So what if it was in your DNA???

[Katey888]

Many of us here often ponder on the “why” of CDing and we also often have the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate in an attempt to determine whether this condition has behavioural or genetic roots – someone in a reply earlier this week used the expression “..it’s in my DNA..” – but I know that many of you also have examples of circumstances that seemed to have facilitated, if not encouraged, that first experimentation. Personally, I still think that there’s something innate – genetic or personality based – that predisposes us to what we feel the need to do, and it’s led me to think some time back about the implications of that and it came up again earlier today in the ‘reveal’ thread – so I thought it was time to talk about it. (And Isha's been quiet lately so we could all do with the thinking exercise... sorry to get heavy midweek and just before Thanksgiving... )

What if we knew for sure that this was genetic, innate and hereditary (rather than environmental) and was something that had been passed down to you and was ultimately likely to impact your offspring, or theirs, or successive generations…?

All sorts of questions fall out of this for me – for while most of us say we accept this part of us and recognise that we are not doing anything ‘wrong’, that’s not necessarily the way the rest of the world perceives us and the fact that so many of us do decide to keep this from close friends and family, even if we undertake outings away from home, says that we understand the way that others feel about this, or at least we prefer to keep others misunderstandings and prejudices from impacting our lives detrimentally. We may not see it as wrong, but we should accept that some others do and will probably continue to think so.

So the interesting questions for me are:
If this was a definitively hereditary condition that would be passed on to successive generations of your family:
1) Would it change your perspective about declaring this condition to a potential spouse before starting a relationship or having children?
2) How would you feel about knowingly passing on something that we can accept is not wrong, but might still be a terrible burden or blight for those who are forced to accommodate this condition in their lifestyle or environment?
3) For the GGs here, how would you feel knowing that your sons (or daughters – but less likely) or grandsons may be compelled to pursue CDing to fully express themselves in life? And how would that make you feel about pre- or post-nuptial reveal?

(for clarity – my assumptions here are around just the condition that either makes us prone to CDing or being transgendered but NOT being TS and also that it was proven there was definitely no behavioural cause to the condition)

Makes me think – and I’d be interested to hear how others feel about it…

Katey x

[Rhian]

I think it probably is in our genetics. It wouldn't stop me from passing my genes on though as I still have a wonderful life despite one of my hobbies being sociably unacceptable and something that's embarrassing and I'd hope any offspring would have a similar experience. I imagine they'd also be able to tell me as I'd be very supportive of anything to do with CDs in the media and try to normalise it as much as possible, so if they did inherit it I'd hope it would be possible for them to come out. Having said that society is becoming increasingly liberal an less judgemental which I hope would mean anyone born now would be free to express themselves without society judging, in a similar way to how now it is perfectly acceptable to be gay.

I'd like to think when I meet a girl who I want to settle down with that I will have the balls to tell her about Rhian but if I do it will be so I'm not hiding things from her, rather than worrying about passing on my dressing. There are far worse things passed on genetically than enjoying wearing knickers, nobody is perfect and crossdressing would be no different to other minor 'flaws.'

[mykell]

well its funny you should start this, i saw you post earlier, and thought hummm...reminded me of a thread i started last year about twins and generations of CDing...

1)so if it was definitively a hereditary condition im assuming there would be proof ! so i would declare it to my wife if discovered after our vows, or before if not yet married.
2)as such the hereditary factor could be discussed prior to a pregnancy like other traits and even medical conditions that may be passed on, as such it would be more normal and socially accepted im assuming and if anyone would ponder it we could simply say that our son/daughter has cditus,

i do hope that one day when asked why i could with conviction answer this question....

(had to rush cooking dinner)....ok im back....

when i was younger i hit my thumb nail with a hammer, after i picked at my cutical incessantly, every now and then i watch my son while he picks at his cutical and wonder why....like when i see my dog circle round and round before he lies down, we have no scorpions in the house, but his instinct tells him to clear his bed....instincts were passed on in some way.....and according to science our brains are more complex ??

their were times when i even corrected his behavior when i thought he was acting too feminine....i regret those times now and accept that it may be in the cards for him, at the time i didnt want him to live with the shame and intolerance i endured while growing up, but since joining ive embraced this part of me and think its a blessing in disguise and i even refer to it as normal....wish i embraced it earlier....

[DaphneMiller]

If it was hereditary, I'd be wondering which older relatives had also struggled with the same issues in less enlightened times... I'd be looking at parents and Grandparents, wondering which ones would be almost guaranteed to understand this part of me.

Daphne

[Kate Simmons]

I agree with you that it's 100% in our DNA my friend. I said this some years ago but some "scientific" member here said that's impossible as DNA is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals and amino acids, etc. I'll tell you what tough like the spaghetti sauce I KNOW it's "in there". The bottom line is that we are who we are for a reason.

[LilSissyStevie]

If crossdressing was proven to be genetic then we would have to throw out a lot of what we know about how genes work. Genes make enzymes and crap like that. Genes can, for example, influence how bitter cocoa taste to you but they can't determine whether you like it or not. Genes can't make you wear panties. The genetic material we carry around now predates clothing.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

we could simply say that our son/daughter has cditus,

Haha, cditus. Love it. But you make a really good point, Mikell. If this was a known genetic condition and everyone knew of it, then I'd probably be sad my child got it but I could also share this news like you might share a child's autism or whatever. I'd still be reluctant to have kids with a crossdresser if it was a dominant gene and it caused major social issues etc, but given the lack of crossdresser's running through familial lines, I suspect this is unlikely. Maybe it would hit every fourth generation or something.

Fact is, I think this is more a social/environmental issue than genetic and men just need more overall freedom to express who they are. (I think the sexual dressers are a hormonal creation.) Genetics can only account for the predisposition toward being more visual or tactile or compulsive or whatever. They will never find a gene that makes men wear women's clothing.

Anyway, interesting thoughts.

[Kate T]

Hmm... Interesting. Sort of up my alley as I am involved in an industry (i.e. veterinary) and have the ability (through surgery) to control reproduction and genetic selection.
My answer to your first question is simple for me and that is absolutely, definitely. I would regard it then as an important disclosure. Certain behavioural traits appear to be hereditary in dogs and I strongly recommend not breeding with overly aggressive animals. Conversely I strongly recommend breeding with good temperament animals
The second question is a little bit more hairy. Many of the greatest minds and advancers in human history have had considerable social burdens, DaVinci, Feynman, Einstein, Martin Luther King. Where would human society be if their parents had said "oh no we won't have children because it might be a terrible burden for them being african american / depressive / homosexual?". The other issue is that greater than 90% of genetic "abnormalities" involve more than 1 gene and not only that many times those genes code for a significant advantage against something else. A very simple example is Sickle cell anaemia, a recessive genetic abnormality of haemoglobin. In individuals who have 2 copies of the gene (remembering genes come in pairs, one from the father, one from the mother) are prone to various manifestations of sickle cell disease which can be life threatening. However individuals who have only 1 copy (i.e. recessive / carriers) are highly resistant to the blood parasite Plasmodium, the cause of anaemia and have a many fold higher chance of surviving a malarial infection than an individual who is Sickle Cell gene free. In the absence of antimalarial medication this is a massive genetic advantage particularly in Malaria endemic areas such as sub-Saharan Africa. This is just a very simple example. What if the genes coding for TG also code for some significant health benefit or perhaps they code for a more passive behavioural nature. Is that desirable for your offspring or not?? Hmm tough one.
Obviously I can't answer the third question.

Interesting.

[Kate T]

If crossdressing was proven to be genetic then we would have to throw out a lot of what we know about how genes work. Genes make enzymes and crap like that. Genes can, for example, influence how bitter cocoa taste to you but they can't determine whether you like it or not. Genes can't make you wear panties. The genetic material we carry around now predates clothing.

I agree with you that it's 100% in our DNA my friend. I said this some years ago but some "scientific" member here said that's impossible as DNA is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals and amino acids, etc. I'll tell you what tough like the spaghetti sauce I KNOW it's "in there". The bottom line is that we are who we are for a reason.

Sorry, neither is technically correct. It's more like a somewhere in between. WRT genetic material predating clothing that is not actually correct, Apart from mutations (of which certainly the sheer number of humans on the planet mean there would be some), genetic drift means that the genetic composition of society is quite variable through time.

[Dana M]

Hello everyone.
on a related note to this thread. I just read this story on the Huffington post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6218406.html

[Mia Brankovic]

Ah, the 'nature versus nurture' argument...was 'it' in inherent in our design or borne of environmental stressors, hmm. Good question?

Why an individual would partake this particular journey must first be examined: I wanted to find the grace, elegance and charm (to My companion: you listening to this? lol) of womanhood. The strength and the Inner Goddess. I enjoy my personality more when I'm soft & compassionate...I feel that way 'More' when I play the part...and I have played many parts...there are no small roles in Life...

The secondary, or perhaps this should have been the primary?, is the question of: relevancy. The question is relevant on a strictly clinical basis; however, on a personal level; I am most happiest when playing this part. For this topic, (IMHO) I would have to go with emotional satisfaction supersedes logic & reason (hey, that a huge step forward for me!), so why ask why, unless your in the industry?

hmm, good question...

[Kate Simmons]

Science notwithstanding, evidently we all exist as a bunch of anomalies in the human race. Basically what that means is that "We're here and we're queer". Deal with it.

[Teresa]

Katey,
I'm a firm believer in it's a kink we're born with ! Maybe certain traits in my family genes produce a CDer or whatever every so often !
All I know is no one forced to me to wear certain clothes that eventually ended with an involuntary orgasm, but from that point I was die cast !
Why society has such mixed responses when it's something inside that we can do nothing about is confusing at times !
The question about concerns of passing it on, it hasn't stopped me achieving and living a full and active life, if my son or grandsons show signs of it so what ? I know now how to deal with it and what to say to others ! If I have to fully come out to prevent suffering in others then I will do it !
It's only becomes a terrible burden through lack of understanding and acceptance !
The deeper concerns are is it just CDing or something more ? Maybe that's where the underlying fears come from ! That only suggests that people are still uncomfortable with homosexuality or gender related problems !

[Mia Brankovic]

Dear Teresa...you have touched upon a few key points

Ain't society interesting...especially during a cultural backlash (still reeling from the LGBT movement)...Societies suffer from culture shock, and more often than not...it's NOT the issue that the 'general main-stream populace is concerned with, but either the change (because change is to be feared...according to whom? The Status Quo). Another fear is having a repressed issue confront their morals, value, ethics, etc. Some folk react 'badly' when you start messin' with their belief systems...or when their beliefs conflict with their inner impulses (BANG!) Society is ever-changing, individuals (main-stream) are not.

Have some compassion for them...they are still chained, while y'all free to be, and do, what you wish...for the most part. Times are also changing at much faster rate, due to the internet...Society clippin' along at triple time, I hope it don't trip

Mia

[kimgirl]

I believe that it is a combination of Nature and Nurture.

I think there is a gene / some DNA / or some other scientific term in us that pre-disposes us to do this, but on its own will not change anything. And then some event or series of events in our early lives click the button that turns that "gene" on, and so we go on with our cd lives.

On a similar parallel theme; on my wife's side of the family she has three cousins that are gay, two men and a woman. Is that a gene, some think so, but if yes why aren't all her side of the family gay? They all have the same genes. We have 3 grown up boys, from her previous marriage, and they spend much of their time chasing girls, yet they would also have the gene.

So I think it is a combination of one's make-up (no not the minerals, kohl pencil type) and something that happens to us when we are young even though may be insignificant at the time.

Just my opinion.

Would it stop me having children to risk passing it on, absolutely not. It's not a disease, unless one wants to think of it as a disease of our society.

Should it be revealed early on into a relationship? Absolutely yes, I've learnt that one from hard experience.

Kim

[sometimes_miss]

So-what-if-it-was-in-your-DNA

It would require more study, to figure out why the gene becomes active at different ages. Also, it wouldn't matter. Because it doesn't matter what the cause is, women aren't going to like it either way. Example: Height is genetically influenced, also nutrition is involved. Doesn't make women like short men any better.
I firmly believe that people looking to blame it all on DNA are insecure about who they are, and simply feel the need to find something else to blame the behavior on. Because in our society(s), for a male to behave or dress as a woman is considered a shameful thing, so men will naturally feel embarrased about it, and when you add that to the concept of not being in control of ourselves (which is another thing women don't like in men), it all comes down to excuses for our behavior. And no one wants to hear excuses. Ever. They just want men to stand up and do 'the right thing', and us dressing as women, in their minds, isn't it.

[Cheryl T]

I stand firmly in the genetic camp.
My reasoning is simply that I feel it's visible that way in my family. My father had 2 brothers and between them there are 4 boys. My 3 cousins are all gay and I...well, you all know that one. We grew up in different families, different times (there's about 25 years from oldest to youngest) and different experiences. I don't see how this similarity could be anything but genetic.
As for what I would do about it.
Nothing! That definitive knowledge would not change my attitude or my choices any more than if I knew my kids might have red hair or green eyes or even the possibility of some disease. The diversity of life is what makes this world unique and exciting, even when some of that variance is not what some would consider to be the best choice.

Let's take this a bit further.
If you knew that the baby your spouse was carrying definitely had the gene for Crossdressing or Transsexualism would you choose to abort that fetus??? I think not!! Or have we come full circle back to the 1930's and through either DNA testing or manipulation decided to create our own Master Race??

[mariehart]

I don't know if it's inherent but there has to be something at work because so many men crossdress. Of course society in general has always like to keep male and female in separate roles and in general men are expected to express themselves as masculine at all times. In the past women at to some extent were also expected to be effeminate. Being an effeminate man is frowned on.

But is nature quite so concerned with sex roles. I personally don't believe the difference between the sexes is a broad as we tell ourselves. Men and boys learn to avoid anything that might be considered effeminate behaviour or interests. I see it in my youngest son who is becoming aware of the differences and has begun to reject anything that might appear female. I suspect a lot of it is coming from interacting with his friends at school. He certainly didn't get it from me.

So maybe crossdressing is an attempt to re-establish our female side, normally suppressed. If society didn't have such an emphasis on masculine behaviour in men and allowed people to express themselves freely maybe there would be no crossdressers.

i don't think all men have a strong female side but I do think men who crossdress do. At the moment the only outlet is to dress as a woman in order to free that side because even now feminine behaviour in men is barely tolerated.

[marshalynn]

I am not a DNA expert at all, but can you tell me how DNA makes you children look just like you if no traits a carried forward, something to think about.. Marshalynn

[GretchenJ]

Happy Thanksgiving Katie,

i also believe that it in our DNA, much like depression and bi-polar disorder is believed to be genetic as well. As to your questions:

1) Would it change your perspective about declaring this condition to a potential spouse before starting a relationship or having children?

No, even if it was scientifically proven today, it will take much time, maybe generations before this would be accepted by the masses. In my case, my "discovery" was recent, as I only thought it was more of a fetish than that of a social condition. Because of this after the fact acknowledgement of myself, I choose to keep it very private. However, if I was starting a relationship anew now, I would disclose it up front.


2) How would you feel about knowingly passing on something that we can accept is not wrong, but might still be a terrible burden or blight for those who are forced to accommodate this condition in their lifestyle or environment?

Honestly, I would not foster any blame, but I would offer as much support and understanding to those, providing my first hand experiences and trials.

[CONSUELO]

I see a lot of "I believe" in this thread but I have seen no proper evidence to say that we are cross dressers because of something in our DNA. Many opinions and even a few tantalizing clues but no proof that could stand up to scientific scrutiny. This is similar to the arguments about homosexuality, and we still don't see definite proof of what part of one's DNA encodes for it.

Adina's reply to this thread should be read by all.

[Katey888]

Thanks for your comments so far - it does raise interesting questions for me, particularly as the understanding of genetics progresses and we begin to see a lot more experimentation by the lovely scientists of the world.

As an example to help overcome some of the urban myth around genes - gene researchers now believe that they have identified genes associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) eg. Aspergers. These genes do not themselves cause ASD, but they are responsible for irregularities in foetal brain development that may then be influenced by pre-natal environmental factors, eg. hormones - and be aware that hormones are not just about gender, they are a complex and diverse family of compounds that regulate all sorts of physiological behaviour, including our development as infants. I put in my assumption that this was hereditary, of course, it could be genetic and have an environmental cause – organo-phosphates or GM wheat! – but I specifically wanted to discuss the hereditary aspect as there is a bit of a history of this that goes back and crosses cultures.

If it’s possible that genetic irregularities are responsible for ASD – a psychological and behavioural disorder – isn’t it also possible they could be related to transgender conditions, across the spectrum? Adina – thanks to you for your comments that prompted me to go away and dig for a suitable example.

Let's take this a bit further.
If you knew that the baby your spouse was carrying definitely had the gene for Crossdressing or Transsexualism would you choose to abort that fetus??? I think not!! Or have we come full circle back to the 1930's and through either DNA testing or manipulation decided to create our own Master Race??

Scary stuff Cheryl – and let me make it clear that I’m not espousing a regression back to eugenics, but gene therapy is with us today and is already being developed to address a range of – admittedly more serious and clearly defined - physiological hereditary conditions. Gene tinkering is carefully monitored and controlled, but you know darn well that some smart alec scientist out there will be doing things they shouldn’t be, and while a ‘cure’ for autism may be a good thing (as severe autism is generally perceived as a condition more detrimental to the individual than beneficial) how long would it take for some parties to be calling for a cure for homosexuality if a gay gene irregularity was ever discovered? The ethics of this aside, if there was a safe modification to remove the irregularity, some folk here have said they would take a pill for themselves, so how many would also be prepared to take one for their descendants…? Which does bring me to Adina’s other point:

What if the genes coding for TG also code for some significant health benefit or perhaps they code for a more passive behavioural nature. Is that desirable for your offspring or not?? Hmm tough one.

This is a tough one and a great point, Adina. I think it would need a great deal more study to understand what benefits it brings more than just an appreciation of “do these shoes go with this handbag?” I’m semi-joking because we may have some collective traits that are desirable, but without anyone properly studying how we are as a group (and probably categorising us!) we’ll never know that.

Partly I’ve been thinking about this because there is autism on my wife’s side of the family, but also because of a more obvious example experienced by a GG friend who was recently divorced, two children both around 7-9 years old, and one of the factors in the divorce was that the father suffered a known hereditary condition (similar to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) that causes pronounced scarring after wound healing. The mother noticed the symptoms of this when her daughter was quite young and the father was forced to reveal his pre-knowledge of the hereditary condition. Of course she’s fought within herself over whether the relationship would have developed to having children had she known about the condition beforehand, because both children are now subject to this for a lifetime. On balance, that and other factors, would probably have caused the relationship to founder early.

Consuelo - I have had to make assumptions to ask this question, but I've tried not to be unreasonable or irrational about them. I think our condition is begging for some more real, hardcore research and perhaps if there are any proper scientific types reading this they just might see their next thesis and research grant emerge from our pink, fluffy place.

Katey x

[Minerva Morgan]

I am fairly sure that the predisposition to Gender Variance is innate; that is it exists before birth rather than being wholly, culturally instilled after birth. There are two, fundamental reasons for this belief that are connected. First is that, in spite of social indoctrination, a significant number of very young persons persist in demonstrating Gender Gestalts contrary to those that are introjected upon them. This includes not only people who are Gender Variant but also people who are Gender Invariant but whose gender presentation is supposedly at odds with their sex. The second factor is that, especially amongst the Gender Invariant, they are often vocally and rebelliously insistent upon asserting their ‘preferred’ gender. People who are Gender Variant, by the very nature of their ability to adapt to situations, will be less obvious.

The question as to where this adamant insistence as to gender coming from in the very young can only be answered by the acceptance that there is some prenatal factor that creates a pattern of behaviour generally categorized as one of the three genders. Such a predisposition must necessarily be genetic in nature but is it a result of developmental anomalies (such as the male-female brain structure theories) or is it connected to a specific gene or subset of genes? If there were a specific gene or genes, then it would not be so much a predisposition as a predetermined pattern of behaviour and would also be inherited. I have not taken a really close look at this particular question except to find a general consensus that gender, while strongly influenced by prenatal development at least, is not hereditary nor, as in twin studies, necessarily specifically attributable to one’s DNA. For example, in studies on twins and Sexual Orientation one result seems to demonstrate that 52% of identical twins share the same Sexual Orientation and 22% of fraternal twins have the same Sexual Orientation where that Sexual Orientation was deemed ‘homosexual’. (There are no such things as ‘homosexual’ people as the term is based on a false premise so the findings are misleading in some respects.) These figures are hardly ratified or supported and similar studies vary greatly. Also the media has overly hyperbolized initial findings by trumpeting the ‘discovery of a gay gene’ where further studies later indicated matters were not so straightforward. What is generally accepted is that while there is a predisposition to a Sexual Orientation, it is not ‘hardwired’ by DNA as such, but influenced by prenatal development and even later socialization. For example, the theory that a first son creates an ‘immunity’ to ‘masculinization’ (i.e., rejecting the effects of male hormones) in mothers such that later sons tend to be ‘feminized’ to the degree that they share their mother’s androphilia (attraction to masculinity) without necessarily being overtly feminine themselves. This is possibly even more prevalent in families with larger numbers of children as a sort of reaction to higher rates of fecundity. The mothers, to have such large families, are generally highly androphilic themselves and, coupled with a reaction to initial exposures to male hormones, this results in sons inheriting that androphilia. Those sons may be wholly and invariantly masculine in gender and still be attracted to masculinity. It is a relatively recent concept developed piecemeal by different researchers, but nothing is definite. The concept that ‘homosexuality’ provides a wider, care-giving population (which is not a new concept by any means) is part of the overall idea. It is, however, one example of how certain personality traits can develop, be the result of inherited factors but not necessarily specifically genetic as in, for example, the colour of one’s hair. There would be, then, a predisposition, but not necessarily a certainty of gender.

It is Gender Variance that receives the most attention, but I feel that this may be an error. A plurality of individuals, it seems, are Gender Invariant and the nature of this invariance should be considered. I feel that the inability to experience a change of gender or even the absence of a need to change gender is the basis of a lack of understanding and therefore a lack of tolerance. It would seem rational in the face of human experience that, since sex is genetically determined, there would be a ‘standard template’ of prenatal development that would strongly predispose (but not necessarily fix) one to a specific pattern of gender. Hence the erroneous belief that sex determines gender. It is sort of the belief that the majority is always right (which they are not) combined with the belief that if one is different then something is wrong with them and it is their fault because they could ‘chose’ to be ‘normal’. A more meaningful set of situations that have been reported is the case of a transgender organization that only accepted cross-dressers and not transsexuals, the reports of transsexuals indicating a dislike of cross-dressers and of reports of feminist organizations rejecting transsexuals because (since they are not female) they are not women (although they are). Partially this is because transsexuals and feminists are generally Gender Invariant and tend to see sex and gender as being equivalent.

It is also the common inability to distinguish between sex and gender that creates difficulties in determining whether the predisposition to a gender is at least partially prenatally created. While one’s sex includes the biological mechanisms that generally create a specific predisposition the effectiveness of such events is not necessarily assured. Sex usually predetermines gender but not always. Also, most persons, regardless of sex or gender and regardless of whether they ‘match’, are Gender Invariant.

So, to me, gender seems innate, therefore at least partially genetic, but not hereditary. There may be a higher tendency in some societies towards Gender Variance, but it seems impossible considering the degree to which gender is ‘imposed’ in some societies to determine whether this is biological or the result of a greater degree of inclusiveness. What is clear is that, even in the most repressive polities Gender Variance seeks a mode of manifestation. It is more than a choice. It should also be clear that cross-dressing is not an indication of nor is it an impediment to Sexual Orientation or normality. The phenomenon of cross-dressing (in its more embellished state) I refer to as athenasing (‘dressing up to be attractive’) and is evident in both males and females.

I agree with LilSissySteve:

“Genes can't make you wear panties. The genetic material we carry around now predates clothing.”

While there may be a predisposition to gender and even a genetic basis for that predisposition, the actual presentation of that predisposition may vary. What we call ‘cross-dressing’ may be only one variation. In our culture, we exhibit gender not only through general behaviours but especially through clothing. Consider the concept of unisex clothing that has endured but has not necessarily become prevalent. Well, perhaps it has as men’s and women’s clothing, except in somewhat formalized settings (business, etc.) have become much more similar than they were 40-50-years ago. It is only because a distinction between articles of clothing as being ‘appropriate’ for males or females exists that cross-dressing is possible. One goal should be to discard that presumption and create the acknowledgement that clothing, regardless of the gender assigned to it, is suitable for both sexes. That is to get rid of the notion of cross-dressing and to accept that some people like to ‘dress’ and some don’t. This, however, would not mean that gender presentation would be absent; just that the assumption that one must be male to be masculine (or vice versa) is inaccurate.

I honestly cannot think of too many other variations of males expressing femininity, and would they be as noticeable? There has been a long debate concerning the ‘feminizing’ of North American males. One theory blamed it on schools that were ‘controlled’ by females (as most teachers at the time were female). This theory failed to take into account the possibility teachers might simply be teaching young boys to be better people interested in a wider range of activities and ideas. It also failed to take into account the fact that most curriculums were created by males and/or by persons with fairly inflexible ideologies. Perhaps, in fact, most people are predisposed to femininity most of the time. Again, gender is not determined by sex and there is nothing wrong, or, indeed, unusual, in any person being whatever gender they wish to be, varying that gender or blending genders. Gender is, after all, as much a matter of conventions that are subject to revision as anything else. Sewing was, once, largely feminine but not necessarily so now.

I understand that there are males who have an avid interest in My Little Pony. Whether this is indicative of gender or whether my own fondness for Hello Kitty is an indication of my own femininity is not clear to me. Perhaps there are alternatives to cross-dressing as a means of exhibiting Gender Variance, but I suspect they are more of the repressive, sublimation type. Also, cross-dressing may not be so much an anomaly as it is the healthy ability for some to accept, at least within ourselves, our predispositions. Gender Variance, while possibly in the minority, may be far more prevalent than is permitted.

Minerva.

[Marcelle]

Helloooo Katey . . . quiet Isha here ,

Fun question and while many have already discussed the nurture/nature debate I am going to attack this from the science perspective before I answer the questions

What you are really talking about is inheritance of disorders and genetics. The key players in this field are mitochondrial mtDNA which is related to the passage of disorders/diseases in familial lines. If we are to assume that CDing was a disorder (akin to something like hemophilia, cystic fibrosis) then yes I suppose it could be passed down the familial line. Now if that were the case then we would have to determine if it is "Autosomal Recessive Inheritance" or "Maternal Inheritance".

With autosomal recessive inheritance, remember that we all have two copies of virtually every (nuclear-encoded) gene; one each from our mother and father. Only one of these two genes randomly enters an egg or sperm as they are formed. One gene from both egg and sperm results in the baby having two copies of that gene. With autosomal recessive inheritance, both parents are carriers in that they have one copy of the gene that is defective. They are not affected because they also have a normal copy of the same gene. If both the egg and sperm carried the defective (bad, mutant) gene, then the child will have no working (good, normal) copies, and will manifest the disorder. In this instance 25% of the children will manifest the disorder, 50% will inherit only one bad gene from one bad parent and become a carrier but not manifest and 25% will not manifest at all.

With maternal inheritance children inherit their mitochondrial DNA only from their mother, unlike nuclear DNA which comes from the mother and father. Girls will always pass on a mtDNA mutation (genetic error or defect) and boys will never pass on a mtDNA mutation. Thus, a child shares the same mtDNA sequence as does his/her siblings and mother, but not his/her father. In addition, the mother's siblings and her mother (the child's maternal aunts, uncles and grandmother) and more distant maternal relatives also share this same mtDNA. In practice, siblings and the mother often are affected with variable manifestations of energy deficiency, while the maternal aunts, uncles and/or grandmother are sometimes affected.

So taking the above into account and your original questions:

1) Would it change your perspective about declaring this condition to a potential spouse before starting a relationship or having children?

I know it is autosomal recessive:

Yes it would and not because I think being TG is a bad thing. More so because it is something that both parents should have an active decision about. However in this case it takes two to produce the disorder and my spouse would have to have the recessive gene as well and even then it is a 25 % chance the child will be affected with TG tendencies.

I know it is maternal inheritance:

I might disclose but then again the child will not manifest the disorder based on my genes as my wife to be would have to be a carrier for this to occur.

2) How would you feel about knowingly passing on something that we can accept is not wrong, but might still be a terrible burden or blight for those who are forced to accommodate this condition in their lifestyle or environment?

I guess it depends how society adapts around the discovery that it is genetic. It is likely that given a genetic predisposition then society may become more tolerant and open to those afflicted with TG. If that were the case then I probably would be fine so long as I am there to guide and nurture the young person forward. If the world was a full of DBags and the world looked upon us like lepers then I would probably choose not to have children. But again if my wife did not carry a recessive gene it would not be an issue because it could not be passed on by me alone.

Hugs

Isha

[Stevann]

Being a CD, and not knowing of any transgenders in my larger family, I had no reason to believe it comes from our DNA.

But a few weeks ago, my son announced that is he trying to figure out where he fits in the transgender spectrum - that perhaps he is a transsexual woman. Well, now I have to reconsider my original thoughts about DNA.