people outside this community assume it's a choice - whereas the vast majority of us have spent many years trying not to be like this and failing? :idontknow:




Self acceptance must lead to the acceptance of others.

Oh, Deja.... If only t'were true. :sad:

Kerrylee61
11-16-2008, 06:27 PM
I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

Diddo for me

Kerry Lee

MJ
11-16-2008, 06:28 PM
Apply that to crossdressing? Perhaps there is a genetic or congenital predisposition to femininity but it is the result of environmental stimuli that causes you to become a CD. .

we are not born cross dressers we are born transsexuals only most are still in denial. out of fear..
this is not a choice. it has been encoded during our creation from conception we have no choice. it is not in any way the result of environmental stimuli. so whats next another type of stimuli to cure us because if some believe this is learned then it can be unlearned.

Schatten Lupus
11-16-2008, 06:35 PM
I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.
I've been through some rough bouts with depression over shoving myself in the back of my mind. Allthough, I didn't really know what depression was until I hooked up with my SO alittle over a year ago, so I didn't know I was depressed.

ReginaS
11-16-2008, 07:00 PM
I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

Like many of you girls I started at age 4; too young to have made any kind of life choice like this. Unfortunatly my parents let me know right away that wearing Mom's pantyhose was "bad, wrong, you're dad will be mad." That taught me to hide and feel shame.
In the past few years I have found where I do have a choice. I can remain in the shame I was taught or I can follow my genetic imperitive and embrace who I am.
Loud and proud of who I am offers hope and joy. Trying to deny who I am offers only depression and anxiety as Amanda points out.

Nicki B
11-16-2008, 07:09 PM
we are not born cross dressers we are born transsexuals only most are still in denial. out of fear...

MJ, if you'd said we were all trans or TG, I'd agree with you - but we don't all need to transition, or need medical intervention? We are all driven to different degrees.. :)

Gender isn't binary - and it's fluid.

jillleanne
11-16-2008, 07:40 PM
At the least, I'm a crossdresser, if I must use a title. I may be alot more, who knows? I do know this, I am gender enhanced, period. I really wish we all would stop using titles, and all become simple, "gender enhanced".

FlygrlChristy
11-16-2008, 08:09 PM
There is no way I would have chosen this life if it was a 'lifestyle choice'. The anguish and pain I went through in my early years, right up to my 30's, is not something anyone would choose as their life. I believe that I was born this way, I had no choice.

:iagree: Just to stir the pot a bit, I found this article from Science Daily, it's a bit old but has some interesting research that somewhat supports how this could possibly develop.

American Association For The Advancement Of Science (2005, February 28). Defining Male And Female -- Research Casts Further Doubt On Newborn Sex-assignment Surgeries. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223144619.htm

Christy

Heather_Marie
11-16-2008, 08:37 PM
we are not born cross dressers we are born transsexuals only most are still in denial. out of fear..
this is not a choice. it has been encoded during our creation from conception we have no choice. it is not in any way the result of environmental stimuli. so whats next another type of stimuli to cure us because if some believe this is learned then it can be unlearned.

MJ I could not say it any better my self I truly believe it is genetics I have done a lot of sole searching and that is my conclusion genetics at least that is what I believe with me.

Susantgrl
11-16-2008, 08:37 PM
I was born a crossdresser, ever since I was little I remember wearing either my mother's clothes or my sister's. God forbid if they knew that now. Lol. I don't think it is a choice. It gives us the opportunity to express our feminity in a natural way. Too bad society does not understand and accept this. I'm not a sissy, yet it seems that that is how society percieves us as.

curse within
11-16-2008, 08:38 PM
Something we are born to be but fueled by lifestyle.

Jennifer Brooks
11-16-2008, 08:40 PM
I was born this way. At times, I wish I would have been born the entire way as a GG.

sallyjones
11-16-2008, 08:51 PM
i believe that some of the factors that make us cling to the crossdressing is partly hormonal at birth but that nuture has a lot more to do with it than we think. how many of us had a very motherly mom, and maybe an older sisiter i have spent my life seeking answers. the course of like is ever changing and we store every sense 24/7 and we process this info continuously. so ewstregen starts the process(emotions). then reinforced with girly behavior sent to us from mother and older female siblings.

MJ
11-16-2008, 09:50 PM
MJ, if you'd said we were all trans or TG, I'd agree with you - but we don't all need to transition, or need medical intervention? We are all driven to different degrees.. :)

Gender isn't binary - and it's fluid.

there are 3 now ex *** Cross Dresser *** who are now full time and transitioning this year alone from this very site .
how many will do the same next year. what does that tell you ?

Brandiwvr
11-17-2008, 12:13 AM
hi all, there was a study done in asui. by a great genetic scietist. and he discovereed a gene that had been mutated. i think thats how they explaned it. but al most all transgendered indaviduals had this gene. ????????????/

Farrah
11-17-2008, 12:26 AM
I really believe we were born crossdresser. How else do you explain dressing up at such ages as 3 or 4 without someone doing for. I know I started dressing before I knew what a crossdresser was. I am now beginning to accept and embrace this part of me.

battybattybats
11-17-2008, 12:35 AM
we are not born cross dressers we are born transsexuals only most are still in denial. out of fear..


Then what about the Genderqueer?

Being both genders or neither publicly requires more guts then transitioning entirely.

Nope, there must be degrees of transexuality just as there are mild, moderate and severe cases of autism or mild moderate and severe cases of being intelligent like any other neurological variations.



Self acceptance must lead to the acceptance of others. And that softening and rejection of prejudices carries through not just to gender variabilities but to color, race, religion, social class and on and on...


Logically, morally and ethically true. Alas people are encouraged not to think and to accept such blatent double-standards and dichotmomies and most of all to avoid self-awareness. Self aware people are harder to sell rubbish too you see.

But there is no-one who can give a decent reason to justify such a double standard. All it takes is people learning to think.

Melani
11-17-2008, 01:51 AM
I was born with an over developed fem side. As a child in a southern conservative household where one is expected to fit into the traditional gender roles. I believe my repression of this fem side drew me to secretly wearing my Mom's and sister's clothes as the only way to express this side of me. These 2 halves are at constant odds, sure it was easier to control it when I was younger but now the battle has intensified. All I want is bring the 2 halves together in one complete and happy person. I am fem and masculine regardless of the clothes I wear, it shouldn't matter what I am wearing, its how I feel that is important.

raleighbelle
11-17-2008, 02:42 AM
Well, I for one made the decision when I was two or three years old after analysing all the lifestyle options out there and comparing and contrasting them that cross-dressing was the right choice for me, and never looked back!

I don't think a child at that age can make those kind of analytic decisions, but it was certainly ingrained in me about that early in my life. I agree with Katie B that this is likely a congenital issue, with either a genetic basis or pre-disposition, or some type of influence during the pre-natal period. Sure, a lot of our experiences lead us to repress a lot of our behaviour, or for some whose family may dress them up or whatever, may allow those feelings to come out more easily and openly, but it is certainly not any kind of 'decision' that the vast majority of us make. Sure, an actor that dresses in women's clothes for a role they play makes a decision to do that, but that does not make them a cross-dresser in our sense. They are not nagged by a compulsion to dress that worsens the longer they go without doing it like most (I believe I am right in speaking for most of us on this) of us do.


As for it being a purely environmental influence, I find that as hard to accept as the pure genetic cause that is so hard to prove. I hear stories all the time of the overnurturing mother, the hard and cold mother, the sisters dressing a guy up as a child, the kid that was punished for wearing his mothers clothes or saying he wanted to play with dolls or be a girl, the softie dad, the overly macho dad, the boy with all brothers and male influences who lacked the feminine influence, the boy with all sisters and a single mom who lacked the male influence, etc. All of these situations can make sense as to why they might 'drive' a boy to cross-dress, but there are so many opposing situations and causes that I don't see any real common threads there. If it truly were all environmental and upbringing, then I would expect to hear certain similarities in the stories of cross-dressers growing up, and also would expect a certain ability to predict, seeing a young boy in a similar situation, that he will become a cross-dresser (without knowing anything else about him), and I certainly have not seen that.

Whatever the cause, I am kind of glad I have it now, as it is really quite a pleasant affliction as long as I can accept it and not feel I have to constantly repress it. :)

That's my two pennies worth.

battybattybats
11-17-2008, 06:55 AM
It makes as much sense to say that all gays are really TSs in denial, or that all CDs are really gays in denial.

Actually the brain-scans indicate that gays and lesbians are a different kind of transexual, in that they have parts of their brains more like those found in the opposite sex but different parts of the brain to that which has been found often in Transexuals that is more like their self-identified sex than their birth anatomy sex.

So in fact Gays and Lesbians do currently appear to be a different kind of transexual but yes, transexual.

No-ones doing enough research on crossdtressers to know if we are a third catagory, a variation on transexuals or just people with mild amounts of transexualisation of the brain.


In my view, the whole 'denial' thing is a Freudian con-trick which means "I'm a psychoanalyst, I'm cleverer than you, if I can't fit you into my categories I can always claim you're in denial. It's logically impossible to prove either way, so you can't get out of it."

Well I did well enough to suppress my feminine feelings in my teens that it was often only a few times a year i'd actually remember how I felt about these things and would cry myself to sleep wishing I'd wake up a woman. The rest of the time I managed to 'not think about it' and would literally forget it most of the time. I think that was an experience of being in denial. Much of it I only remembered clearly after starting to come to terms with my CDing.


You might as well say all right-handed people are left-handers in denial, it's just as logical.

But people lying to themselves, convincing themselves that something is true when it's not and vice-versa is a known phenomenon! Hypnosis can't exist without it!

Now indeed much of psychology is flawed, often lacking proper methodology. However you cannot render non-existent phenomena like hypnotic pain-resistence and psychosomatic reactions just because they don't fit your paradigm. If the material evidence conflicts with the theory then the theory is incomplete or it is partially or totally wrong. So while the explanation for and understanding of the phenomena is clearly incomplete you can't rule out the existence of the phenomena just because it is yet to be understood.

Sarah Martin
11-17-2008, 08:02 AM
Emmi,

I believe that almost all cross-dressers are born 'wired' this way. I certainly am! I think it's built into us...Sarah was present in me from a very early age and, if life choices had been different when I was younger (early 1960s) I'd almost certainly have opted for a 'full-time' female role as Sarah, letting my male side wither and die away.

Sarah

Tasha McIntyre
11-17-2008, 08:41 AM
Hi Emmi.

You can't decide how to feel but you can decide how to act, therefore I believe we are born with a more prominant girly side than non crossdressing guys. How we express our girly side is an active choice we all make. Just my :2c:

Nicki B
11-17-2008, 06:23 PM
there are 3 now ex *** Cross Dresser *** who are now full time and transitioning this year alone from this very site .
how many will do the same next year. what does that tell you ?

The old joke is 'What's the difference between a TV/CD and a TS?? Two years.'

Of course, sometimes it's true - but not always. That implies we can only be either male, or female (what I meant by binary) - and, for myself, I know I'm something of both and sit happily somewhere in the middle? :)

balletchick
11-17-2008, 06:31 PM
I to feel I was born this way. I have been dressing since I was a child. It feels natural to me, I'm more relaxed and clear minded when dressed feminine

Marjory
11-17-2008, 10:14 PM
Knew I loved dressing and knew I had to hide it from as far back as I can remember... I think it's biological, maybe not genetic but, somewhere in my chemistry for whatever reason.

sissystephanie
11-17-2008, 10:34 PM
I'm in agreement with Karren H! Have no clue as to whether the desire is genetic, biological, or whatever! And you know what? I don't give a "hoot"!!!!

I dress because I like the fit, feel, and look of feminine things. Not for sexual reasons at all. Been doing this thing for over 60 years and the reasons haven't changed! But under the silk and satin, or whatever, I am still the same male I was at birth!! O.K., maybe a little worn, but hey I have been around the block a few times!!

Over these many years I have done a lot of research, and come up with a whole lot of "answers." Depends on whose book you read, or who you listen to. But I think a lot of us dress simply because we like to! Is that "genetic," or the way we were raised? Do any of us really care?? I know I don't!!

Stephanie

Lady on the outside, but man underneath

Chrissy8888
11-17-2008, 11:03 PM
I was born as a cross dresser, although I hate that word and prefer transgender. As long as I can remember I have always wanted to be a woman and just really adored women and not just in a sexual sense. To me there is a certain level of mystique that women have. I am making no claims to being a scientist that has conducted years of research but I do believe that transgender is part of the make-up of our brains whether or not we started at a young age or later in life. I base this on the fact that what else would cause a man to put on woman’s clothing at free will. Having said that, yes there are those that it is purely a sexual fulfillment and they get nothing else out of it. But for most of us here it is more. It is part of who we are. Once we are able to accept that we have no shame in what we do. It is just one small (or large) component of what we are.

curse within
11-17-2008, 11:06 PM
You be the judge..http://jenellerose.com/htmlpostings/darkside/ControllingtheUrge.htm

RobynP
11-18-2008, 01:19 AM
The question of nature vs. nurture is probably the second most discussed question in the CD community. (I think the first is "When/How should I tell my spouse/SO/girlfriend about my crossdressing?" The third most discussed question probably "Is crossdressing a sin?")

Science has not found any genetic markers for crossdressing. There is no evidence to suggest that it is hereditary. There may be instances of father/son, uncle/nephew, brother/brother, cousin/cousin crossdressing, but these are so few and far between that it eliminates it being hereditary.

Some have suggested some sort of hormone imbalance ("natal wash") while in the womb. There is no way to scientifically explore this. How many CDers today know what hormones were flowing through their mother during pregnancy? None...

How about some sort of mutation that happened? Mutation would result in some sort of intersex condition. Certainly not all crossdressers are intersexed and not all intersex people are crossdressers.

How about "nurture", environment, or the way we were raised? Certainly being exposed to crossdressing at an early age can account for some of our population. However, not all of us were exposed to it in a positive manner. Some of us grew up in environments that were neutral or negative to crossdressing.

So the answer to nature vs. nurture has to be "none of the above"... This really doesn't answer the question... If it is "none of the above", then what is it? (And no matter what the answer is we ARE responsible for our actions!)

One of the things we all have in common is our inability to stop the act of crossdressing for a long period of time without suffering mental anguish. SOMETHING happened to us, SOMETHING changed us making us different than other men, making us feel excitement by crossdressing where other men would be neutral or maybe even disgusted or repulsed if they had to crossdress... There is a huge gap between us and other men and no one knows what caused that gap nor how to bridge it.

Other threads have pondered if there are any "ex-crossdressers" around... The general consensus is "no"... It seems that there is no bridge for us to travel across that gap to join the other men... Nor is there a bridge from the other side to us... How many men after they enter adulthood who crossdress for some reason such as Halloween and have had no exposure to crossdressing in their formative years become CDers?

There is an answer out there to the nature vs. nurture question. Until science is ready to commit time and resources to studying this, I don't think this question will ever be solved.

In my opinion, I was born a male and I am a man no matter what I am wearing, how I look, or what I am thinking... And I will always be a man no matter what I do to my body and no matter what chemicals I ingest. Whether I like it or not is immaterial...

Peace,

Robyn

Janie Gunn
11-18-2008, 01:56 AM
Yep, I reckon you are right on, Robyn, I agree 110&#37;.

So the answer to nature vs. nurture has to be "none of the above"... This really doesn't answer the question... If it is "none of the above", then what is it? (And no matter what the answer is we ARE responsible for our actions!)

Yep, who curiously picked up that pair of panties, stockings or bra for the very first time with the urge to 'try this'. I know I did, myself, with no outside influence or control over the matter.

Janie

SherylynJade
11-18-2008, 03:20 AM
With me personally, I think it's both. I was born with the urge and desire to dress as a woman, so I have chosen to act on those urges. Granted, I doubt I could stop if I chose to do so (not that I would want to) but I'm sticking that for me, it's a little of both :D

Claire Cook
11-18-2008, 06:45 AM
Yep, I reckon you are right on, Robyn, I agree 110%.

Yep, who curiously picked up that pair of panties, stockings or bra for the very first time with the urge to 'try this'. I know I did, myself, with no outside influence or control over the matter.

Janie

I think it is some of both ... we do make estrogens, 'tho not much of them, perhaps we are wired a bit differently, we probably have early experiences that influence us ... whatever, I'm happy that whatever made me the way I am did so!

Claire

Lanore
11-18-2008, 07:56 AM
I believe I was born more female than male. A lot more. When I was growing up, I didn't have to worry about labels. I could just be me.

Lanore

DAWNB
11-18-2008, 09:37 AM
I doubt I was born a cross dresser. However a recent test taken through a post on this forum tends to show me 87% feminine and 13% male. I do cook, sew, and many household chores which tend to push me to believe that somewhere along my early stages of life I tended to drift more to my feminine side. I do not dress 24/7 and probably never will. I just enjoy the time that I can dress and feel comfortable while doing it.

curse within
11-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Dawn,

Interesting in reading how you see household chores as femme thing to do. Not pokeing at you but it is how soceity sees it for the most part. What I will find interesting is if you will have the same reaction as I recieved in some sort of a lynch mob. Maybe not because how you presented it was in a different approach than I. Mine was used as an example to prove a needless point.

Raya
11-18-2008, 04:10 PM
Oy. The "nature vs. nurture" debate again...

My standard answer: It's irrelevant at best. Crossdressing is fun, so enjoy it while you can. The bigots don't have a leg to stand on either way.

My personal answer: A mix of both, really. I say it's about 70-30 in favor of lifestyle.

I like crossdressing because I like the sense of peace I get from tapping into my femininity. I like the intense pleasure I get from the connecting deeply with women through it. I've been this way for as long as I can remember.

But that's not the whole story. There's also a more...political part to it that I just can't ignore. I've never thought too highly of popular "masculinity", so I've never really had any shame over it--quite the opposite. From the minute I heard of it, I saw it as an excellent way of "breaking out" of that box society tries to lock all males in.

Janie Gunn
11-18-2008, 06:23 PM
Raya
But that's not the whole story. There's also a more...political part to it that I just can't ignore. I've never thought too highly of popular "masculinity", so I've never really had any shame over it--quite the opposite. From the minute I heard of it, I saw it as an excellent way of "breaking out" of that box society tries to lock all males in.
Thats a damn good point. I dont like to conform to what society perceives as right, either.

Carly D.
11-20-2008, 02:20 PM
Good question.. and extremely deep by the way.. I'm not sure, but for me to explain why I like to dress in female clothing is beyond my ability.. I have many times on my own site (myspace) and here tried to explain why I like to dress the way I do.. I've called myself a pervert, psyco, semi-sick in the head.. to normal.. who hasn't dressed a different way.. either as a cowboy (costumes for halloween) or just for fun.. the fact that I'd rather dress as my sister (I don't have a sister) is irrelevant.. or maybe it's relevant.. I don't know.. I had this "Cross dressers manifesto" that I had written both by myself and from sites all over the internet(s) but it was over fifty pages (100 front to back) with entries from here and all sorts of places to explain in great detail why I dress and that there are others who dress (so I didn't come off being a singled out sick individual).. I went back and read it.. or I should say I started to read it and it got tedious right quick.. then a few weeks ago started to read it again and had to stop after three pages and realized that if I couldn't read it, then how could I expect anyone else to make an attempt.. I was so sure it would explain it all.. it was a yawner.. so I edited it down to about five pages and am still not convinced it is the document I want to tell the world (my family) why I crossdress.. so there it is then.. ten minutes of writing a response that tells you nothing... feel cheated??.. now you know how I feel...

BeckyAnderson
11-20-2008, 09:38 PM
This is a question I have tried to answer all my life. I can, with a reasonable amount of certainty, say that it is unlikely I will ever know the answer. Crossdressing doesn't seem to rank very high on the list of tasks for medical researchers.....

However.......

Of the two choices I feel that, for me at least, there must be some kind of genetic reason for being a crossdresser. I started dressing at around the age of 8. But I do have recollections of crawling around on the floor while wearing my mothers shoes and enjoying the feel of her clothes as far back as 3 or 4 years old. I tried putting on one of her dresses once somewhere between the age of 4 and 8 and was severly reprimanded and punished and told sternly that boys don't do that. Little boys don't where girls clothes! I just couldn't understand why I couldn't wear a pretty dress. The ground rules were set rather early in my childhood. I tried again some time after that and was severly beaten by my father. Boys were boys and girls were girls and that was it! I was confused. I thought, "Why can't I wear pretty clothes?"

At around 7 years old I began to feel that I just had to be able to wear girls clothes. Fearing punishment and another beating I secretly began putting on my mothers panties and stockings when the opportunity arose. The very first time I did that it felt natural and I remember again wondering why I couldn't wear pretty clothes. At that age there was no sexual drive or turn on to wearing the clothes, I just felt like it was right to wear them but I was told that it was wrong! Confusion reigned!

With the lessons of childhood I truly don't believe it was ever a choice to crossdress.

sarahluv74
11-20-2008, 10:05 PM
in this regard, i think it is a little bit of both for me. i have done for a long time but at the same time when i wasnt able to do it freely it was like a knife in the heart.....

Satrana
11-21-2008, 01:25 AM
I wish people would learn more about biology before thinking about the origins of CDs.

First of all our genes contain instructions on how to build a biological body - they are like construction blueprints. They do not indicate what color a tenant on the 23 floor will paint his room 10 years in the future. Crossdressing has got zip all to do with genetics.

We are born with some hard wired knowledge necessary or valuable for our survival. Babies know to suck when something is placed in their mouths, they know to hold their breath when under water. We also have behaviors like the fight or flight response when adrenaline is immediately released into our bloodstreams when danger is detected. There is nothing about crossdressing that is about survival or provides an advantage in the natural surroundings that we are designed for.

The hormone wash theory is stupid from the start. Our brains grow continuously not just for the 9 months in the womb but also for the first year outside the womb. The only way to get a female brain is to be constantly bathed in female hormones for the 21 months it takes for a complete brain to develop. And even then this is immaterial as our brains are constantly renewing themselves as cells die and are replaced throughout our lives and this process is subjected to the hormones in our bodies i.e. testosterone.

This only leaves one option. We are crossdressers because of our individuality. Our brains are a myriad of billions upon billions of cells each linked together in a complex manner. These interconnections are constantly being renewed so our personalities and behaviors can alter over time. Everyone has a unique pattern of connections which gives us our unique personalities. You can give people the same input information but we all spit out different answers.

There is no such thing as being born a crossdresser. We were born with a unique personality within the norms of human beings or else we would not have developed into a normal adult. Everything else from that basic personality platform is learned behavior. It is how each of our individual brains organizes and interprets the world around us that determines what sort of person we will grow to be.

I am amazed to see people write off their early baby years as if the behaviors that will lead us to crossdressing could not possibility have developed then. During the first five years children absorb truly massive amounts of information. A five year old can do many things which even the most powerful computers in the world are unable to match such as learning language. We learn a great deal about gender roles through observing the world around us. After 5 years we had 1825 days to observe how males and females look and behave.

Since gender roles are artificially created by society, everything we know and understand about gender was learned. There is nothing intrinsic about our gender behavior, we were born without any knowledge of gender roles, essentially everyone is brain gender neutral when born.

We all learn to think about gender in our own unique ways. Some of us as children thought of it as something pliable and open to change to suit our personal likes and dislikes. Others conformed to the idea that gender should be fixed and cannot be altered. These thoughts drift through our minds on a subconscious level so we don't remember making deliberate conscious decisions on gender.

No-one decides to be a CD, rather we explore something, in this case female clothing, find we like it for whatever reason and if we believe gender can be something that can be molded to better fit our own personality then we bend society's rules and secretly become CDs through repeated thoughts and actions which strengthens the pathways in our brains until the behavior becomes natural and instinctive.

Remember all behaviors are common to all humans irregardless of gender. To believe that you need to have a female brain or be genetically different to enjoy normal human behavior is silly. It is only society's rules that makes us believe we are different from others. We are not. Period.

Christina Horton
11-21-2008, 02:20 AM
I'm a lifelong crossdresser. I love dressing like a girl. I did not choose to be this way. I am not a sissy! I feel this is a part of my genetics and had I not had been born with this I would not dress. To me it's simple. I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

Are you a crossdresser by choice or do you believe in the genetic factor?

emmi

I think it's genetic it also a choice , we dress cuz we want, need, have, love, to. I love everything about it. HUGGS :canada:

Janie Gunn
11-21-2008, 02:43 AM
Satrana, that has got to be the best I have read on the topic.
There is no such thing as being born a crossdresser. We were born with a unique personality within the norms of human beings or else we would not have developed into a normal adult. Everything else from that basic personality platform is learned behavior. It is how each of our individual brains organizes and interprets the world around us that determines what sort of person we will grow to be.
I have always found it funny when someone claims that they were 'born' a crossdresser, as I thought it would be impossible, and it nothing more than learned behaviour.:^5:


Janie

curse within
11-21-2008, 03:07 AM
I am not a Bio Scientist but has anyone ever heared of GENETIC TIME BOMBS? Maybe crossdressing could be tied to one who knows but the truth of the matter is no one knows for sure why it happens. For some it could be a behaviour choice or sexual fetish I know at the age of 3 it would hardley be a sexual fetish ,I don't think it was a behaviour choice either not remembering any other reason for the urge to do it accept doing it and paying dearly for doing so. I have a human brain so I don't blame that either . Not much of a life style at age 3 either.. Wait maybe it was a genetic time bomb.

noeleena
11-21-2008, 03:09 AM
hi...a choice .... or .... something else . i am left handed . i write with my right hand be cause i was told to at school ....conforming .... i was a picher for our baseball team . i was to fast i was told when training go back 30 ft . still to fast . okay use your right hand . i did like a girl. that was fine till i throw a lift.y ...he he... they did not like .it....i am wired both male & female . i was told you are a boy. be a boy. yet i was a girl in side . a choice ... not mine . theirs .... 50 years of their choices ..11 years ago . no more the choice was made . not mine. to live as me a women . my comment is if you wont a word . programed .... brain wired ...that... is not a choice . nor did it have any thing to do with how we were brought up . so its no wonder we are like we are . even after all of this i am happy being just me a women . i think the mix is right for me. now ...i cant change it nor do i wont. to because i am free....... to be me ...... ...noeleena...

battybattybats
11-21-2008, 09:08 AM
We are born with some hard wired knowledge necessary or valuable for our survival. Babies know to suck when something is placed in their mouths, they know to hold their breath when under water. We also have behaviors like the fight or flight response when adrenaline is immediately released into our bloodstreams when danger is detected. There is nothing about crossdressing that is about survival or provides an advantage in the natural surroundings that we are designed for.

What about the evidence for a myriad of gene-behaviour connections then?


The hormone wash theory is stupid from the start. Our brains grow continuously not just for the 9 months in the womb but also for the first year outside the womb. The only way to get a female brain is to be constantly bathed in female hormones for the 21 months it takes for a complete brain to develop. And even then this is immaterial as our brains are constantly renewing themselves as cells die and are replaced throughout our lives and this process is subjected to the hormones in our bodies i.e. testosterone.

But the brain, like the rest of the body goes through stages of growth and development, it's not a steady-state but one of bursts. And there is only so much regrowth. Only some who suffer substantial brain damage are lucky enough to have their brains rewire around the damagedd sections so that other brain parts can take over the role of the dmaged areas.

The 'plastic brain' only strecthes and chages so far!

What about the data and studies documented on Zoe Brain's blog?

Maria2222
11-21-2008, 09:18 AM
I've said it many times, Emmi, but couldn't have said it better than you. We were born this way, so we might as well accept it and enjoy it. Which is what I do. I wouldn't change things for the world.

Kelsy
11-21-2008, 09:19 AM
What was I thinking , making this "life style" choice at 9 years old:doh:

Kelsy:)

ElaineB
11-21-2008, 11:34 AM
What about the evidence for a myriad of gene-behaviour connections then?

There is a big difference between simple behaviours and complex patterns of behaviour. My father and I have much the same temperament and many behaviours in common, and since he did not raise me they are almost certainly hereditary. Our habits, interests, and work are very different, despite that.

While it surely is true that we inherit some things which may make us more likely to dress (a possible example: being overly sensitive to touch and therefore preferring softer clothes), it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

Nicki B
11-21-2008, 12:59 PM
I wish people would learn more about biology before thinking about the origins of CDs.

First of all our genes contain instructions on how to build a biological body - they are like construction blueprints. They do not indicate what color a tenant on the 23 floor will paint his room 10 years in the future. Crossdressing has got zip all to do with genetics.
....

Remember all behaviors are common to all humans irregardless of gender. To believe that you need to have a female brain or be genetically different to enjoy normal human behavior is silly. It is only society's rules that makes us believe we are different from others. We are not. Period.

Ah. Thanks for enlightening us... Behaviour has nothing to do with genetics. I obviously just learned to be left-handed, then?


..it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

Surely people are saying the causes for cross-dressing (e.g gender dysphoria) may be genetic.

Genes can't make you a carpenter - but they can provide you with the talents to be a good carpenter, or artist, or fast-jet pilot, or mathematician?

They may be the reason why you feel more comfortable wearing clothes of the sex opposite to that you were born with.. But I agree, particularly given the range in which we present, it's highly unlikely that there's just one cause.

Marjory
11-21-2008, 11:45 PM
I feel I was born this way. What I want to know is what happened to have me know it was something I had to hide even as a small child. I know my mother and sister both knew I CDed but nothing was ever said. My father hated me. I retired as a senior research scientist(in physical chemistry) and my father always called me old stupid( it did take me 13 years to get my first degree)... did I offend him?????

battybattybats
11-22-2008, 12:12 AM
There is a big difference between simple behaviours and complex patterns of behaviour. My father and I have much the same temperament and many behaviours in common, and since he did not raise me they are almost certainly hereditary. Our habits, interests, and work are very different, despite that.

While it surely is true that we inherit some things which may make us more likely to dress (a possible example: being overly sensitive to touch and therefore preferring softer clothes), it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

Rather I'd suggest it's like saying being artistic or creative is genetic. Which we know it often is as schizophrenia is often but not always hereditary and non-schizophrenic family members of schizophrenic people where there is a family history of schizophrenia are vastly more creative than the general distribution of creativity in the population which is why the current theory is that schizophrenia is an uncommon side-effect of having the advantageous gene for higher proportions of creativity.

Crossdressing is the simple behaviour, what style you wear is the complex so long as it's associated with the other sex.

There is evidence for genetic/neurological aspects of both gender identity and expression. With neuron counts and size and activity in different brain areas related to being closer to the identified or expressed sex. The question is how are they related. Autopsy studies, FMRI scans, this is evidence that cannot be dissmissed without cause.

Is crossdressing a mild case of neurological transgender while transexual more severe? Like mild, moderate and severe Autism? Or is it a variaton? Like Aspergers? Or is there both, both of which currently get called crossdressing?

Only more testing on crossdressers compared to transexuals will give us the answer.

People like to shy away from some things but here's some facts for you to learn to cope with.

FMRI brain scans have shown that in some parts of the brain many gay men are like average women and many lesbian women are like average men in their brain activity.

That means homosexuality is a form of transgender!

While the areas of this activity are different in Transexuals nonetheless they too are more like the self-identified sexes average brain activity.

So being Gay IS a variation on being transgender. Tough for all those TG folk who keep saying 'im not gay' cause yes you are, or rather, gays are transgender like you, just in a slightly different way.

As for brain development I was just listening this morning to a neurologist explaining that brain wiring occurs in stages and that lack of sufficient stimuli like the physical contact between mother and baby, during these stages has permanant results on brain wiring. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm (relevant portion should be up in transcript or for download in a day or so)

Satrana
11-22-2008, 12:36 AM
What about the evidence for a myriad of gene-behaviour connections then?
All behaviors linked to gene instructions have an evolutionary reason to exist. They gave an advantage to survival and reproduction and over thousands of generations become infused into the human genome. What advantage is there to males pretending to be females remembering that there is no way a male in a natural environment could ever fool another person. There is no "passing" in the jungle.

Until very recently life was short and brutal, most people did not live long enough to successfully reproduce. The traditional behavior of males being competitive, protectors and providers is the behavior that females do seek because it increases the chance of successfully raising offspring.

And if you believe CD behavior did ever occur in our evolutionary past then there must have been a time when all males pretended to be females for this code to be inserted into genome. This also means all males carry this behavioral sequence in their genes.



But the brain, like the rest of the body goes through stages of growth and development, it's not a steady-state but one of bursts. And there is only so much regrowth. Only some who suffer substantial brain damage are lucky enough to have their brains rewire around the damagedd sections so that other brain parts can take over the role of the dmaged areas. Indeed but all cells in the brain like the rest of the body do eventually die. There is not a single cell in your brain that has survived from the time you were a baby. They have all been replaced.

Behaviors are based upon the linkage between cells. These linkages grow and become increasingly more permanent the more often we carry out the behavior. This is why as adults our CD behavior seems so intrinsic. But the average CD does not emerge until between the ages of 8-12 often without any previous experience of desiring to be female. This indicates that CDing begins more out of curiosity and experimentation which leads the child to learn that it enjoys the feelings which then progresses to an entrenched behavior. There are no doubt factors in the child's life that may push or pull the child to experiment - the belief that girls have it easier, the desire to creatively dress up, the desire to avoid growing up into an adult male, the desire to avoid responsibility, the desire to be quiet and submissive etc. The child finds adopting the opposite gender role satisfies parts of his personality that were being ignored by adhering to the strict male gender role.

Behaviors are not linked to genetic code. In my primary class at school there were identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other). But these twins had completely different personalities, almost the polar opposite of each other. If genetic code could determine personality then this event could not occur, the twins would have to have very, very similar personalities.

Satrana
11-22-2008, 12:45 AM
Ah. Thanks for enlightening us... Behaviour has nothing to do with genetics. I obviously just learned to be left-handed, then? No genetics builds both hands exactly the same. The choice as to which hand is made the primary tool for exploration which then becomes an entrenched behavior appears to be determined by on which side the fetus lies its head inside the womb. It is immaterial which hand is favored as our genes have built them exactly the same way so there is no detriment to the person.

curse within
11-22-2008, 12:54 AM
I like the theroy ...Really smart ,,But logic tells me that we recieve our DNA....not only from our father but our mother as well.....Sometimes babys are born bearing both sexual organs..now if the gene pool is so perfect then how does this happen? ..and couldn't the same go for CDing ?Cding has been in existance for centrys it may also be a form of evolution....If you haven't noticed the male role has changed ..we no longer hunt and gather to provide and have a civil service to protect us.. Our instinct still exisit but is rarley carried out.... I don't know about most but I am sure every male has heard several times in his life or 100s of times....that when more was expected out of him....and less was performed ...he was compared to a sissy ..amung other choice words relating or pointing to the opposite sex... I'm sure this went on for centrys.. In tribes..which we all grew from...the weaker not as physical sensitive males stayed behind ..when the stronger more physical males did the hunting and the battles..Now cding has be going on for a long time some say 1000s of years I know Adam didn't tend to wear Eves fig leave but I believe Transgenderisum has be around almost as long.

ElaineB
11-22-2008, 01:55 AM
Crossdressing is the simple behaviour, what style you wear is the complex so long as it's associated with the other sex.

If crossdressing is simply genetic at that level, it should be easy to trace in families, in the same way other neurological characteristics are. Do you have any references showing this?


There is evidence for genetic/neurological aspects of both gender identity and expression.

I'd be interested in any links you've got on the subject.


People like to shy away from some things but here's some facts for you to learn to cope with.

(Do you realize how rude that sounds? I hope that was just a blip).


That means homosexuality is a form of transgender!


Again, I'd be interested in any links or other references you have on the subject.


As for brain development I was just listening this morning to a neurologist explaining that brain wiring occurs in stages and that lack of sufficient stimuli like the physical contact between mother and baby, during these stages has permanant results on brain wiring.

I think that's pretty well-known. There are even some who believe attachment disorders can never be remedied for this reason. It's a disturbing thought but one that is hard to deny.

That also fits with the rather unpopular views expressed in another thread, about both crossdressing and homosexuality being related to a close mother and an absent father. :) No doubt somebody will come along to debate that further.

Personally, I am wiling to give serious thought to any of these notions. I am also perfectly willing to consider that I might have no inborn sexual identity at all, even though I find women attractive and not men. But that does not mean I will just blindly accept any theory that gets tossed up. You say these are facts. Ok, please show us some references so we can study the facts for ourselves.

Joni Beauman
11-22-2008, 02:05 AM
If there is an organic "cause", it is probably hormonal rather than genetic. There are a lot of data in the medical/psychological fields on the role of various hormones at different developmental stages. Reading some of this (e.g., Brain Gender) really seems to support the idea of a gender gradient controlled by the independent mix of hormone doses we got in early development. Joni

curse within
11-22-2008, 02:19 AM
Its funny you say that Joni...Now I am gonna duck out from this real quick before I get stoned..But the brain does control how much testosrone you produce.. The old theroy of a boy being to much of a sissy and forceing him to do more manly things..well it got shot down..But I can pretty much say you will rarley see a Cder changing a starter in an old Buick wearing a mini skirt and pumps. There is also a large percent of CDers who loose the urge after ejaculation..Hmmmm ..Hard to say why..

ElaineB
11-22-2008, 02:28 AM
But I can pretty much say you will rarley see a Cder changing a starter in an old Buick wearing a mini skirt and pumps.

Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?


There is also a large percent of CDers who loose the urge after ejaculation..Hmmmm ..Hard to say why..

That is an interesting and relevant detail. Presumably that percentage would be among the same ones who see dressing as a sexual act and not those who see it as just self-expression.

curse within
11-22-2008, 02:35 AM
Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?



That is an interesting and relevant detail. Presumably that percentage would be among the same ones who see dressing as a sexual act and not those who see it as just self-expression.

Elaine ..Thats just it sometimes you ( people I mean I know you already do) have to seperate those who CD as an act and those..who CD has a behavior.. Not try to put CDing as a whole.. Here is why I say that..You could put 100 randomly selected crossdressers in a room ...Study them and find..most have nothing in common.....Now...lets say you put 100 people who feel secure with being called Transgender...You will find more of them having things in common... Why..because Cding as a whole is a crap shoot on why one perfers to do it,sexual act,growing up in a disfunctional house hold,or lifetime dersires of being a female I'm sure there are more but I am keeping my post short..

Cari
11-22-2008, 12:38 PM
Id like to comment on the "dont know, dont care" attitude as I kinda fall into this camp. I really feel my desire to crossdress is a combination of both genetics and early experiences. I find that being in denial carries a heavy price as mentioned in earlier posts.

Accepting that I am a crossdresser was huge relief and a very positive step for me. It answered the "who" and "what" questions. At that point "where", "when" and "how" become very important and time consuming. thats kinda where I am at the moment.

"Why" is the last piece of the puzzle, an intriguing piece to be sure, but it just doesn't seem that important to me. In time it may become more important as I sort out the others.

I also wonder what I would do with that answer and how it would change my life. Do I really want to know ?

Say its all chemical : There is the classic question about if there was a cure would you take it. In my case no.

If its was proven that its all genetic: Would we have an "I am Spartacus" moment where everyone steps out of the closet ? Would society at large open its arms and accept us ? (race relations answers that one) It would certainly speed up the process of acceptance but we would be on the same road just a bit farther along.

Say its all environmental: What doors would knowing Mommy, Daddy or society caused this open ? Not sure I want to go there.

I do have one real regret on the "why" question and that is that I wasnt far enough along on my journey of acceptance to talk to my mother about it. After she passed; it became very apparent that she had done some research on the subject and knew what I was before I accepted it. I always figured that she knew, but thought it was a phase I had grown out of. I dont blame my parents and wish I would have told them that, might have learned allot and been able to contribute to the little bit of research being done.

I guess its not that I dont care about the "why"; but that I think we can do more with the "how", "when" and "where" by acting responsibly and presenting ourselves in a positive light when we do present in public.


Cari
Ohio

curse within
11-22-2008, 01:33 PM
Cari, I am very happy for you and others who think just as you do at this stage in your life.....Me and those who feel the same way as I do would like a cure to be found......Its easy to say I do this because of choice ..when that is correct I do.. But that is not the answer I am looking for...What makes me so un controlably want to do this.. and others is the answer I am looking for..

I would like to live a normal life as a genetic male not a crossdressing male.. Crossdressing consumes to much of my time for I choose to live in the closet..
I will never change that choice...I would like to live a normal genetic male life with the next Misses C.W. and not have dressing a problem...Most GG's do not accept that men like to wear female clothing...So I am stuck and in the hunt but leary as I go....IT interfers with my new relationships I get nervious when the hopefull next Misses C.W. gets close.. I don't want to hurt her and I don't want to expose myself to her in fear of being exposed... Tough road to live in the closet I know no need to point that out..

But I believe in order to treat Crossdressing it has to be broken down into the different ways it is carried out from individules..It could then be easier to find the source or what is causeing the urge.. taking the maze effect away and going to a direct path. In theroy I hope but it's a good dream..

geri-tg.
11-22-2008, 03:03 PM
I feel I was born a crossdersser.If only I had accepted myself I could have save many years of doubt about my self.I now love who and what I am.

SusanMarie
11-22-2008, 07:31 PM
I think it's genetic.
As I have commented before, ask someone if they are left-handed or right-handed. Then ask them why. They don't know why, they just know they are.

And since it is genetic....I choose to enjoy it. :D

cddenn
11-22-2008, 08:26 PM
dressing for me has to be genetic I wanted dress like the girls in school I love to dress as a woman

sallyjones
11-22-2008, 08:28 PM
i agree not really a choice i have always thought i was femme. i have been through all the (symptoms), shame, secrecy, hiding but i shill dressed. i have been dressing for about 34 yrs and im only 38. i think it has alot to do with a nuturing mother figure.

Nicki B
11-22-2008, 08:43 PM
No genetics builds both hands exactly the same. The choice as to which hand is made the primary tool for exploration which then becomes an entrenched behavior appears to be determined by on which side the fetus lies its head inside the womb. It is immaterial which hand is favored as our genes have built them exactly the same way so there is no detriment to the person.

Handedness isn't determined by our hands, but by our brains - and there's plenty of evidence out there to show how left and right-handed brains differ?

What about which eye and which foot is master? There are left-handed, right-eyed people out there and vice versa..

Lastly, if it is purely behavioural, why, in generations previous to this when it was literally beaten out of people, did they generate other mental health issues, like stammers?



developmental stages. Reading some of this (e.g., Brain Gender) really seems to support the idea of a gender gradient controlled by the independent mix of hormone doses we got in early development. Joni


But the brain does control how much testosrone you produce..

So what makes the body/brain act like that, if not the way it has formed - which is determined genetically?



Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?

Look around the forum - there have already been plenty posted previously. :)

Satrana
11-24-2008, 03:29 AM
Handedness isn't determined by our hands, but by our brains - and there's plenty of evidence out there to show how left and right-handed brains differ?

What about which eye and which foot is master? There are left-handed, right-eyed people out there and vice versa..

That is what I said. Like several others here you are using the term genetics without understanding what it means from a technical point of view. Your genes built two identical hands, your genes built your brain. The choice of which hand to use was a decision that became entrenched in your thought processes. This happened after your brain was built, so the choice of your handedness has got nothing to do with genetics. Science says it is chosen on the basis of which side a fetus lies its head.

Indeed the fact that historically left handed people were prohibited from using their left hand and they had to subsequently learn to use their right hand proves this point. They became ambidextrous, something which would not be possible if handedness was genetic since that would mean it was hard-wired so that only one hand can be favored.


Lastly, if it is purely behavioural, why, in generations previous to this when it was literally beaten out of people, did they generate other mental health issues, like stammers? Perhaps precisely because it was literally beaten out of them? They were told they were abnormal and were systematically bullied so their self esteem disappeared.

Just because something seems intrinsic to you does not mean it is genetic. Most fundamental behavioral traits become so entrenched with so many linkages inside our brains that they become impossible to dislodge.

Our genes are blind to society's gender rules. The personalities we were born with are also blind to gender roles. We are not born fated to be a CD. But as we grow up and learn and interpret our world each in our own unique way of thinking some of us appreciate our personalities do not fit very well into society's assigned gender roles or we get envious of the other genders' freedoms and so we bend the rules to accommodate our wants.



So what makes the body/brain act like that, if not the way it has formed - which is determined genetically? Genetics builds brain cells, genetics does not determine how cells are linked together. Linkages are formed from physical behavior and thoughts which if repeated often enough becomes entrenched with many linkages. Thoughts and behavior create new linkages not genetics, this is how we learn. Only instinctive behavior favored for survival is coded by our genetics. This is inherited from our evolutionary past and is coded within our older primitive parts of the brain. Our frontal lobe area which is the thinking/learning center (the part that makes us human) does not grow while we are inside the womb but grows outside during our first year where it is already interacting with our environment.

The only time genetics impacts on human behavior is when the brain is not built correctly leading to abnormal linkages not normally found in healthy brains. There is no evidence that CDs have genetic defects.

battybattybats
11-24-2008, 04:30 AM
All behaviors linked to gene instructions have an evolutionary reason to exist.

Yes, but not always an advantage in all circumstances as moths and candleflame demonstrate eloquently.


They gave an advantage to survival and reproduction and over thousands of generations become infused into the human genome.

Or often a few generations depending on if all the species carry the gene or just a few.


What advantage is there to males pretending to be females remembering that there is no way a male in a natural environment could ever fool another person. There is no "passing" in the jungle.

As in schizophrenia not all genes produce advantage alone but often advantage (creative family) and disadvantage (some in that family have scizophrenia). Yet the advantage of extra creativity is such that the gene is widespread and so is the negative side effect.

The people of Samoa did not have metal technology untill recently. Yet they had and still have crossdressers as a 'third sex' that function well in the society. They are often a males first sexual experience, they do a great deal of housework and child rearing.

And as ants bees termites and other animals show Kin Selection, where a non-reproducing sibling helps the reproducing sibking thrive and prosper is of massive advantage.


Until very recently life was short and brutal, most people did not live long enough to successfully reproduce. The traditional behavior of males being competitive, protectors and providers is the behavior that females do seek because it increases the chance of successfully raising offspring.

And yet on Samoa and many other places where technology remained at the stone and shell and wood and sharksteeth level the Fafafine prospered.


And if you believe CD behavior did ever occur in our evolutionary past then there must have been a time when all males pretended to be females for this code to be inserted into genome. This also means all males carry this behavioral sequence in their genes.

Very much not so!
Not every human has the same genes for starters. And then most genes work through mulltiple expression. One copy and you get an advantage, two double the advantage or a genetic illness. Two copies of the apotheosis gene for example results in a 400% decrease in cancer as tumours kill themselves off while two copies of the Maleria resisting gene and you have sickle-cell aenemia!


Indeed but all cells in the brain like the rest of the body do eventually die. There is not a single cell in your brain that has survived from the time you were a baby. They have all been replaced.

But the pattern, placement and associations of those cells, the positions and attachments of axons and dendrites shift very little except in certain circumstances. Which is why small children with brain damage to their speech centre dont just re-wire their speech centres as they get older all the time. It dies happen in rare circumstances but not often.


Behaviors are based upon the linkage between cells. These linkages grow and become increasingly more permanent the more often we carry out the behavior. This is why as adults our CD behavior seems so intrinsic. But the average CD does not emerge until between the ages of 8-12 often without any previous experience of desiring to be female. This indicates that CDing begins more out of curiosity and experimentation which leads the child to learn that it enjoys the feelings which then progresses to an entrenched behavior. There are no doubt factors in the child's life that may push or pull the child to experiment - the belief that girls have it easier, the desire to creatively dress up, the desire to avoid growing up into an adult male, the desire to avoid responsibility, the desire to be quiet and submissive etc. The child finds adopting the opposite gender role satisfies parts of his personality that were being ignored by adhering to the strict male gender role.

But certain parts of the brain are related to specific behaviours. And neurotransmitter levels in those parts of the brain effect their functioning. And genes are part of brain development and neurotransmitter levels and hormone function etc etc all of which do effect behaviour.

Remember were not just talking about behaviourisms, like the skill for walking or throwing a basketball, but in behaviour drives like hunger and the desire for sex.


Behaviors are not linked to genetic code.

Schizophrnia et al says otherwise.


In my primary class at school there were identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other). But these twins had completely different personalities, almost the polar opposite of each other. If genetic code could determine personality then this event could not occur, the twins would have to have very, very similar personalities.

Heard of epigenetics?
Did you know that as Identical twins grow older they become genetically and often anatomically different?

That is because events in life switch different genes on and off, and the switch of the gene can then be passed on to the next generation!


If crossdressing is simply genetic at that level, it should be easy to trace in families, in the same way other neurological characteristics are. Do you have any references showing this?

When in the closet it is hard to trace. And yet evidence is turning up amongst gay people that often uncles and cousins are also gay at a higher level than the rest of the population. There have been genes found related to TS and so logicly we should expect CDing to follow suite though it may not. Also I have heard anecdotal reports of people finding out relatives crossdressed. It's not confirmed but cannot be ignored as a possibility till it is ruled in or out by studies which alas are yet to be done.


I'd be interested in any links you've got on the subject.

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-parts-of-puzzle.html
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/bigender-and-brain.html

and there should be more on that blog


(Do you realize how rude that sounds? I hope that was just a blip).

My apologies, I didn't mean to be rude.


I think that's pretty well-known. There are even some who believe attachment disorders can never be remedied for this reason. It's a disturbing thought but one that is hard to deny.

That also fits with the rather unpopular views expressed in another thread, about both crossdressing and homosexuality being related to a close mother and an absent father. :) No doubt somebody will come along to debate that further.

Only if a true causation or correlation can be found. But alas for the freudians the studies since Freud did not find such a correlation between sexuality or TG and parental neglect.


Personally, I am wiling to give serious thought to any of these notions. I am also perfectly willing to consider that I might have no inborn sexual identity at all, even though I find women attractive and not men. But that does not mean I will just blindly accept any theory that gets tossed up. You say these are facts. Ok, please show us some references so we can study the facts for ourselves.

Absolutely! What is 'fact' today may be the 'mistaken belief' or 'partial truth' of tomorrow because that is how discovering observable measurable truth always works. Everything must always be considered questionable. But data should never be dissmissed because it's inconvenient or doesn't match expectations. So either we must take the data into account or find the flaws with the data that shows it can't be considered valid.

Satrana
11-24-2008, 05:45 AM
Yes, but not always an advantage in all circumstances as moths and candleflame demonstrate eloquently. True but that does not invalidate the original behavior which developed before candles were invented.




Or often a few generations depending on if all the species carry the gene or just a few. The human species diversified over the globe 50,000 years ago. So any genetic basis for gender must have developed a long time ago well before any recognizable society or knowledge existed.



The people of Samoa did not have metal technology untill recently. Yet they had and still have crossdressers as a 'third sex' that function well in the society. They are often a males first sexual experience, they do a great deal of housework and child rearing. Absolutely! the genuine TG role that exists throughout the Pacific Island societies is as good an example you will ever find that gender is not genetic or preordained. Gender can and is controlled by one's surroundings and so it is actually straightforward to mold a child's gender identity so long as society approves of this role allowing it to peacefully exist with prejudice.

Contrary to what is believed in the West there can be as many types of gender as society dreams up.





Very much not so!
Not every human has the same genes for starters. But nowhere is there evidence for a gene that acts like a switch between masculine and feminine gender. This is impossible since the definitions of gender except for the sexual roles are created by society.




But the pattern, placement and associations of those cells, the positions and attachments of axons and dendrites shift very little except in certain circumstances. But when a cell dies its linkages are broken. These linkages can be regrown if the behaviors are repeated.



But certain parts of the brain are related to specific behaviours. And neurotransmitter levels in those parts of the brain effect their functioning. And genes are part of brain development and neurotransmitter levels and hormone function etc etc all of which do effect behaviour. I think you are looking down the telescope the wrong way around. The brain is like any other part of the body in that it responds to the individuals needs. So if we exercise a certain part of it by doing a certain behavior then that part will grow with more cells and more linkages. It is not genes which grows certain parts bigger but behavior which induces growth in exactly the same way a muscle grows upon exercise. The key then is a person's personality and how this personality interacts with the surroundings.


Remember were not just talking about behaviourisms, like the skill for walking or throwing a basketball, but in behaviour drives like hunger and the desire for sex. Some behaviors are instinctive though for survival and should not be confused with learned behaviors which must adapt to the society the person is born into.




Schizophrnia et al says otherwise. Only for genetic defects.



That is because events in life switch different genes on and off, and the switch of the gene can then be passed on to the next generation! This would only be relevant if there was a gender gene. There isn't.




When in the closet it is hard to trace. Except that in the case of identical twins it is actually very easy to trace. Overwhelmingly identical twins do not share behaviors like being transgendered or being gay. If either behavior was based in genetics we would see 100% (or close to) match in identical twins. We have a ready made scientific experiment which proves these types of behavior have no genetic basis. This easily trumps all other anecdotal evidence and until it can be explained why genetic clones do not share the same TG behavior then everything else is essentially mute.


There have been genes found related to TS I would disagree, so far this is all disputed speculation based on tiny unscientific sampling or animal experiments. None of these theories have been endorsed by the scientific community. That does not automatically mean it is wrong but a lot more data needs to be gathered and large gaping holes in reasoning closed before any of these theories can be taken seriously.

Nadia-Maria
11-24-2008, 01:31 PM
If it truly were [all] environmental and upbringing, then I would expect to hear certain similarities in the stories of cross-dressers growing up, and also would expect a certain ability to predict, seeing a young boy in a similar situation, that he will become a cross-dresser (without knowing anything else about him), and I certainly have not seen that.


You may have not seen that, however "it" may exist though....:)

As an instance, the first-born child (of a family of 2 or more childs) is more prone to crossdress than the last-born child. :brolleyes:

So that you can predict that in such families the first-born child has 1.5 time more chance to CD than the last-born.

If CDers were born that way, as many forum members seem to believe it, you would expect that first-born childs and last-born childs would have the same probability to CD.
It's not the case.

This rather simple fact would be sort of a proof that nurture plays a role in crossdressing.
But which role ?
That's the question.

Regards

Aurora27
11-24-2008, 02:07 PM
Oh my god - when will people let the nature verse nurture thing go? What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes. It is both at the same time, often one more than the other, but still both.

Nadia-Maria
11-24-2008, 02:26 PM
it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes.

You are right.
And if this statement satifies wholly your curiosity, I am happy for you.

As for me, I would prefer to know a bit more.
May I ?

Aurora27
11-24-2008, 02:36 PM
Don't get me wrong, I find this subject intensely fascinating and I love learning more - about anything for that matter. I'm still curious but it just irks me when people array themselves into teams led by the captains 'nature' and 'nurture' and then futilely do epic intellectual battles with each other. Each team has part of the answer yet is unwilling to accept the other part from 'the enemy'.

So bring on the battle and the research, just don't expect in 5 or 10 years to suddenly go "wow! so thats why?" and have one of the teams do an instant conversion to one unified explanation of the source of crossdressing.

TrekGirl1701
11-24-2008, 02:55 PM
I firmly believe it is a lifestyle choice. I was never curious about wearing female clothes until I was a teenager. Sure I thought they looked nice before then, but one day I was curious about what a dress felt like. I tried one on and sure enough I liked it. Had I not done that I may have grown up without any crossdressing desires.

ElaineB
11-24-2008, 03:02 PM
What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour.

Nothing is hard about it ... I just like to understand things, especially when they relate to me.

ElaineB
11-24-2008, 03:23 PM
When in the closet it is hard to trace.

I was thinking about this and am not sure if it is or is not any harder to trace than other things. Yes, CDers tend to stay in the closet but ... how many actually succeed over the course of a lifetime? I have a very good idea as to the sexual quirks of my parents and uncles and aunts (and CDing is not among them).

Also ... while we might argue forever about why we crossdress, there is next to no ambiguity that we do. If you like to wear clothes of the opposite sex, you are a CDer. Nothing more to be said. That is very different from studying things like bipolarity or autism. For those it is very subjective just to identify people as belonging in those categories.

Yet headshrinkers have studied those other areas and we know with much certainty that they have (at least) a strong hereditary component. There does not seem to be any such clear trail for crossdressing even though it has been known about for as long as people have kept records.

If there were some genetic component then it might be that it expresses in one person as crossdressing and in another as homosexuality (or bisexuality or asexuality or some other gender-related quirk.) But again I have not heard of any such published results, and this does not fit the anecdotal data I have seen. That might be a good thing to poll ourselves about.

It still would not conclusively prove anything, however ... because the fair response is that people with sexual issues are likely to impress them on their children one way or another.

Thanks for the links. I will follow them up when I have time.

ElaineB
11-24-2008, 03:33 PM
Overwhelmingly identical twins do not share behaviors like being transgendered or being gay.

That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please.

There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance. Even in these enlightened times probably most people still expect men to be dominant and women to be submissive, on some subconscious level if not consciously.

Emily Anderson
11-24-2008, 03:56 PM
I don't believe it's a question of choice, because we like what we like, and as far as genetics are concerned, I don't believe modern science is able to tell what motivates us to do certain things or behave a certain way.

So, basically put, we need to enjoy what we can, do our best to fit in with the rest of society, and get on with life.

Nicki B
11-24-2008, 04:20 PM
That is what I said. Like several others here you are using the term genetics without understanding what it means from a technical point of view. Your genes built two identical hands, your genes built your brain. The choice of which hand to use was a decision that became entrenched in your thought processes. This happened after your brain was built, so the choice of your handedness has got nothing to do with genetics. Science says it is chosen on the basis of which side a fetus lies its head.

Point me to a link where 'science' says that.. All I've ever read says the way the brain is built differs between left and right-handed people. It was only once that was realised that right-handers stopped trying to beat it out of us?

And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said?

A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10?


They became ambidextrous, something which would not be possible if handedness was genetic since that would mean it was hard-wired so that only one hand can be favored.

No... Actually, they became damaged, by being forced to think in a sub-optimal way? Like many left-handers, I can easily mirror-write. That's not practised, it just comes naturally - we just have to become accustomed to writing the way the right-handed population do..

But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous..


This is impossible since the definitions of gender except for the sexual roles are created by society.

I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true?

Satrana, what are your qualifications for making such absolute statements? I don't think many genetic researchers would be so definite as you seem to be?


What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes. It is both at the same time, often one more than the other, but still both.

Absolutely. How can it be otherwise? But we didn't all turn out this way just because we laid on one side of our heads.. :rolleyes:



I firmly believe it is a lifestyle choice. I was never curious about wearing female clothes until I was a teenager. Sure I thought they looked nice before then, but one day I was curious about what a dress felt like. I tried one on and sure enough I liked it. Had I not done that I may have grown up without any crossdressing desires.

I'm really glad that works for you. :) Can you choose to stop?

Ema1234 GG
11-24-2008, 04:46 PM
Just a thought from me..

For those of you who believe CDing is only about wearing clothes and material aspects of being a woman (i.e. I just like to dress up in women's clothes and don't want to be a woman - and don't get me wrong I'm not saying this applies to all CDs just some of them!) and also firmly believe that CDing is genetic, how do you explain your attraction to what can be considered modern items?

To explain a little more, it's unlikely that there have been any real changes to our genetic codes in terms of behaviour for thousands of years (or atleast changes that have spread throughout the population - afterall CDing is pretty much spread throughout all cultures in the world) yet many of the items you are attracted to can be considered modern when taken in this context? Surely this would indicate that while there may well be some genetic basis for the behaviour (such as an attraction to feminity) this cannot explain an attraction to specific modern items so would suggest that there must be some element of learnt behaviour in choosing what items you are attracted to?

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I guess I'm just interested in this very topic as I studied the relationship between genetics and behaviour at university and wondered your views on it from that angle?

txrobinm
11-24-2008, 06:05 PM
Before I discovered CDing, I liked to be wrapped up tightly in my sheet/blanket. I thought it would be the neatest thing to be an astronaut, not because of weightlessness, but because of the total (and imagined tight) coverage of the spacesuit.

During puberty, I learned about sex from dad's magazines, one of which featured some bondage and forced CDing. The models in their corsets were just stunning, and from then on I knew that I would one day be wearing such things.

So, for me coming to crossdressing came from a predisposition to seek out interesting tactile sensations, such as tight clothing and a variety of fabrics, coupled with the environmental influence of my dad's literature. With the "pornification" of America, I may have wound this way eventually, whether my dad had those mags or not (I'm thinking of music video girls, especially).

If men's clothes were more varied in style and fabric, I might be able to live without CDing (men's skirts appeared on the runways of NY a few years ago- what happened to them?). We have already seen this change in one area: undergarments for men now are quite diverse, and this wasn't the case 20 years ago.

Anyone know where I can get a nice kilt in forest green?

CDing from other cultures, especially ones where the men's and women's clothing differs little (such as the robes of North Africa), would shed more light on the subject. The U.S., with it's freedoms and great emphasis placed on the individual, may not be a valid sample of CDing in terms of the sum total of the human population.

TrekGirl1701
11-25-2008, 12:46 AM
I'm really glad that works for you. :) Can you choose to stop?

Yes I can, actually. I've gone months without dressing or even wanting to dress. And I've never felt an overwhelming urge to dress during those times. That's just me, though.

I think it all has to do with taste. Certain types of clothes I used to like, but now would never wear. To me it's just clothes. Maybe if I wanted to make a full transition to look and act feminine 24/7 I might see it as genetic. But even then I don't think it's that easy.

I guess I'm siding with the camp that thinks it's too complicated to figure out whether it's a choice or genetics.

battybattybats
11-25-2008, 01:21 AM
Well I've provided links to Zoe Brain's blog which cites specific studies etc.

The critics of these studies could do us a favour by providing links to study-citing counter arguments. as i'm just not that good at googling.

Regarding brain development.

It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it?

And please lets not be ablist regarding Autism and Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a disadvantage side-effect of an advantageous gene, that results in increased creativity. Humanity owes much of it's art and science and progress to that gene with schizophrenia the result. Hence why it is a widespread gene, the gene is an advantage ven at the risk of getting schizophrenia!

The same can be said of Autism, especially Aspergers. Aspergers-brained people appear to have been amongst the great scientists and engineers upon whose work the modern world is based.

These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society.

According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are dissproportionatly found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?

Also as for handedness, I've met plenty of people forced to use their right hand when they were naturally left-handed (in Catholic schools the practice continued longer) and they all either reverted later or had wretchedly bad handwrinting despite using their right hand all their lives.

Yet, I was born ambidextrous. I only came to favour one hand in year 2 when because of seating arrangement at school could not keep switching between hands while writing when one grew tired because I'd bump elboys with the kids on either side on out tiny desks.

Since then I have grown slowly increasingly more right-handed noting a distinct difference in unconcious fine motor control between either hand, I do calligraphy right-handed and can barely make legible words lefthanded.

However when doing martial arts I was bale to swap hands with ease with swords of a variety of types (Japanese, Chinese and European swordfighting) taking only a very short time to be equally proficient with either hand.

And back in the days of commadore 64 computers with their then ubiquitous joysticks I found that often my left hand was better for manouvering while using my right for fast trigger action.

So the more I use my right hand for things the more it predominates and yet the swifter ease I can learn to do things lefthanded when I put some effort and attention to it shows that I retain an advantage over born right-handers and born left-handers! I can more quickly gain skill in my off-hand than thy even after decades of being mostly right-handed.

As my ability to beat both right and left handers in fencing showed well.

So then this suggests to me that both some nature and nurture is involved.

Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use.

Satrana
11-25-2008, 04:26 AM
That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please. I don't have the statistics to hand but this was looked into with some depth by a doctor who sought to discredit the infamous Dr Money and the David Reimer case. This is because David had an identical twin brother so the contention was examining identical twins would show that either both twins were TG or neither were and you would not have instances of one being TG and the other not. Unfortunately the data he collected show that the latter was the normal result. Similar studies on homosexuality have produced the same results. This is one reason why theories about the existence of the gay gene are not taken seriously in scientific circles. Genetic clones disprove the numerous claims that certain behaviors are genetically based.


There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance. The nature of twins often means that the submissive twin routinely copies the behavior of the dominant one. This means if the dominant twin becomes TG or gay then this may result in the other following suit.

The result of this is although identical twins normally do not share TG/gay tendencies, the number that do are a higher number than you would expect from statistical chance alone. This is excellent data which indicates that neither gender nor sexual orientation are fixed at birth but rather we are all born essentially bi-gendered and bi-sexual and still need to learn behaviors.

Satrana
11-25-2008, 05:05 AM
Point me to a link where 'science' says that.. Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.


And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said? All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.



A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10? No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.



But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous.. Yes we all possess different levels of skills but genetically you were born with equally developed hands




I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true? So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

vivianann
11-25-2008, 05:07 AM
I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

Same here for me, I suffer depression and anxiety also when I have suppressed my crossdressing. when I dress up as a woman I am relaxed and calm.

Theresa9
11-25-2008, 05:07 AM
I think it is definitely genetic. I remember putting on my mom's high heels when I was 7 yrs old. I was a macho kid playing tackle football with no helmets etc. Played baseball, basketball at that age.

I did not decide at 7 to be a CD'er, besides it would be easier to not be a CD'er as far as GF's go and society.

Every time I throw away my fem stuff and try the "normal" male route I always end up buying new fem stuff.

Theresa9

Satrana
11-25-2008, 05:48 AM
It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it? In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.



These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society. Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better. Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results. Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.


According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are disproportionately found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation? Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.



Yet, I was born ambidextrous. If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.



Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use. To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

battybattybats
11-25-2008, 10:51 AM
When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

And asymetrical favouratism has been spotted in other species. Elephants (preferred tusk and using the trunk assymetrically) and octopi (preferring some tentacles over others for specific tasks) and Bats (curling one wing over the other more often, similar to the way most handed people fold their amrs in a regular way).


All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation. Variation is not neccessarily abnormality. Unless we are going to call female brains (or more rather male brains) abnormal because the average female brain has differences from the average male brain. As shown in FMRI scans and autopsies. In both proportions of white-to-grey matter, cell counts in parts of the brain (especially the Lymbic Nuncleus) and size of various sub-parts of the brain.

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones, the same result was found with Lesbian brains in some brain anatomy being closer to males. And the same thing has been found with transexuals, particularly in MtF transexuals the Lymbic Nucleus is more like an average womans than an average mans.


No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than umlikely. And don't elephants slep standing up?


So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

So then no matter what is relegated to 'womens' or 'mens' these will be what the TG person desires because of this inner gender identity.

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

Or, and here's the kicker, as many male brains are closer to standard female deviations and vice versa mightn't all those women joyfully taking on male roles be simply finally getting to express the masculine aspects of their individual mixture of male/female brain traits?


All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

How are we sure on that? How do we determine what are the minimum required traits for a homonid ape to be considered a human? Which traits are common to humans but not universlly found in all humans?

Thats a question with some big consequences to the answer! Was Homo Floresiensis a human? Australopithicus? Gigantopithicus? Is a Chimpanzee Orangutan or Silverback Gorilla a human? Or is your nextdoor neighbour missing one of the 'vital' components to be calssed as human?


In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

Of course not, as a limited degree of rewiring and plasticity has been observed. And the degree of plasticity appears to be variable, partially on use, excercise, diet and other environmental factors and it's also possible that some people have greater brain plasticity than others because of genetic and/or inheritable epigenetic advantage.


A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

Actually a study into why elite sports athletes occassionally mess up easy shots has found that the brain regularly induces errors into signals to muscles to create additional variation that may lead to improvement. An unconcious evolutionary error-generator inbuilt into basic muscle and skill function in order to increase evolution in learned skills even if that often causes mistakes, which if one were throwing a spear at a leaping Smilodon might have been a fatal one.

It may well be that the same forced-error/variation procces may work in all our skill sets, even language and even thinking.


The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

There is far more variation in each individual human being as detailed examinations of identical twins shows. No two identical twins are in fact identical. There are many subtle differences from placements of hair whorls on the crown to length of fingers to the finer details of the iris. Studies into how animals develop from spherical stem-cell masses into complex anatomical forms shows that there are many forces and variations in play.


Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.

Almost wholly? I'd like to see the methodology used to test that hypothesis!


Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better.

Try normal variations. As these variations are common even if they are not the average they are part of the standard variations of normal brains. So they are a less common form of normal.


Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results.

Most people are not white. Most people have black hair. Yet white skin and blonde hair are not abnormalities but common variations.


Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.

The term abnormal has been used for a long time to oppress people. I suggest it may be too far demonised to be resurrected without easilly offending people.

Whereas describing them as normal variations within the range of brain development offends none and accurately describes these less common differences. After all white skin is very uncommon amongst humans. Red hair is more so. Yet it is just one of the standard variations.

We need to move away from false notions of 'standard normal' and 'abnormal' because there is far too much variation in any individual species for 'normal' to be anything but an approximate estimate of 'average'.


Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds. The Breast Cancer gene doesn't guarantee Breast Cancer, only about a 10% increase in it's risk iirc. Most people with the schizophrenia gene/s are fine, and only some in their family, a minority at that, will develop the condition. If they are pot smokers the chance goes up dramatically, yet not all schizophrenics were exposed to maijuana.


If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function. A person may then have RR (two strong right handed genes) RL (an equal strong right and left) Rl (strong right weak left) etc. And thats just with double-expression of a gene. Genetics gets way more complicated than that! Imagine if 6 genes are involved in being right or left handed?

And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that!


To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently. That handedness and TG are less common by far suggests otherwise. Bisexuality I don't know the figures but it seems far more common than either handedness and TG and if Kinsey was right is indeed the default sexuality, but his methodology while good for its time is far from reliable.


So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

But I did speciakise. From year 2 onwards I have ben using my right hand ever more frequently, finding it ever easier to use the right than the left, a clear indication of brain plasicity and adaption! If i try an unfamiliar task with my right hand i succeed easier than doing so with my left.

And yet if I were to try and do something left handed compared to someone who has always been right handed I will do far better. This suggests that I retain a from-birth advantage in my left hand.

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity but that as I have been using almost entirely my right all the new neural netowrks are dedicated there, but as the hardwired paths remain it is easier for me to grow new paths in my left than someone without the hardwired advantage.

Imagine an asphalt road with set juctures and a series of dirt-roads that require regulat dozing to keep in driving condition. Instead of one asphalt road i have two but the the dirt-roads on one side are in much better condition because it's the only one being used daily while the other asphalt road has branches in poor condition and is used only weekly rather than daily. But because the asphalt remains it is easier for new dirtroads to be dozed leading off from it compared to a single-road one with just a big load of scrub on the other side.

Nicki B
11-25-2008, 05:57 PM
Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

That doesn't explain why the foetus turns it head one way or the other preferentially in the first place? Surely you're confusing effect and cause..

From just a short google..

http://www.springerlink.com/index/G6R6G56758T63274.pdf
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_10/d_10_cr/d_10_cr_lan/d_10_cr_lan.html
http://www.hcc.bcu.ac.uk/craig_jackson/Neuropsychology&#37;202.ppt
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1053811901908572
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5813,00.html
and many, many more..


The right and left hemispheres
As you may (or may not) remember from high school biology, the brain is made up of two distinct sides, or hemispheres, like the two sides of a sandwich cookie. The right hemisphere is almost completely separate from the left, with only a small band of nerve fibers connecting the two. The right hemisphere controls the muscles on the left side of the body, while the left hemisphere controls the muscles on the right.

This switch-over is hard-wired in the developing brain. As the brain and spinal cord are forming, nerves originating on one side of the body send out long extensions, called axons, toward the midline of the body. Most of the axons proceed to cross over the midline and so end up connecting with the other side of the body. For right-handed people, the hand control center is much better developed on the left side of the brain than on the right. For those who are left-handed, the better-developed nerves live in the right hemisphere.

Differences are physical, too
But left-handed brains are not simply mirror images of right-handed ones. Functions such as verbal language are usually located in the left hemisphere regardless of handedness. However, among left-handers, there is a greater likelihood that the language centers turn out to be located on the right side or on both sides of the brain. In other words, the brains of left-handed people tend to be different, and to have a greater variety of configurations, than those of right-handed people. These differences have many implications for the different ways some left- and right-handers think (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5816,00.html).

So - not all our houses are the same? :strugglin

Amy Hepker
11-25-2008, 06:03 PM
Both, I believe I was born with it but I dress as a matter of choice too. I dress 24/7 now and have for almost 2 months now. I am having a great time. I really wish I would have come out sooner in my life not that I did not try because I did, I was to afraid of what others think, but I really do not care what others think as long as I am happy within myself. I can say that I have always been sissy or prissy, but I will tell you as a male I have had some of the hardest ruffest jobs out there and I did them and most of the time I did better or faster than so-called real men. So to them I laugh and say, hey I am a sissy and I beat you at the male game.

izzfan
11-25-2008, 07:24 PM
I don't think that it is entirely genetic or entirely a choice either. I mean if someone had asked me , when I was 13, "Do you want to be a crossdresser ?" I'd have probably said no in the strongest terms possible. I'm sure there are probably a lot of psychological reasons why I am a CD but I really don't understand them and I've given up trying.

However, to claim that it is completely a "Choice" is utter nonsense in my opinion, it is just a side of me which I randomly discovered and not something I would have chosen (nevertheless, it is a part of me that I have grown to accept and like).

battybattybats
11-26-2008, 05:16 AM
So - not all our houses are the same? :strugglin

It's a basic kit-plan house, but sometimes they build them from a mirror flipped plan and for a bit extra they can move the bathroom, add an ensuite and even a double garage playroom and den.

Lol.

Satrana
11-26-2008, 06:32 AM
Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation. Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.


And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones.... Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?



Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90&#37; of women all lay down on the same side is more than unlikely. Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.



What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined. But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?


After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices. Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles. Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes. As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.


How are we sure on that? If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.



Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds.
Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.



Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function. That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color. Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender. Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.


And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that! If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.



That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently. I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?



This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity
Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

Nadia-Maria
11-26-2008, 06:45 AM
WOW!

All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure.


Yes, Katie, I share your surprize, and even indignation !!:eek:

It's a reality already known from quite some time, that brains are no products manufactured in series....
At odds with manufactured cars, every brain are different, like a prototype !

And it's very interesting to study how they differ, and for instance if CDers have brain structures more like those of gay people, or more like those of TS, or even more specific. :devil:

Future resarch will be very enlighting about all that !!
I'm looking forward reading such hot scientific news.:battingeyelashes:

Satrana
11-26-2008, 06:49 AM
[quote]All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure. See "Brain Sex" by Ann Moir and David Jessel. Wrong! the structures are the same, it is the linkages which are different. Please provide one example where men or women have a brain structure that is absent or built differently in the other gender.

Just as men and women have the same structures for every other part of the body (except the sexual parts obviously). Are all our hands built differently or are they all built the same but just differ in sizes? All normal brains are built in exactly the same way with the same number of folds arranged in the same pattern in the same places. All brains contain the same component parts which undertake the same tasks and contain the same neuron-transmitters etc. Variations such as size are irrelevant to the function of the brain. That is what I meant. As we age and learn then the wiring inside our brains become increasingly unique. That is a separate matter from what is being discussed.

This thread is about linking TG with the genetics we were born with. It is will known that women and men have different wiring due to hormones.




Why do you speak of genetic abnormality? What's wrong with genetic difference? Which is abnormal, to be born with blond hair or to be born with black hair? Neither, they're just part of the wide range of human normality. I was referring specifically to the genetic conditions raised by Batty which are abnormal because they are not present in the population in general. I use the word for its technical meaning not to infer any diminutive aspect about the conditions that result.



Even if it's not upbringing, it doesn't have to be genetic. There are hormonal factors that influence development in the womb that are neither inherited nor learnt.
Well that is the point I am trying to make. It is hard to justify a genetic cause to transgenderism based on our current understanding. Hormones do affect our development but again evidence that this specifically causes TG is also lacking. It is not so much the lack of scientific data that troubles me personally but the lack of clear logical explanations of A+B=C. The very nature of gender does not lend itself to these types of explanations.

Satrana
11-26-2008, 07:17 AM
Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation. Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.


And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones.... Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?



Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than unlikely. Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.



What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined. But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?


After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices. Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles. Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes. As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.


How are we sure on that? If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.



Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds.
Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.



Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function. That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color. Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender. Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.


And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that! [/quotes] If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.


[quote]That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently. I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?



This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity
Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

Satrana
11-26-2008, 07:34 AM
That doesn't explain why the foetus turns it head one way or the other preferentially in the first place? Surely you're confusing effect and cause.. I don't know nor does science but are you suggesting there is a gene which when switched on and off makes a fetus prefer to turn its head to the left or right? Why would such a gene exist?


So - not all our houses are the same? The fact that the right and left hemispheres undertake different tasks and therefore left and right handed people develop subtly different skill sets is not being questioned. The brain structure is the same in everyone, the wiring on the other hand is unique and is developed on the behavior of learning.

ElaineB
11-26-2008, 12:54 PM
All normal brains are built in exactly the same way with the same number of folds arranged in the same pattern in the same places.

I think you are carrying your argument too far. It has been proven beyond doubt that brain structure is partly determined by heredity and not everyone has the same basic brain. Twins separated at birth tend to have the same personality traits. Those traits can also run in families even in clear cases where they could not have been taught ... my own case is one such. My father and I (and most of the men in that side of my family) have very similar personalities but he did not raise me. Then there are the many studies tracing conditions like schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolarity through families ... which show that some of those clearly are linked to genes.

So it is quite conceivable that there are such inborn differences between male and female brains, even though it is hard to separate those differences from the ones that develop from the influence of sex hormones.


I was referring specifically to the genetic conditions raised by Batty which are abnormal because they are not present in the population in general. I use the word for its technical meaning not to infer any diminutive aspect about the conditions that result.

It is not that simple, though. Abnormal is only meaningful if there is a norm. While any one person might not carry the genes that predispose us to schizophrenia or addiction or whatever, it is very likely that all of us have some genes for some rare trait. So how can it be abnormal to have any of these? That would make everybody abnormal.

Because of that phrasing, I will venture to guess that you and some others may also be making a couple errors common in discussion of evolution. Evolution is not progress. It is just an extension of adaptation. It is also not monolithic. People can evolve to develop one trait while simultaneously remaining neutral in others or even devolving. So it really is just not true that all genes are still in our coding because they were advantageous, and it does not follow that a TG gene (if such exists) would have to provide some advantage somewhere. What biological or social advantage does it provide anybody to have earlobes? None that I can see, yet they exist anyway in some people and not others.


It is hard to justify a genetic cause to transgenderism based on our current understanding.

I do agree with this, but be careful not to go too far in the opposite direction.


What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

I think that is the really meaty question in your argument and probably the point we should stick to.

Nicki B
11-26-2008, 04:20 PM
I don't know nor does science but are you suggesting there is a gene which when switched on and off makes a fetus prefer to turn its head to the left or right? Why would such a gene exist?

I'm suggesting the way the brain has formed might - which is determined genetically.. :doh:


The fact that the right and left hemispheres undertake different tasks and therefore left and right handed people develop subtly different skill sets is not being questioned. The brain structure is the same in everyone, the wiring on the other hand is unique and is developed on the behavior of learning.

Did you read my previous post? Brain structures, and the way the neurons are linked, are demonstrably NOT the same - and this has been known for a very long time? :rolleyes:

With the above, you do now seem to be contradicting yourself? :sad:

finacarina
11-26-2008, 04:30 PM
soy milk is responsible

LindaG
11-26-2008, 05:07 PM
I have always liked to dress up in Woman's cloths I am not
Gay. I can't explain it either. I have been this way since I was 7

battybattybats
11-26-2008, 10:51 PM
Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.

My life-drawing classes dissagree with you. As proportions are generalisations. Not everyone's height is the distance between their outstretched fingertips, not everyone's ears are halfway between the crown and chin. Some peoples second toe is longer than their big toe while others the reverse is true. In fact comparative finger length of the first and third fingers is now believed to be a foetal-testosterone level indicator. Sure most people have five fingers, more or less is rather rare, yet the lengths and relative strengths and positioning of the muscle attachments on the bones of those fingers are all variable.

Muscular strength for example involves fibre type, muscle mass but especially where precisely the muscle attaches to the bone and the length of the bone for it's efficiency as a fulcrum etc. This is why two athletic people with the same amount of training and ambition, the same height and weight and hormones are still not equally matched because one may have been born with more efficiently positioned muslce attachments. Sure they attach in about the same place, but the tiny variations fresult in gold medals or coming last.


Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Except that it does matter. Men are not grossly more intelligent than women because the white-to-grey matter variations make up for that. However there is a big difference in brain size in a variety of related animals. Checked out the controversy over the 'hobbits' brain? The homo floresiensis find is disputed by many precisely because of it's chimpanzee-sized brain, countered by the discovery of complex additional structures on their frontal lobes. One of the reasons they island-dwarfing hypothesis for their evolution is hotly disputed is because their brain-size decreased too much in proportion to their body which goes against a standard rule in evolutionary size change. Also the size of the body does matter with brains and brain-to-body size ratios are still used as a measure of approximate intelligence in paleobiology. The larger the body the larger the brain must be so the relative increase in sie between men and women is proportional to the relative size of their brains.

And the size of parts of the brain certainly is considered important too. The function of Hadrosaur crests is now believed to be for communication precisely because of their small scent areas of the brain and their large hearing areas.


Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?

Not all subjects were on hormones in all tests.


Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.


That may be a point, do particular handed folk predominantly lie on one side? However if they do that should be easilly testable with most left handed children being born of left handed mothers. But what about bats preferring to cross one wing over another. They sure don't lie down on their sides!


But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

Again, kin selection.
Also the Giant Pacific Cuttlefish has large males which aggressively control harems of females. But there are small sized males who appear and act female in order to get into the harems and mate!

And some researchers into human anatomy have suggested that the distinctive human penis is designed to remove the sperm of recent prior partners suggesting that the sstandard sexual practices of our recent ancestors were far from 'nuclear' but rather group-sex or some other form of competative sex.


What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men?

Transgender behaviour has been seen in a variety of animals. Amongst birds for example where females have been known to sing like males. And homosexual behaviour is found in huge amounts of animals from apes to dogs to cows to birds to reptiles to octopi.


And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

Well we cant be sure yet that there is no biological component in that behaviour. The claims thre are more ideological than scientific either way. But still while the way that males are 'supposed' to behave may vary from culture to culture and era to era nevertheless most cultures do have gender roles even though what they are is variable. And all of those have either exceptions or multiple genders for those who cross those roles or taboos to repress them.


Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2351893.htm


Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes.

And yet most of us cannot go against our inner body clock without dire consequences as the health effects on shift-workers shows. I suggest science keeps showing not a concretely set brain or a totally malleable one but rather a partially flexible and adaptable one built on a rigid framework.


As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.

And yet I've heard reports that we do have predisposition to certain attributes of faces from the outset to identify our mothers as babies rather than that coming from our general pattern-recognition abilities.


If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.

Indeed we all appear to be members of a single species though the possibility of Neanderthal mixing is not entirely abandoned by some yet. Also there are some suggestions that human-variants like Homo Floresiensis my still exist in pocket populations as the remains found are not extraordinarilly old and sightings of similar have been reported in south-east asia in the last 2 centuries. However there are some population-specific genetic traits.

Also the contention that chimpanzees should be reclassified from Troglodite to a Homo classification is a serious one! There are scientists who argue that they are indeed a form of human.

An important issue in this is whether Homo Floresiensis is a recent variant of Modern Humans or a long-surviving offshoot of a much earlier form of human. Homo Erectus was considered the primary candidate for a long time but recent anlysis of more primitive wrist-bones has made the astonishing claim that they must be descended more from something like the Australopithacines! That such a distant relative of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was living concurrently with us in the rather recent past is a shocking one that does indeed challenge our classification of what is human.


Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.

But the propensity could be decided by other things than thought. For example many schizophrenics don't suffer schizophrenia because they had schizophrenic thoughts! For a great many it has been triggered by smoking pot! That is a chemical trigger.


That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color.

Eye colour is definately not a single gene and is influenced by many other factors as my brothers dramatic eye-colour change in his 20's from hazel brown to bluish green shows.

And then single genes can have multiple functions depending on when it is activated. As the research team working on one brain-development gene in mice (sox9 i think it was) found when they activated it at a different point in foetal development resulting in anatomically intersexed mice! A gene for brain development causing a different set of genitals to develop!


Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender.

As the mouse eperiment shows we are still in early days with much of developmental genetics.


Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain

Citation for this?


then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.

Like? What would be the predicted differences? The differences Zoe Brain cites with TS and Intersex might fit those predicitions. And if CDers have a mild case of the TS Neuroanatomical Intersex Condition as some suggest then should we not expect a smaller yet measurable form of this too?


If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1900723.htm


I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?

If we were so adaptable why then do not we see more adaptation and adaptibility?


Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

Then why am i more easilly able to do things lefthanded than others when we both try that for the first time? even after years of doing things almost entirely as if I were right handed?

That suggests that i do have an advantage that remains no matter how much i grow more right-handed braincell adaptation.

What about the increased creativity in the families of schiophrenics? That is behaviour, hereditary and an advantage.

And what about reports that ambidexterity is more common amongst Intersex and TS people. How does that fit your side-lain-on hypothesis rather than a neuroanatomical developmental difference responding to gense or some other cause/trigger?

Or reports that Intersex conditions are often hereditary?

does this not suggest that

Joni Beauman
11-27-2008, 03:23 AM
"So what makes the body/brain act like that, if not the way it has formed - which is determined genetically?"

The hormonal balance in many cases is environmentally controlled - different conditions promote different relative abundances. And this comment was just embryonic. Obviously, we continue to be exposed to environmental stimuli that influence hormonal concentrations. Think of the estrogen from plastics. Joni

Satrana
11-27-2008, 04:34 AM
It has been proven beyond doubt that brain structure is partly determined by heredity and not everyone has the same basic brain. They don't? Humanity has different basic brains? That would make them a different species if true.



Twins separated at birth tend to have the same personality traits. I presume you mean identical twins, yes genetic clones are likely than not to produce similar personalities but this is not always the case.


My father and I (and most of the men in that side of my family) have very similar personalities but he did not raise me. Sorry circumstantial. I have a similar personality to tens of millions of people in this world who have no connection to me. Finding similarities between family members runs into the same issues as people believing horoscopes - we find the answers we want to find.


So it is quite conceivable that there are such inborn differences between male and female brains Conceivable yes but based on our knowledge of the types of code found in our genes then not likely because gender in the way that transgendered understand it and use it is a social contruct that our genes are blind to.




Abnormal is only meaningful if there is a norm. Correct but there are norms. Any genetic variation that produces a profound disadvantage is not dispersed in the human gene pool because these people do not procreate due to natural selection pressures. However genetic variations may bypass natural selection if they are not apparent because complications either occur later in life or due to specific circumstances such as changes to our bio-chemistry. As a result some disadvantageous genetic variations bypass the evolutionary forces which is now a problem for us because most people can now expect to live a long life which is an unnatural state of affairs.



Evolution is not progress. It is just an extension of adaptation. The creation of the human mind is not progress? Most evolutionary changes are indeed adaptations to a changing environment but some of these changes do in fact progress the animal to a more advantageous position. Indeed the more progressive the adaptations the more secure the creature will be in its survival since it will be able to cope with severe shocks that will kill off most species. So once a progressive adaption is found evolution will naturally build upon it.

The uniqueness of humanity is that a large learning self-aware brain is a gigantic progress.


So it really is just not true that all genes are still in our coding because they were advantageous, and it does not follow that a TG gene (if such exists) would have to provide some advantage somewhere. But if the gene exists it is there because it was in fact used during our evolutionary past and was at the very least not disadvantageous or it would have been routed out by natural selection.

It is important while discussing theoretical issues to remember to remember what we are discussing. What we understand about gender excluding the sexual roles is based on a social construct which each society can define for itself. How can our genetic construction blueprint reflect a social construct. It would be like stating our genes influence what type of music we like or what type of art we enjoy.



What biological or social advantage does it provide anybody to have earlobes? None that I can see, yet they exist anyway in some people and not others. Precisely because it had no disadvantages it was never a consideration in the forces of natural selection, it exists simply because people found it attractive enough not to discriminate against it.

Satrana
11-27-2008, 05:09 AM
I'm suggesting the way the brain has formed might - which is determined genetically So right handed and left handed people have different brain structures due to different genetic code? Interesting but no evidence that any such condition exists.


Did you read my previous post? Brain structures, and the way the neurons are linked, are demonstrably NOT the same - and this has been known for a very long time?
Funny I have been saying the differences between brains is precisely in the wiring if you had bothered to read what I have been saying throughout.

The word structure refers to the collection of the fundamental components that constitute the whole. All human brains do have the same structure just as we all possess the same structure for our hands, our hearts, our eyes, our ears etc. I don't know how to spell this out any more clearly.

If you claim that people have different brain structures then they must be different species of humans. To create different brain structures would require a completely different dna sequence hence a different species which would most likely not be able to reproduce with each other.

Suggest you goggle "brain structure" if this is still not clear to you.

avril findlay
11-27-2008, 05:17 AM
Oh my sisters, please, please, stop analysing yourselves and just get on with it!

Satrana
11-27-2008, 07:16 AM
As proportions are generalisations. You are discussing variations in proportions not in structure. Our brain structures do not vary any more than other variations seen in any other organ between people. Structure and function are not variable.


Except that it does matter. Men are not grossly more intelligent than women because the white-to-grey matter variations make up for that. But if men have say 20% larger brains than women then we would see a verifiable difference. The point being size is actually a poor indicator of any type of brain function.



However there is a big difference in brain size in a variety of related animals. Which surely shows proves that measuring brain sizes does not in fact reveal anything?


The larger the body the larger the brain must be so the relative increase in sie between men and women is proportional to the relative size of their brains. But there is no verifiable difference in any brain function between small and large people so drawing any conclusion from comparing brain sizes is folly.


And the size of parts of the brain certainly is considered important too. But it is too simplistic a notion to draw any concrete conclusions from.



But what about bats preferring to cross one wing over another. They sure don't lie down on their sides! Maybe they choose it for another reason say they choose a side which faces the cave entrance or faces cave wall etc. The point of my example is to show that we should be considering simple ideas to consider how behavior is formed without jumping straight to genetics to describe something that genetics does not care about. Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a must read to understand that genetic code is always aimed at self preservation, it does not care about frivolous behavior that has no effect on self preservation. The question to ask is do you really believe a bat's dna instructs it which wing to favor?


But there are small sized males who appear and act female in order to get into the harems and mate! I knew someone would bring this up! LOL. In this case the transgendered behavior only exists for the purposes of sex. It is a strategy which works so it is clearly advantageous and would be carried over as instinctive behavior. However outside of mating small males do not continue to pretend to be females. It is purely a clever deception strategy for mating. If only our TG nature had the same winning strategy for women :o


s suggesting that the standard sexual practices of our recent ancestors were far from 'nuclear' It seems obvious today that human sexuality never was nuclear which is why such stringent marriage laws and guilt-ridden morality was needed in the first place. Yet another example where socially induced behavior rides roughshod over actual intrinsic nature.



Transgender behaviour has been seen in a variety of animals. But we have to be careful because animal gender/sexuality behavior cannot be compared to human behavior. Our behavior is based on a unique decision making process that is not replicated in animals. Our females do not go into heat, our brains do not react to pherenomes etc. And our gender roles are complex and extend well beyond the sexual mating/child rearing behaviors.


most cultures do have gender roles even though what they are is variable. Since all humans live together in societies then it is guaranteed that gender roles would be created and that they would all end up being similar for the simple reason that the physical effort and time needed by women for pregnancy and child rearing necessitated they stay protected at a home base leaving all other duties to be covered by males. This is the only sensible arrangement that results from the enormous expense needed to raise children.

It is true we cannot know for sure but if you project these ideas forward to how we live today then would you believe there was a genetic component that made you want to go to university to secure a better paying job, or a genetic component that promotes both partners to work in order to secure a nice home in the suburbs etc. One can easily identify numerous common behaviors in our modern lifestyle but does anyone seriously believe our genes are determining our choices in such matters.


And yet I've heard reports that we do have predisposition to certain attributes of faces from the outset to identify our mothers as babies rather than that coming from our general pattern-recognition abilities. How do our genes know what our mother's features look like to program our brains to recognize them? What I heard was babies learn the sound of their mother's voices when in the womb so can identify their mothers immediately from birth.


my brothers dramatic eye-colour change but that is not a genetic change but a change in melanin levels.


Citation for this?
Here is one: http://scicurious.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/context-personality-and-brain-imaging/



If we were so adaptable why then do not we see more adaptation and adaptibility? The degree to which we are adaptable is controlled by society. We are deliberately hindered in order that we behave in a predictable manner useful for the purposes of an efficient society. We will not know our full potential until everyone is allowed to be their true selves which will likely never happen as the result would be chaotic.


That suggests that i do have an advantage that remains no matter how much i grow more right-handed braincell adaptation. I agree but that everything you say also fits the scenario that you were born without having chosen a side and thus developed as an ambidextrous baby but eventually choosing one side over the other as an older child. Unlike others your favoritism is lesser because it developed later.


And what about reports that ambidexterity is more common amongst Intersex and TS people. Again intersexed is a different case, there are obvious genetic causes behind it. With TS I don't know. I can speculate that the causations behind gender identity has similar roots to the effects of being left handed such as a different approach to language skills etc. Since we know that left and right handers process data in a different manner then this will have a knock on effect on a number of behaviors. If you interpret the world differently then you are more likely to find unusual behavior which is exactly what left handers display.

Or you can believe in a gene(s) which controls both gender and handedness. Since the study only indicated a slight increase in the relationship then this again casts doubt on it being a direct genetic link but rather a side effect.

Satrana
11-27-2008, 07:39 AM
ask you to look at the real issue that cross-dressers across the universe are asking Are these the real issues? LOL.

1. The &#37;age is impossible to ever quantify because of secrecy and guilt and the fact that nobody can even agree what constitutes crossdressing.
2. I believe 75% of all CDs recognize their condition between the ages 8-13. For 10% it does not manifest itself until well into adulthood. Early TG behavior is likely to be either TS or innocent child play
3. Severe mindwashing techniques have been shown to work. Homosexuals have been trained to feel physically sick at the idea of gay sex.


There is no similar phenomenon in women. So the theory is already shot down in flames with its own words as how do you then explain FTMs?

Also if we are all born with feminized brains then we would expect to see CDs showing feminine tendencies early on and consistantly right throughout their childhood. In most cases the opposite is the case, there is a normal male upbringing with no interest in the feminine until later childhood when the desire suddenly raises its head. This is completely inconsistent with the idea that we were born with a female "gender map"

It should be pointed out that the causes behind TS and CD are almost certainly quite different from one another so although the two groups share the same predicament and feelings, the causation factors are not shared. TS is a gender identity issue while CD is a gender role issue.

battybattybats
11-27-2008, 09:20 AM
You are discussing variations in proportions not in structure. Our brain structures do not vary any more than other variations seen in any other organ between people. Structure and function are not variable.

But small variations can have huge effects!


Maybe they choose it for another reason say they choose a side which faces the cave entrance or faces cave wall etc. The point of my example is to show that we should be considering simple ideas to consider how behavior is formed without jumping straight to genetics to describe something that genetics does not care about. Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a must read to understand that genetic code is always aimed at self preservation, it does not care about frivolous behavior that has no effect on self preservation. The question to ask is do you really believe a bat's dna instructs it which wing to favor?

Dawkins has his points but the selfish gene notion is also overly simplistic.

Again let me mention kin selection. There are plenty of explorations on the evolution of fairness and altruism even to the point of altruistic gnes where a degree of enlightened self interest can give rise to complex systems.

Ants are a darn good example as are bees, termites and the rest of the csocial insects which through millions of years have strong altruistic behaviour and non-reproducing individuals sacrificing themselves so that other ho carry their DNA can reproduce. Yes there are cheats, pseudo-queens amongst bees for example but these can only exist in a minority and still thrive.

And as for your idea on handedness, heres a good reason for a common defaukt: natural assymetry! Most biological organisms of higher orders (skipping the radial critters here) have approximate bilateral symmetry but on close inspection one eye is lower than the other, the heart is shoved to one side and one lung is larger etc etc. As such a degree of asymmetry in nuerology is to be expected. And as some people are born with the heart on the other side etc it could be that a similar but more common mechanism causes that.


I knew someone would bring this up! LOL. In this case the transgendered behavior only exists for the purposes of sex. It is a strategy which works so it is clearly advantageous and would be carried over as instinctive behavior. However outside of mating small males do not continue to pretend to be females. It is purely a clever deception strategy for mating. If only our TG nature had the same winning strategy for women :o

Perhaps it did once. Perhaps it does now when freed from the constraint of the social taboo. And just because the body-morphing cuttlefish do so only for reproductive advantage as far as we currently know does not mean that in humans the mechanism and effects might be different and more profound but like everything in life, its probably still about sex.

And having TG as well as gay siblings who can help raise children and look after the elderly could have given survival as well as sexual advantages to early humans.


It seems obvious today that human sexuality never was nuclear which is why such stringent marriage laws and guilt-ridden morality was needed in the first place. Yet another example where socially induced behavior rides roughshod over actual intrinsic nature.

Theres an interesting theory that a dearth of hallucinogenic plants and the discovery of alcohol intoxication led to the shift from matriarchal tribes to patriarchal civilisation and stepped power systems in which guarantee of lineage meant power and thus strict sexual control became a politically useful tool.


But we have to be careful because animal gender/sexuality behavior cannot be compared to human behavior. Our behavior is based on a unique decision making process that is not replicated in animals. Our females do not go into heat, our brains do not react to pherenomes etc. And our gender roles are complex and extend well beyond the sexual mating/child rearing behaviors.

But Bees and Ants have been argued to have emotions, decision making has been seen in a wide number of animals, Octopi being so intelligent as to have fooled investigators into thinking they had limited memories because it seemed to have to re-learn how to open jars or run mazes, till the investigators realised the octopi were playing with the investigators deliberately fooling them and hiding the extent of their abilities when they knew they were observed!

And we know humans do react to pheremones. The scent of a woman during her period can trigger others to synchronise, there is an unconcious reaction to the scent of close relatives to discourage insest and a variety of other scent-triggers of behaviour.

Humans are more complex, more deciding, less instinctive, less pheremonal. But its all a matter of degrees.

Ornagutans have artistic behaviours in the wild, A few apes have been observed making tools and teaching others their use (even birds and octopi have been discovered to have some tool use!) and elephants and dogs have been known to mourn the dead.


Since all humans live together in societies then it is guaranteed that gender roles would be created and that they would all end up being similar for the simple reason that the physical effort and time needed by women for pregnancy and child rearing necessitated they stay protected at a home base leaving all other duties to be covered by males. This is the only sensible arrangement that results from the enormous expense needed to raise children.

But mny cultures have had many different ways of handling child rearing. Some have suggested menopause evolved specifically so the grandparents could exist for improved child-rearing considering the enormous length of time we take to reach sexual maturity.


It is true we cannot know for sure but if you project these ideas forward to how we live today then would you believe there was a genetic component that made you want to go to university to secure a better paying job, or a genetic component that promotes both partners to work in order to secure a nice home in the suburbs etc. One can easily identify numerous common behaviors in our modern lifestyle but does anyone seriously believe our genes are determining our choices in such matters.

Behavioural/evolutionary psychology argues just that, that the endorphin kick we get when our brain realises it has understood something is deliberatly addictive because of the survival benefit, that our shopping behaviour comes from hunter-gatherer instincts to acrue and hoard. You might find it an interesting field.


How do our genes know what our mother's features look like to program our brains to recognize them? What I heard was babies learn the sound of their mother's voices when in the womb so can identify their mothers immediately from birth.

The idea is we have instinctive face-recognition instincts and swiftly learn our mothers face very quickly in life from what I recall.


but that is not a genetic change but a change in melanin levels.

Possibly, but it is precisely a mutation in the gene that regulates melanin that gives us our eye colour. So what caused his change in melanin? An epigenetic switch or a non-genetic cause? The answer is unknown currently.

Here is one: http://scicurious.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/context-personality-and-brain-imaging/

Some frmi studis have suggested that conservative or liberal outlooks is hard-wried into the brain and often hereditary (it was a new scientist article, I don't recal the issue).

A quote from the article:
The results of this study have several interesting implications. First, it is the first study to show that brain responses to facial expressions in humans are influenced by the social meaning of the facial expression. A smile is not always a good thing, and our brains can tell the difference between a smile of support and a smile that is happy we lost. Also, though your amygdala does react in general to negative facial expressions, the degree of the response will depend a lot on whether or not that anger is directed at you, or on your behalf.

But in some cultures a smile is always negative and hostile. As shaking the head can mean yes and nodding can mean no. So we have a biological function related to a variable social construct. we tell the difference between positive and negative expressions even though the meanings of the expressions are culturally dependant!

And your citation shows a connection between personality and brain activity. Not a causation of which directs which. Nor about Gender! It's interesting though.


The degree to which we are adaptable is controlled by society. We are deliberately hindered in order that we behave in a predictable manner useful for the purposes of an efficient society. We will not know our full potential until everyone is allowed to be their true selves which will likely never happen as the result would be chaotic.

Interesting, and to a limted degree certainly true, but to the extent of all strongly right handed people able to turn into strongly left handed people?
That is not so certain.


I agree but that everything you say also fits the scenario that you were born without having chosen a side and thus developed as an ambidextrous baby but eventually choosing one side over the other as an older child. Unlike others your favoritism is lesser because it developed later.

But if we are so adaptable should there not be greater variety? And should we not expect cultural variation? After all in the west we right from left to right, easier for right-handers, but this is not so in many countries which nevertheless have the same right to left handers population proportions.


Again intersexed is a different case, there are obvious genetic causes behind it.

Actually not always, exposure to a drug called DES in the womb apparently sdramatically increase the chance of being Interse and/or transexual! So thats a chemical trigger there like pot setting off schizophrenia.


With TS I don't know. I can speculate that the causations behind gender identity has similar roots to the effects of being left handed such as a different approach to language skills etc. Since we know that left and right handers process data in a different manner then this will have a knock on effect on a number of behaviors. If you interpret the world differently then you are more likely to find unusual behavior which is exactly what left handers display.

Or you can believe in a gene(s) which controls both gender and handedness. Since the study only indicated a slight increase in the relationship then this again casts doubt on it being a direct genetic link but rather a side effect.

The mouse gene suggests that most things are side effects, as does hereditary schizophrenia :)

All we can do currently is speculate, and thats always imortant to remind everyone about.

We have the known science, and w know there is more to everything we know than the level we have currently reached.

So we may speculate and hypothesise about things based on the known-science of the moment. But it only is just ideas untill it is rigorously tested! Then that data will give us 'the truth as far as it is currently known'.

I always like to remind people when they get to caught up in being certain based on currently understood science about things yet fully explored about what the French Acadmy of Sciences said about peasant reports of meteorites.

"Rocks cannot fall from thesky, because there are no rocks in the sky".

When viewed from tomorrowt he current science of today is the laughable ignorance of yesterday.

The fact is we can't rule out genetics nor non-genetic biological cause nor environmental triggers nor choice-caused brain-wiring or a combination of these or an unknown alternative untill sufficient studies are done.

And they have hardly started on TSs, they are yet to even begin on CDs.


3. Severe mindwashing techniques have been shown to work. Homosexuals have been trained to feel physically sick at the idea of gay sex.

And it didn't make them genuinely straight! It just made them traumatised and dysfunctional!

seanmc
11-27-2008, 09:47 AM
Once something is connected to sex and shame it becomes addicting. I'm pretty sure we all masturbated and felt shame with this, and like most addictions, it's the shame that keeps us coming back. If you don't feel the shame anymore, then it is still most likely connected to the pleasure part of the brain. I felt this was a choice of mine, and I'm recovering from it. I haven't dressed for a while, but there is part of me that still wants to. Coming here and reading posts seems to fulfill the need. Anyway, just my $.02 :).

ElaineB
11-27-2008, 10:50 AM
They don't? Humanity has different basic brains? That would make them a different species if true.

Not at all. Variation within a species is perfectly normal, and humans are among the most varied of all animals. Why would we expect humans to have the same brain but different colored hair, eyes and skin?

When we cannot interbreed, then we cease to be one species. That might in fact already be true in a few limited cases, but is hardly relevant.


I presume you mean identical twins, yes genetic clones are likely than not to produce similar personalities but this is not always the case.

Yes, identical twins, sorry.

If two people with the same genes and unrelated nurturing consistently show common personality traits, that is practically conclusive proof that aspects of personality can be genetic. So why continue to debate it?


Any genetic variation that produces a profound disadvantage is not dispersed in the human gene pool because these people do not procreate due to natural selection pressures.

What is and is not an advantage can change greatly depending on the natural and social environment. You can change somebody from being strong and capable to weak and disadvantaged just by moving them away from their home. So this reasoning only holds up when discussing the grossest, most universal and debilitating disadvantages.

Natural selection is only one selection mechanism. Darwin himself believed sexual selection to be equally important ... which many people seem to forget nowadays. Evolutionary theory has progressed beyond simple mechanisms in any case.


The creation of the human mind is not progress?

No. It just seems like it to those of us who have them. :heehee:

Whether we are better or worse than other animals depends on what yardsticks you use. It is a nice philosophical debate but rather beside the point.

We went down this path starting from the notion you expressed that things like autism and schizophrenia were abnormal (and by inference, irrelevant to discussions of personality and heredity). On the contrary. They and other such uncommon variations are ubiquitous. That this is true is very relevant; it is perhaps the strongest evidence of all that complex behaviors in general can be genetic. (Whether crossdressing is one such is quite another matter).


But if the gene exists it is there because it was in fact used during our evolutionary past and was at the very least not disadvantageous or it would have been routed out by natural selection.

No, you cannot say that either. Traits can be disadvantages in one way and advantages in a different way, and advantageous traits can be linked to disadvantageous ones. Whether something is an an advantage or a disadvantage is very relative and can change quickly.

The driving thrust of evolution is to produce more specialized animals, not ones that are simply better. Since humans are among the few animals that span a wide range of biomes, it should be quite easy to see how humanity as a whole can collect many variations.

Really, I thought all this was well-known and so debating it seems futile. I will stick to other points from now on.

avril findlay
11-27-2008, 12:51 PM
Stop all this self analysing gobblydeegook. Ants and f***ing termites! Be yourself, be here NOW!

Tess
11-27-2008, 04:20 PM
The thing that has struck me since joining this site is the wide variation in what we call cross dressers. We all obviously don't trod the same path and we CD for various reasons, so why must there be a single reason why we have all ended up here. I didn't start dressing until puberty so the genetic reason just doesn't make any sense for my case. I tried on mom's panties, liked it, and haven't looked back. I could weave a nurture argument but my older brother (supposedly 1.5 times more likely to CD) didn't CD and it would probably be bunk too. The science is weak or non-existent so I'd rather not have the best debater determine the "truth".

Nicki B
11-27-2008, 04:34 PM
The creation of the human mind is not progress?

Look around you at the world we live on... It's certainly arguable. Define 'progress'. :sad:


Severe mindwashing techniques have been shown to work.

Simlarly, define 'work'. :eek: Surely such techniques have been thoroughly and completely discredited. Have you ever met anyone who has suffered this 'treatment'? I have..


Funny I have been saying the differences between brains is precisely in the wiring if you had bothered to read what I have been saying throughout.

The word structure refers to the collection of the fundamental components that constitute the whole. All human brains do have the same structure just as we all possess the same structure for our hands, our hearts, our eyes, our ears etc. I don't know how to spell this out any more clearly.

If you claim that people have different brain structures then they must be different species of humans. To create different brain structures would require a completely different dna sequence hence a different species which would most likely not be able to reproduce with each other.

Suggest you goggle "brain structure" if this is still not clear to you.

You do manage to be magnificently patronising and dogmatic, all at the same time - no wonder we push back... :rolleyes:

You don't seem to have persuaded anyone else as to your arguments, so far?

And you still haven't answered the question I asked back here (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1508399#post1508399). :sad:


Satrana, what are your qualifications for making such absolute statements? I don't think many genetic researchers would be so definite as you seem to be?





I'd like to summarise it like this:

It is genetic (chromosomal)
It is congenital but not genetic (hormonal)
It is socially-induced (behavioural)
It is a mix of the above
It is the work of the devil


Haven't you forgotten 'lifestyle choice' - or do you discount that, as well? ;)


All we can do currently is speculate, and thats always imortant to remind everyone about.


The fact is we can't rule out genetics nor non-genetic biological cause nor environmental triggers nor choice-caused brain-wiring or a combination of these or an unknown alternative untill sufficient studies are done.

:yt:



Stop all this self analysing gobblydeegook. Ants and f***ing termites! Be yourself, be here NOW!

Avril... You don't have to read it, you know? :)

Nicki B
11-27-2008, 05:01 PM
This just seems appropriate...

battybattybats
11-27-2008, 08:20 PM
Once something is connected to sex and shame it becomes addicting. I'm pretty sure we all masturbated and felt shame with this, and like most addictions, it's the shame that keeps us coming back. If you don't feel the shame anymore, then it is still most likely connected to the pleasure part of the brain.

Sorry but thats just not borne out cross-culturally. Many cultures atached no shame to sex and they still have/had plenty of sex. It is only certain cultures where the guilt-pleasure combination exists regarding many forms of sex.

The modern western shame/guilt attached to masturbation came from a popular book written by a man falsely claiming to be a doctor several centuries ago who claimed that criminal behaviour, lazyness, pimples, blindness, hairy palms (yes thats where the hairy palms and blindness myths came from) and a host of other issues were all caused by masturbation. And he missrepresented a passage in the bible as part of his argument where God condemned Onan for spilling his seed on the ground, not because it was masturbation but because by law he had inherited his deceased brothers wife as his own and did not want to have any more children he could not feed so was avoiding making her pregnant.

So instead of people being ashamed for not making their dead brothers widows pregnant people became ashamed for masturbating.


Stop all this self analysing gobblydeegook. Ants and f***ing termites! Be yourself, be here NOW!

I am being myself, self analysis is important and wise (the first commandment written over the entrance to the Oracle at Delphi was "know thyself") and I find it fun too. This kind of discussion is one of my favourite pastimes!

It's not gobbledegook it's science and science is responsible for many people here being alive!

Ants and Termites are important for understanding evolution for a host of reasons but especially as they prove Kin Selection, besides I like Ants! They are one of the most successful kinds of animals, your rarely 5 metres away from an ant. They are found over almost the entire world (arctic and antarctic is the exception) and the biomass of Ants on the planet is approximately equal to the biomass of humans on the planet! As they are so deeply entrenched in the worlds ecosystems over millions of years, are one kind of animal humans have failed to render any species of extinct excpet by accidentally helping transport invasive ant species into the territory of others it makes them amongst the dominant species on the planet!

Oh and bats, they make up 1/6th of the mammal species and are a vital part of the ecosystem especially to agriculture (though not as vital as Bees! Another kin-selection success story that humanity relies on for much of mankinds food supply).

And many bats may infact be related to humans! Making the wingedness a more related qurestion to handedness. Macrochiroptera (the flying foxes) are very different from Microchiroptera (the small insectivores). They have a cross-over in the optic nerve with the right eye transmitting to the left-brain etc just like the Primates. Because of this and a variety of other similarities there has been for decades an argument that the Macrochiroptera should be reclassified amongst the primates being likely closer related to the Lemur and Humans than to the other bats! The anatomical similarities between the Macrochiroptera and Microchiroptera being perhaps more likely the convergent evolution coincidence than the brain/optic and other similarities between Macrochiroptera and Primates. DNA mapping should probably answer this but I've not heard if a definitive answer has yet been found.

All these things are interlinked and no aspect of science, biology or humanity can be understood in isolation. We often learn a lot about ourselves when studying things about other animals and the wider external universe.

docrobbysherry
11-27-2008, 09:06 PM
" I think, therefore I am", a CD!:heehee:

" My friends, I think the answers lie not in our stars, but in ourselves". :D

The topic is quite interesting. In that it stimulates discussion of theories, studies, history, and various opinions. :Angry3:

Unfortunately, at this time, there don't seem to be any hard and fast answers!:brolleyes:

My teen daughter still believes in Santa Claus. She says she will, as long as he keeps leaving her cool Xmas presents!:love:

And I guess I'll keep CDing as long as it remains "fun"! :tongueout

curse within
11-27-2008, 09:13 PM
" I think, therefore I am", a CD!:heehee:

" My friends, I think the answers lie not in our stars, but in ourselves". :D

The topic is quite interesting. In that it stimulates discussion of theories, studies, history, and various opinions. :Angry3:

Unfortunately, at this time, there don't seem to be any hard and fast answers!:brolleyes:

My teen daughter still believes in Santa Claus. She says she will, as long as he keeps leaving her cool Xmas presents!:love:

And I guess I'll keep CDing as long as it remains "fun"! :tongueout


LOL Sherry....you truley are an interesting person....i AM HAPPY YOU ARE SO COMFORTABLE WITH yourself..

Satrana
11-28-2008, 02:27 AM
Read the research literature which one?


I'm quoting the results of a survey on this website which is statistical unreliable


I don't. So why do you believe in a theory that has gaping holes at its core?



Come on, I don't want to play these academic games, I'd just like someone to come up with an explanation (backed with facts), and suggest how it might be proved or disproved. this is a CD forum not a scientific journal

Nadia-Maria
11-28-2008, 03:12 AM
Maybe this thread just needs be closed, it seems ?

Satrana
11-28-2008, 03:12 AM
Not at all. Variation within a species is perfectly normal yes in size, shape, color etc but not in structure. Variations in structure is a central component of species identification. A minor alteration of a bone joint for example would already define a new species.




If two people with the same genes and unrelated nurturing consistently show common personality traits, that is practically conclusive proof that aspects of personality can be genetic. So why continue to debate it? because you cannot rule out statistical chance. Also even within family members who are considered to have similar personalities you would find plenty of differences. But most importantly you can find plenty of people including parent-children who have diametrically opposite personalities. How do you account for this with a genetic cause theory?



What is and is not an advantage can change greatly depending on the natural and social environment. You can change somebody from being strong and capable to weak and disadvantaged just by moving them away from their home. So this reasoning only holds up when discussing the grossest, most universal and debilitating disadvantages. True enough but the fight for life does have common traits which we see repeated throughout the animal kingdom. Those who specialize in more unusual features/behaviors leave themselves at risk of becoming extinct thus more unusual characteristics tend to disappear entirely.


Natural selection is only one selection mechanism. Darwin himself believed sexual selection to be equally important ... which many people seem to forget nowadays. Evolutionary theory has progressed beyond simple mechanisms in any case. Yes but even sexual selection is largely based upon features which are indicative of strong healthy genes.






We went down this path starting from the notion you expressed that things like autism and schizophrenia were abnormal (and by inference, irrelevant to discussions of personality and heredity) No I never said that genetic abnormalities were irrelevant to personality. The point I was making was disadvantageous variations are abnormal and thus must be considered separately from what personality traits are derived from a "normal" genetic make-up. I am aware of the issues about defining what a normal genetic make-up is.

So the question that I am raising is a behavior like TG based upon genetic code found in everyone or are all TGs genetically at variance with the rest of the human gene pool.



No, you cannot say that either. Traits can be disadvantages in one way and advantages in a different way, and advantageous traits can be linked to disadvantageous ones. Quite true but the point was if the gene exists then it was used at some point in our past.


The driving thrust of evolution is to produce more specialized animals, not ones that are simply better. No the thrust of evolution is survival and the passing on of genes. Specialized animals exist because they occupy niches in the environment that are not being exploited by others and so competition is minimal. If the environmental niche disappears the species either has to quickly adapt and transform into a new species or go extinct. Those creatures which do not occupy environmental niches have to openly compete with many other species. In these scenariso it becomes important that your design is as good as the others or else species competition will force you out. This is why species do end up specializing because their design was not good enough to directly compete for the main food sources.

JennieL
11-28-2008, 04:19 AM
Amanda is so right. I've tried to resist my own crossdressing at various points in my life and have got nothing in return but depression and self-hatred. And it never worked. Even if I succeeded in keeping my body clothed only as a male, my mind never followed suit and the girl inside just made herself more assertive. She never goes away!

Satrana
11-28-2008, 05:42 AM
[quote]Ants are a darn good example as are bees, termites and the rest of the social insects which through millions of years have strong altruistic behaviour and non-reproducing individuals sacrificing themselves so that other ho carry their DNA can reproduce. True enough but these are not altrustic behavior as we understand it because there is no choice involved rather these insects are reacting robotically to chemical signals. We have no sense that they know what they are doing.


natural assymetry! But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.


And having TG as well as gay siblings who can help raise children and look after the elderly could have given survival as well as sexual advantages to early humans. Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.


And we know humans do react to pheremones.
No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.


Ornagutans have artistic behaviours in the wild Artisitc?


But mny cultures have had many different ways of handling child rearing. Some have suggested menopause evolved specifically so the grandparents could exist for improved child-rearing considering the enormous length of time we take to reach sexual maturity. Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.

Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.


Behavioural/evolutionary psychology argues just that, that the endorphin kick we get when our brain realises it has understood something is deliberatly addictive because of the survival benefit Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.

Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.


The idea is we have instinctive face-recognition instincts and swiftly learn our mothers face very quickly in life from what I recall. That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.


Some frmi studis have suggested that conservative or liberal outlooks is hard-wried into the brain and often hereditary Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.


It's interesting though. It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.


but to the extent of all strongly right handed people able to turn into strongly left handed people? People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.


But if we are so adaptable should there not be greater variety? And should we not expect cultural variation?
But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.


After all in the west we right from left to right, easier for right-handers, but this is not so in many countries which nevertheless have the same right to left handers population proportions. Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.



So we may speculate and hypothesise about things based on the known-science of the moment. And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.

If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!


And it didn't make them genuinely straight! It just made them traumatised and dysfunctional! A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.

Satrana
11-28-2008, 05:55 AM
[quote]Ants are a darn good example as are bees, termites and the rest of the social insects which through millions of years have strong altruistic behaviour and non-reproducing individuals sacrificing themselves so that other ho carry their DNA can reproduce. True enough but these are not altrustic behavior as we understand it because there is no choice involved rather these insects are reacting robotically to chemical signals. We have no sense that they know what they are doing.


natural assymetry! But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.


And having TG as well as gay siblings who can help raise children and look after the elderly could have given survival as well as sexual advantages to early humans. Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.


And we know humans do react to pheremones.
No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.


Ornagutans have artistic behaviours in the wild Artisitc?


But mny cultures have had many different ways of handling child rearing. Some have suggested menopause evolved specifically so the grandparents could exist for improved child-rearing considering the enormous length of time we take to reach sexual maturity. Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.

Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.


Behavioural/evolutionary psychology argues just that, that the endorphin kick we get when our brain realises it has understood something is deliberatly addictive because of the survival benefit Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.

Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.


The idea is we have instinctive face-recognition instincts and swiftly learn our mothers face very quickly in life from what I recall. That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.


Some frmi studis have suggested that conservative or liberal outlooks is hard-wried into the brain and often hereditary Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.


It's interesting though. It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.


but to the extent of all strongly right handed people able to turn into strongly left handed people? People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.


But if we are so adaptable should there not be greater variety? And should we not expect cultural variation?
But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.


After all in the west we right from left to right, easier for right-handers, but this is not so in many countries which nevertheless have the same right to left handers population proportions. Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.



So we may speculate and hypothesise about things based on the known-science of the moment. And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.

If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!


And it didn't make them genuinely straight! It just made them traumatised and dysfunctional! A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.

battybattybats
11-28-2008, 07:10 AM
True enough but these are not altrustic behavior as we understand it because there is no choice involved rather these insects are reacting robotically to chemical signals. We have no sense that they know what they are doing.

Individual ants have personalities. Some are lazy, some hardworking, some get easilly frustrated and some are braver in battle.


But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.

But isn't the 90% handedness being spread over all cultures telling in itself?


Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.

But they can raise children without having some of their own.


No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.

The relative scent study involved giving people pillows that smelled of siblings or strangers and measuring how well people slept. Once past puberty people did not sleep well on pillows with their relatives scent!


Artisitc?

Thats what I'd heard.


Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.

30's if a valid number is an average, there are always exceptions to that. Certainly amongst indiginous communities ther have been plenty of white-haired elders going back an aweful long time!


Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.

And yet they do assist, in lots of communities. And in fact there is a similar phenomenon with fish! With older fish passing knowledge to younger ones.


Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.

In my experience anti-intellectualism usually comes through fear.


Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.

Read H.G. Wells' The Time Machine?


That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.

We can still tell they are faces. And we only need the capacity to recognise what a face is and then know 'momma' and 'not the momma'.

Also the amount babies use their eyes in early life is hotly disputed by a fair number of people.


Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.

This was specifically relating to 'ok with change, newness and surprises' and 'not ok with them' IIRC.


It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.

Still it makes eveolutionary sense to have a variety of drives to encourage certain behaviours which mya fond expression in a variety of ways and circumstances. It also depends if th selectionpressures are selecting for specialisation or adaptability. And in a strong social animal having some in each generation suited to either maximises the long-term adaptibility of the species.


People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.

Yet while I have heard of sculptors able to relearn to scuplt after getting their primary hand blown off (in a cannon accident in a reenactment of a battle) I've also seen people who after crippling injury or amputation never get the same level of skill back despite constant practise.


But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.

I've heard of cultures where the men are rett for the women, and where writing is from right to left, but I've never heard of a society with more left-handed people than right-handed.


Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.

Most assuredly it is! Having once been able to do both and knowing a left-handed calligrapher I know this for certain! As your hand is passing over the wet ink even with a biro you end up with smudges. Left-handed writers writing left to right are substantially ergonomically disadvantaged!


And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.

Absolutely!!!!!


If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!

If we even got to the caves from the plains. We needed stone tools to fight off the cave-bears that lived in the caves.


A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.

I dont think that is possible though. Unless they are patholocical, utterly insane in the extreme. Willfully ignorant and unthinking at best. Instead they can only be logically intending to impose an order they consider 'better' for everyone, rather than what is natural, innate or intrinsic.

suzy
11-28-2008, 07:25 AM
I tend to believe that Katie B. is in the ball park regarding the best answer to this question. I have no idea but can tell you that in my case at least, my mother expected a girl and wanted a girl. She had only selected girl names and she was so dissappointed when I was born a male. She had not chosen a male name nor given it any thought. The nurse told her she would not be allowed to take me home from the hospital until she had named me ( Jokingly, I'm sure).

In my earliest memories, my mother had dressed me in girl clothes on many occasions, but as I got older and began maturing she stopped and I grew up as a young man, joined the military and when I got out took on a tough manly job and fought the urges to dress for many years before I succumbed.

Today, retired, I feel that I am a male with a unique feminine side and I enjoy both sides, although, I favor the female side more and more as I get up in my years.:hugs:

battybattybats
11-28-2008, 08:48 PM
yes in size, shape, color etc but not in structure. Variations in structure is a central component of species identification. A minor alteration of a bone joint for example would already define a new species.

Yet that is often a problem for palentologists. What were thought to be seperate species have turned out to be juveniles and adults of the same species or males and females of the same species.

I expect future archaeologist species might well consider there to be two species of humans because of the long big toe and short big toe variations.

Lisa Catherine
11-28-2008, 11:06 PM
I myself remember wanting to dress up and be one of the girls as early as kindergarten, and I have always been heterosexual, but whenever I see a woman attractively dressed, I look at her with desire, and I wish I could wear her clothes as well as she does!!:love::hugs:

Nicki B
11-29-2008, 08:03 AM
Most assuredly it is! Having once been able to do both and knowing a left-handed calligrapher I know this for certain! As your hand is passing over the wet ink even with a biro you end up with smudges. Left-handed writers writing left to right are substantially ergonomically disadvantaged!

Indeed.. When writing with one's left hand, what you have just written is immediately then obscured by that hand. :(

Much of the world is built favouring those with a master right-hand - tools, weapons, computer keyboards, the controls in a car, doors, watches, even knives and forks.. Left-handed people just have to learn to adapt, which is where the term 'cack-handed' comes from. The suggestion that they choose to stay that way is, frankly, offensive?

It is, literally (as my previous links showed), down to the way their brains are hard-wired. Satrana is suggesting that the 'hard-wiring' has no genetic basis, which is unproven and, IMHO unlikely, at least.

Any of that sound familiar to anyone else? :idontknow:

battybattybats
11-29-2008, 08:52 AM
It's worth considering that there are different ways something can be 'genetic'.

It can be an hereditary trait that runs in families, like eye colour, skin colour, hair colour, height, body shape and a variety of things where depending on which genes you get from which parent and whether those are dominant genes, recessive or some of the more complex ones will determine the trait you possess.

These traits are often found in much greater numbers in certain populations.

Everyone has the gene that causes eye colour. The mutated varient that causes blue eyes or other variations is not evenly spread accross the planet (though increased travel and immigration is changing that fast).

As handedness is not found in hereditary lines or geographical groupings but instead in roughly even proportions everywhere that does not make it not genetic, but certainly not a bloodline trait.

Instead it may be caused by a common variation of the activity of a ubiquitous or nearly so gene. A frequent error in the copying of a fragile gene protein, a regular variation in some cycle or function or a gene that only activates a certain percentage of the time... there are quite a few possibilities. Genes are almost always involved somewhere somehow but not always hereditary genes.

Heck, maybe left handedness (or CDing) is caused by a certain degree of Toxoplasmosis Gondii infection in pregnant mothers! Thats a beahviour-influencing mind-control parasite that reproduces in cats guts but that influences rats at least to make them like cats so they can get into the cats guts to breed. A large number of people have Toxoplasmosis Gondii and some claim that their behaviour and personality and reaction time and mental health are all effected. Dont be afraid of cats because of it either, unless you eat cat poo if you get it its likely from poorly cooked meat.

In which case the cause would ultimately still be genetic, the consequences of the genes of the parasite though.

Regarding cures for homosexuality and/or crossdressing. Taken via http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/11/personal-thanksgiving.html


Next, he noted the advantages of “electrical aversion” in offering greater “control” over timing. He described the treatment of a patient.
“The conditioning stimuli were pictures of women wearing panties which were followed by the unconditioned stimulus, electric shock. The shock level was set so the patient found it so uncomfortable, he wanted it stopped. In addition to seeing pictures, he was instructed to handle panties and to imagine himself wearing them. After 41 sessions, he said he was no longer troubled by the “fetish” but a month later, it spontaneously recovered.”

You see... it didn't work. They knew it didn't work. So they upped the currents, almost to the point of charring the flesh. This wasn't "ECT", electro-convulsive therapy under anaesthetic, the idea was to intentionally inflict pain. To Torture into compliance. Not in one session, or two, or three, but in dozens of torture sessions, 41 in the case mentioned. And it still didn't work.



Finally, Dr. Langevin introduced a newer form of “shame aversion therapy” used on a “transvestite:”
“the patient was required to crossdress before a disinterested group of men and women who watched him without reaction or comment. … In this case, shame replaces electric shock … the patient was evidently experiencing shame. He was in tears as he crossdressed and had a look of anguish on his face. He attempted suicide the following day according to the investigator.”

Nicki B
11-29-2008, 11:16 PM
From the rules of medical ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics) - 'First, do no harm'.... :(

Shawnacdin
11-30-2008, 01:43 AM
Recently my SO and I have found out I have low Testostrone due a undecended testicle. Because I have low Test, I have more estrogene in my body. I truely believe because I have low Test I like to CD. This is ok with me because I love to dress and that is who I am.
Shawna

P.S. Sorry my spelling sucks!! :)

sinead
12-01-2008, 02:42 PM
It is the way I am, the amount of times have attempted to give it up which is impossible and expensive, I have now accepted who I am and much happier for it

maid phylis
12-01-2008, 03:17 PM
dear emmi,i also believe i was born with whatever gene that gave me and mad me what i am today a crossdresser.from day one the first time i tried on my mothers stockings i knew i was different and whatever you try to do to make it go away doesnt work so we all should enjoy the wonderfull ride:love:phylisanne

Bootsiegalore
12-01-2008, 03:19 PM
It has to be genetic. I have been doing it since 5.

I do not beleive it is a behavior at that age.

RobynP
12-05-2008, 08:38 PM
It has to be genetic. I have been doing it since 5.

I do not beleive it is a behavior at that age.


It has to be genetic! My mom, my sisters, and I all love wearing dresses!

Robyn P.

Raquel June
12-05-2008, 08:57 PM
"Genetics" is an overused term. Just because something is more of a drive than a personal choice doesn't necessarily mean it's ingrained in your DNA.

A lot of gay people want to find a magical "gay gene," and a lot of transsexuals like to argue that they are intersexed (but refuse to get genetic testing done because they're afraid of the results). I think it's silly.

Just be yourself. Don't act all guilty about who you are. You shouldn't have to justify your life by saying, "It's not my fault! I was born this way!"

Ashley_1962
12-05-2008, 09:38 PM
genetic.. with our 'ability to resist' fading as our tosterone levels decrease when we hit our late 30's/40's..

DinaMature
12-06-2008, 04:48 AM
Speaking for my own experience, I'd have to say my upbringing has had a huge impact.
I'm sensitive and reasonably creative, but mostly the female/ male roles and role models in my early life were a mess.

immike
12-06-2008, 10:41 AM
I'm a lifelong crossdresser. I love dressing like a girl. I did not choose to be this way. I am not a sissy! I feel this is a part of my genetics and had I not had been born with this I would not dress. To me it's simple. I don't believe crossdressers choose to live like this. I believe we are born as crossdressers!

Are you a crossdresser by choice or do you believe in the genetic factor?

emmi
I agree with EMMI!

LoriFlores
12-06-2008, 11:39 AM
genetic

DinaMature
12-06-2008, 01:00 PM
It has to be genetic! My mom, my sisters, and I all love wearing dresses!

Robyn P.

bravo bravo hahahahaha

battybattybats
12-07-2008, 12:46 AM
I found one of my referance sources. One of the New Scientist articles I mentuoned before is pgs 28-31 in the 19th July 2008 Issue where it's the cover-story "Brains Apart two sexes divided by grey matter". It mentions particularly differences found in pain-processing in males and females brains and yet most research studies are done only on males and male animals.

"Every year or two we write a paper that says that something someone reported earlier is actually only true in males. We keep making people look bad. They are missing stuff completely."

FromTheSouth
12-07-2008, 08:26 PM
I believe that it is something that starts before birth, because I started around 5 or 6, and a 5 or 6 year old does not all of a sudden decide "Hey I want to wear dresses, and High heels!" That is not a choice that a child that age makes!!

sometimes_miss
12-09-2008, 08:36 PM
On a night where there isn't jack-squat on TV, this forum comes to my rescue. This thread is more entertaining than anything I've watched in quite a while. So, while most of this stuff is only my opinion (I never was much for saving sources of information I've read over all these years), I still have to contribute my two cents. And so......


Aurora 27 wrote “Oh my god - when will people let the nature verse nurture thing go?“
Never. For some, it’s a self discovery thing, for others, a way to remove blame from themselves for the crossdressing behavior which they feel guilty about.


There have been genes found related to TS
With possibly the exception of the nazi experiments done in the early 20th century, there have not been any long term experiments of any sort done on human beings using control groups to form and/or prove genetic predispositions towards behaviors (or a whole lot of other things, for that matter). And I don’t foresee any being done in the near future, either. Everything we know is based on passive observation of very limited numbers of ‘test subjects’. World population is what, approaching 7 billion? And how big is the largest observed group examined genetically under any type of scientific conditions?


Txrobinm wrote: “men's skirts appeared on the runways of NY a few years ago- what happened to them?”
And, “Anyone know where I can get a nice kilt in forest green"
They disappeared because if you’re going to wear a skirt, you may as well just go to chadwicks like I did and buy them (I’ve got a bunch of plaid skirts). There’s a much better selection than those for men, and probably cheaper too. But like the ‘shoulder bags’ created for men which are for all intents and purposes just another name for a purse, they are viewed as an excuse for a guy to embrace something feminine while fooling only himself that it’s a normal part of a male wardrobe or accessory.


Batty wrote: According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are dissproportionatly found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?
Uh, no. It implies that they may be somehow related to the same cause, but not necessarily caused by it.

and: Most people are not white. Most people have black hair. Yet white skin and blonde hair are not abnormalities but common variations.
No one has black hair. Perhaps very very dark brown hair, though. We all have the same pigments, just different amounts of them.


Katie B wrote, regarding brain structure: some gay men have a typically female structure
And some do not. So, where’s the connection? Nowhere. It may be one of the many influences that contribute to a tendency towards homosexuality, or it may not. There’s no proof either way.


Satrana wrote: but rather all brains are built to the same design
From an ‘big picture’ viewpoint, possibly, but from a molecular level, probably not. I don’t discriminate between macro and microscopic ‘structure’. So while I don’t believe this to be correct either, I don’t have the necessary links to support myself. But I do remember reading (many, many times) that brain development and connections (yes, I do feel that those ‘connections’ are part of the structure) are influenced by whether you are x or y, and probably by many other genes as well, not to mention hormone secretions which are sexually (genetically) influenced. Brains don’t stop ‘forming’ after birth; female (and I suppose some male) newborns show different behaviors than most males. Whether it comes from a maternal hormone ‘wash’ or one of the infant’s own body is still not determined. So, the ‘build’ is usually just a little bit different. The key word there is usually, and not always.


Elaine B wrote: What biological or social advantage does it provide anybody to have earlobes?
Perhaps none, but then again, perhaps having earlobes is connected in some unknown way to other advantageous things genetically. As above, only experimental breeding could show that, and we don’t experiment on humans, so we may never know.


previously quoted as: Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial
As far as I remember, when subjects are in an environment without outside triggers to tell us when to wake and when to sleep, our ‘clock’ is a few hours and minutes longer than 24 hours. This may be related to earth having a longer ‘day’ before such events as massive asteroid impacts which affect the earth’s rate of spin, and changed the length of earth's ‘day’ eons ago. But the 'clock' is still functioning on that prehistoric rate.


Avril wrote: Oh my sisters, please, please, stop analysing yourselves and just get on with it!
Yes, but it’s much more enlightening this way. Because we never know when some new idea will pop up out of debates such as these.



Katie B wrote: I'll throw in a single fact that seems to me to support the hormonal theory. ...is genetic (chromosomal)
...is congenital but not genetic (hormonal)
...is socially-induced (behavioural)
...is a lifestyle choice (pure free-will) [Thank you Nicki]
...or is a mix of the above
Androgens influence the brain of the embryo around the third month of pregnancy. A further burst of androgens, leading to a masculinisation of the "gender map", occurs between the second and twelfth week after birth. There is no similar phenomenon in women.
Hormonal is a result of genetic. Chromosomes, mom’s or those of the fetus, determine every physical developmental thing about us. Lifestyle choice is based on choices determined by on past experience influences (behavioral) and inbred (genetically influenced) preferences.
This does not necessarily have anything to do with crossdressing, or any other behavior. Despite my mom’s dressing me up as a girl when I was very young, I had no desire to crossdress until I was coerced to do so by sexual abuse many years later, nor did I self identify as female until much later. I felt like a boy, looked like a boy, acted like a boy, thought like a boy, was attracted to affection from females like a boy (although I think that may partially have been socialization, wanting affection and seeing it on TV primarily between opposite sexes). My crossdressing is a result of intense conditioning from outside, and within, during developmental years that altered how I self identify, and how I respond to needing affection. While I don’t keep track of every other ‘gender disoriented’ person, I suppose you could find many others with similar, but not exactly the same, experiences to mine if you searched long enough.


Satrana wrote: It should be pointed out that the causes behind TS and CD are almost certainly quite different from one another so although the two groups share the same predicament and feelings, the causation factors are not shared. TS is a gender identity issue while CD is a gender role issue.
The problem is that some of us inhabit both groups to some degree, and often for different reasons, not always nature, not always nurture, sometimes a mix of both. It’s just another incidence of society wanting to categorize everyone into some type of ‘box’ so they know how to ‘deal’ with us. Many people want to see others as the same as themselves, to support how they feel about themselves; best exampled by someone who is TS and states that we are all TS, just some in denial.


The creation of the human mind is not progress?
Right now, I think we are ‘devolving’. See the movie, ‘Idiocracy’. Morons appear to be reproducing more than intellectuals.

Now getting down off of soapbox.

battybattybats
12-14-2008, 05:19 AM
Just ran into a new article on the reserch into the genes that cause puberty http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wgenes12/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail


Dr. Topaloglu said this is evidence that there are likely to be several genes involved in sparking puberty.

"I don't think there's only one player to explain this complex system," he said. "There's probably 20."

Carole Cross
12-14-2008, 06:33 AM
I believe that it is something that you are born with, namely the way your brain is 'wired'. My first crossdressing experience was at age 3, initiated by me, no one asked me to. I dont get any sexual gratification out of it. I think that I should have been born a girl but I am only now coming to terms with it after years of trying to supress it.:sad: