Crossdressing a lifestyle choice or genetic?

[LindaG]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

Oh my sisters, please, please, stop analysing yourselves and just get on with it!

[Satrana]

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

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...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]

ask you to look at the real issue that cross-dressers across the universe are asking

Are these the real issues? LOL.

1. The %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]

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

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...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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[Tess]

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]

The creation of the human mind is not progress?

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

Severe mindwashing techniques have been shown to work.

Simlarly, define 'work'. 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...

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.

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.

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]

This just seems appropriate...

[battybattybats]

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]

" I think, therefore I am", a CD!

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

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

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

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

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

[curse within]

" I think, therefore I am", a CD!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satrana]

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]

Maybe this thread just needs be closed, it seems ?

[Satrana]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=battybattybats;1511580]

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]

[QUOTE=battybattybats;1511580]

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]

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.