Nature vs Nurture

[Sasha Anne Meadows]

A friend and I are dicussing whether being trangendered is the product of nature or nurture.

We were thinking that we t girls are probably born this way but someting in our background triggers it. Thus it is both nature and nurture.

We are wondering what other t girls think about that.

[Nicole Erin]

Eternal question.

My upbringing - Had a masculine dad, feminine mom, a feminine little sister, masculine friends, pretty girlfriends, never was punished with things like having to wear girl clothes, never met a gay or TG person in real life til I was out of high school, basically the whole "normal" childhood. Tho I did like to wear girl things as early as like 6 or 7. Just seemed like the thing to do.

I am going to go with "nature". Just my point of view.

EDIT - Keep in mind some of the stories you read about how some TG were punished as at some point in life by having to join girl scouts or being dressed up and paraded around the neighborhood in a dress, most, if not all, of those stories are pure fiction.

True that sometimes, something in early life could trigger the TG-ness, but it would be unknown exactly what. The event probably was NOT cause they had to go to church and cut grass all summer wearing a ball gown and pretty ribbons in their hair, over some small crime like breaking out the neighbor's window.

[StevieTV]

Nature vs Nuture, the unanswered question of our being. No one knows.:daydreaming:

[LisaM]

I had a similar experience as Nicole. My earliest memories are of wanting to be a girl. I started dressing as young as 4 or 5. So I think it is nature.

[Melissa in hose]

I grew up in a "normal" household- one day I saw my mother's nylons hanging on the towel rack after being washed and I tried them on. I was hooked. I beleive we all have tendencies for certian things and certain likes and dislikes, such as blondes vs. redheads, or tacos vs. hamburgers, and it boils down to the behavior you follow after you try what you like. We as humans will continue to do things that feel good to us even if they are not good for us, such as smoking, but we all try things as we grow and have a certain propensities to follow certain desires, that is what makes us as humans different.

[linnea]

Although my mom nurtured my crossdressing some--having me wear panties when I was very young--I think that there's an element of nature related to this too.
But I think that humans are great experimenters, especially during childhood, and I experimented with my mom's girdle one day, she saw me and didn't say anything one way or the other, and I (not having been chastised) was hooked. I was seven then. I've been experimenting with crossdressing ever since.

[Lorileah]

I think last time this came up it was nature 3-1 :) Nature is most likely in the same manner as you are left handed, athletic, gay. You could be "made" to do these things but like they say in the world of pro-sports, you have to have the gift to make it work. Of course you also have to have the tools to make it work. No women's clothing...no crossdresser. Just like no baseball bat, no Babe Ruth.

[Karren H]

Personally I always thought it had something to do with alien abduction!! But I'll never know so I really can't answer the question... And I really don't want to know because it wouldn't change anything..

[Carly D.]

Yes.. in fact yes.... I think that would be true... how would you explain it.. I like certain girly things, but not all.. and.. yes.. sure.. makes no sense but then again makes all the sense in the world same as what cross dressing is about to me.. I love it and I hate it (not) and mostly I don't understand it and have no clue how to explain why I do it... or why I feel like I have to do it.. just off center a bit... I guess

[lari]

Has to be nature, when I was little maybe 5 or 6 (a long time ago) I started. Back then no one had heard of transgendered or any other terms of this nature. No internet, nothing on TV, the movies, or books and everything else being normal how else would I have gotten here?

[Briana Blonde]

Nature. Nurture is merely a part of nature.

[SusanMarie]

Both...and I don't know how much of each...nor do I try to figure it out.

[Gabrielle Hermosa]

We were thinking that we t girls are probably born this way but someting in our background triggers it. Thus it is both nature and nurture.

Although there are probably variations in the ultimate reason for crossdressing (as in what causes one to do so), I wholeheartedly believe it is nature, period.

I believe it is nature, and that people may "find" things in their lives that they feel "justify" their reason for starting crossdressing. I believe people often have a need to find a reason or cause that is logical to them when the true reason or cause may not be something they can grasp or even know about.

An artist gets into art because they're genetically prone to have an interest and likely a talent for it. There may be something that introduces an artist to their genetically-prone skill: perhaps they saw a beautiful painting and knew they could do that, or perhaps their art teacher in school exposed them to things they found a deep interest in. Regardless, that interest, skill, whatever you want to call it was already there. If exposed to nothing at all (no "trigger"), it would have eventually manifested itself in ways that the artist created on their own.

Aside from the variations and differences that exist in everyone, I believe what I just spelled out is the basis for most crossdressers. It's really not very different than what was initially presented, though I don't believe that the "nurture" has much to do with the genetic existence of the desire to crossdress, or explore one's feminine side. :)

[MissConstrued]

An artist gets into art because they're genetically prone to have an interest and likely a talent for it. There may be something that introduces an artist to their genetically-prone skill: perhaps they saw a beautiful painting and knew they could do that, or perhaps their art teacher in school exposed them to things they found a deep interest in. Regardless, that interest, skill, whatever you want to call it was already there. If exposed to nothing at all (no "trigger"), it would have eventually manifested itself in ways that the artist created on their own.



I firmly believe there's an art gene... all those art classes I took, and still the only thing I can draw is bath water. But if someone with the gene grows up never picking up a pencil? Never has the medium to express it?

Thus, I would find it difficult to believe that a pair of knickers or pantyhose could trigger a lifelong obsession without something embedded in the psyche prior. Suppose a "crossdressing gene" were discovered -- what would happen if you took a child with the gene, and raised him in an environment completely void of clothing or any other manmade sexual differentiation, i.e. no "trigger?"

[battybattybats]

Scientists have found a gene that is more common in TSs than in Cispeople. They have found differences in some parts of the brain that are closer to female brains than male brains. When this is found in other parts of the brain it is associated with being Gay or Lesbian and a similar effect is found in the brains of people with Schizophrenia.

Nature component is therefore proven by science in at least many if not perhaps all TSs. These studies have not been done on CDs but the scientitst who did the study said they would expect that there would be mild and divergent forms.. in other words the science alone would predict the existence of mild or patial TS cases which would explain CDs.

As for Nurture. A significant proportion of gender-variant kids grow up not to be TS but to be Gay/Lesbian. When the gender variance is encouraged or accepted they are more likely to be TS than Gay, when discoureged the opposite. This is why the Gay Dr Zucker takes pink and girly things away from TG kids so that through that suffering some will be Gay that otherwise would be TS. He views that he is 'helping them' and that the depression, alcoholism and suicidal states of some of his victims.. er patients.. is an acceptable cost to prevent them being TS. Of course those kids who would turn out Gay or Lesbian if not accepted might come out as TS many years later and same for those he 'treats' but he doesn't consider that in his cruel program. And he's in charge of the official diagnoses of TS by the APA and I even heard he'll be in charge of the new standards-of-care treatment guidelines for TSs too!

However it is possible that nurture does play a siginificant part, via epigenetic gene activation or ome other method in determining which of those predisposed to be TS actually are TS.

But the nature component for at least some TSs and almost certainly some CDs is what Science says is so.


I firmly believe there's an art gene...

Actually there is evidence that it is the cause of Schizophrenia. The families of Schizophrenics show a higher-than-average degree of creativity so the theory is that there is a heightened-creativity gene whose side-effect is that every so often someone in the family will have Schizophrenia.


all those art classes I took, and still the only thing I can draw is bath water. But if someone with the gene grows up never picking up a pencil? Never has the medium to express it?

They'd likely be creative in another medium. Express the artistic creative urge in another form.


Thus, I would find it difficult to believe that a pair of knickers or pantyhose could trigger a lifelong obsession without something embedded in the psyche prior. Suppose a "crossdressing gene" were discovered

As I already say in this post they may have already found one gene that is likely part of that very thing. Though multiple genes are likely involved.


-- what would happen if you took a child with the gene, and raised him in an environment completely void of clothing or any other manmade sexual differentiation, i.e. no "trigger?"

Ah but neurology suggests some aspects of the male-female divide are natural and others artificial. So I expect they'd gravitate to whatever natural divide there is even if it is hidden by a culture of androgyny. Were there CDs in China during the era of the Mao-suit? I'm sure there were.

[LilSissyStevie]

Neither nature nor nurture...the devil makes me do it.:devil:

Give him his due!

[MissConstrued]

As for Nurture. A significant proportion of gender-variant kids grow up not to be TS but to be Gay/Lesbian. When the gender variance is encouraged or accepted they are more likely to be TS than Gay, when discoureged the opposite. This is why the Gay Dr Zucker takes pink and girly things away from TG kids so that through that suffering some will be Gay that otherwise would be TS.


Now that is interesting. That's very plausible, too.

I was just reading the other night about the "muxe" (a term used interchangeably for gay or "third gender") in the town of Juchitan in Oaxaca, Mexico. They are well accepted and celebrated in the town -- where there does seem to be a far higher occurrence of TG than homosexuality -- though they're not mutually exclusive. They can be gay or straight, but they typically do not form relationships -- rather they live their lives as women/artisans, frequently living with parents and caring for them. Recommended reading.

Maybe when you offer another pigeonhole (TG) for kids to fit in (other than gay or straight) they'll choose it. Presto, less gayness. Should make the religious conservatives happy, no? :straightface:

[battybattybats]

Update!

From http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11055/psychiatric-times-gender-identity-disorder-has-accepted-practice-caused-harm about current conflict in psychiatry including TG protests of the APA was this:


Sidney W. Ecker, MD, a former clinical professor of urology at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, and chief of urology at the Washington DC VA Medical Center, was scheduled to review studies documenting that factors that influence gender identity are present before birth. While social and hormonal influences act later during childhood, he wrote, "gender identity is determined before and persists despite these effects."2


Before birth! And that nature and nurture are both involved but the nature persists!

Also important was this:

Diane Ehrensaft, PhD, a professor at the Wright Institute in Berkeley, Calif, had a message more difficult for psychiatrists to hear. "The mental health profession has been consistently doing harm to children who are not 'gender normal,' and they need to retrain," she told Psychiatric Times. Ehrensaft has specialized in therapy for foster children as well as for children with gender issues...

[DonnaT]

Mostly nature, as I believe for many, those who are trans in some way or another, the way our brain was wired contributed to being trans.

For me, a little nurture is thrown in there as a result of 1) seeing a neighbor dress her brother, which triggered the desire in me to want to change places with her brother, and 2) the feeling that this is right resulting from trying on some clothes a few years later. Without those two triggers to close some trans switch already wired in the brain, I'd probably be one of those unwary trans individuals. Like someone who may be predisposed to alcoholism, but they aren't an alcoholic until it is triggered by their first drink.

There was a poll last year (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84379)(now locked).

[DonnaT]

As for Nurture. A significant proportion of gender-variant kids grow up not to be TS but to be Gay/Lesbian. When the gender variance is encouraged or accepted they are more likely to be TS than Gay, when discoureged the opposite.
Which is what Zucker and some of his ilk want everyone to believe, so they can keep getting more child patients.

They've not provided any long term studies to prove their teaching. I reckon they've just found another way to have some of these children hide their true selves, like some of us did without their so called therapy.

[battybattybats]

Which is what Zucker and some of his ilk want everyone to believe, so they can keep getting more child patients.

They've not provided any long term studies to prove their teaching. I reckon they've just found another way to have some of these children hide their true selves, like some of us did without their so called therapy.

Actually i followed up a link to the source of part of that article I quoted from which goes further. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1415037


To document the harm that has been done, she cited a January 2009 article in Pediatrics that found homosexual and bisexual young adults to have highly significant increases in a history of depression, illegal drug use, unprotected sex, and attempted suicide if their parents had rejected their sexual orientation.3 That study, in turn, cites numerous others over the prior decade with similar results, although none had previously examined parental rejection

Ehrensaft said she would advise psychiatrists at her presentation that their role today is to help children understand their gender identity—which may not be what the birth certificate says—and to support rather than pathologize or malign their parents. “There’s more evidence of harm now than even 10 years ago,” she added, “and also a developing field of practice that clearly demonstrates means of helping these kids.”


A program at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC, takes a different approach, offering in-person and online support groups to help families adjust to and help their children work through their own gender identity issues. Edgardo Menvielle, MD, MSHS, director of the program, was curious whether children seen in Washington have different mental health profiles than kids involved with the Toronto program. Based on Child Behavior Checklist ratings, he reported that the Washington youth showed “less pathological tendencies,” suggesting that peer support may “lessen manifestations of pathology in the child.”


Psychologist Ehrensaft said she’s eager to see studies that compare adults who received treatments intended to “normalize” their gender identities as children with those treated in more accepting environments. Meanwhile, she said, there is a move afoot to change the membership of the Task Force so that it is “more balanced.” She added that she hopes the protests do succeed in reorienting psychiatrists’ thinking about GID.

“We got homosexuality out of the DSM because of protests at the APA,” she pointed out. “Now it’s time to do the same with GID.”

[Sarah...]

That's all very interesting reading I must say. In my much simpler view, when I was very young, before I knew better I thought I was a girl. Then when the wrong stuff happened at puberty I suffered for a while before accepting I needed to do something about it. Then when I didn't keep the GP appointment I'd made (because I convinced myself I would be laughed out of town) I started the long process of nurturing the man it seemed I obviously was. 25 years of nurturing and emotional pain later and I'm now in the position of beginning my transition.

So I vote "Nature".

Sarah xxx

[TGMarla]

Well, for me, I fell into crossdressing quite by accident. Like most males, I found feminine clothing attractive. Let's face it, the package is often made more attractive by its wrapping. But for most guys, that doesn't translate into actually wanting to wear the clothes. Once I put on a pair of pantyhose, however, I needed to try on a skirt, then a dress, or a blouse, and a slip, and so on. So there was something there, some kind of predisposition, to make me want to crossdress.

My parents did not nurture me into wanting to gravitate towards feminine attire. I did this to myself. So you could say that I nurtured myself into full-blown crossdressing, but I already had to want to do it.

[BillieJoe]

For me I believe it is soley nature. For as long as I can remember I've always wanted to be a girl. This perhaps was stimulated whenever I ran out of boys underwear and my mother dressed me in my sister's panties. That seemed to happen a lot. Also my sister being much older must have been much bigger than me. The panties always seemed to fit perfectly. There were times also that I would have to wear her socks and undershirts. Apart from that I never really associated any type of crossdressing with my desire to be a girl. Once I was cognizant of the fact that there was a real difference between boys and girls I struggled greatly to conform to the stereotypes associated with being a boy. Inwardly I was still a girl.

[susan2010]

I remember putting on a petticoat when I was 4 or 5, but I can't remember if that was the first time. Did my sister dress me before that? I don't know. Maybe I was just curious, but I don't know why. I remember even before that I had a "blankie" that had satin trim on it. Maybe that was the trigger for soft materials

[Sarah Doepner]

I had to wait for over 40 years to find anyone to nuture my nature. If it had been in my life prior to that I would have been a much happier individual.

[izzfan]

Interesting question, I'd have to say that it probably has more to do with nature than anything else. I was brought up as male and although I never really thought of myself as a "normal" boy, I still felt more male than female. When I first tried crossdressing at about 12/13 it felt interesting but, to this day, I can't remeber the exact reason why I thought it would be a good idea to wear a skirt that I found in a wardrobe of disused clothes in my house. The irony of this was that 6 months or so before I crossdressed for the first time, I was on a school/youth club retreat and some of the other boys decided to do a drag show for the talent contest they had at the end of it. When they asked me to dress up as one of the spice girls I ran away and hid for a while. It's strange how I can go from being terrified of wearing drag (let alone crossdressing) to being a crossdresser in the space of a few months to a year... perplexing.

Even after I started crossdressing (which near the beginning and until I was about 15/16, I considered it to be "just a fetish of some sort" - but one that I liked and yet couldn't explain) it took me a while to discover my feminine side which was a lot larger than I thought it would be.

The same holds true for my sexuality, when I was brought up , gay people were barely mentioned (except for in jokes/insults) and until I was about 17, I thought that I was totally straight. But even though I did feel some attraction towards women, the idea of doing anything more than kissing them repulsed me but it took me quite a while to work out why [I now consider myself to be no more than 20% straight].

I guess in both of these, I can't explain why I tended to gravitate towards both things. There may have been some social factors but I still think that it was something much deeper than that because I was raised as male and as straight but I still felt inclined towards occasionally showing a female appearence/personality and I discovered that I was no more than 20% straight.

Just my :2c:

[Carole Cross]

I have to say nature. I started dressing at three and from then I had always wanted to be a girl. I used to hang out with my sister a lot when I was younger but she was ab it of a tomboy so we didn't do much girly stuff.
I have wanted to transition since I was twelve but did not have the courage to go through with it although I almost did when I was sixteen buit I was caught dressing and that scared me off.
I kept my dressing secret and when I finally came out to my family, they had no idea of my desire to transition, so family life didn't influence me at all.

[Ralph]

I was just reading about the newfangled toy of "functional MRI" the other day - a guy had this done while he was told to look at a picture of his wife, then a picture of Angelina Jolie, while thinking about (a) sex (b) romance and (c) day-to-day living. It was fascinating how different parts of his brain lit up as active while he went through each test (and found that he actually does love his wife more than Angelina).

Anyway, I bet they could do a similar study on TGs. Ask a "straight" guy to think about getting dressed, putting on pants, putting on a dress, and see which parts of the brain light up; then do the same for a CD, a TS, and a gay man.

Somebody write up a grant proposal and let's get this study in gear.

ralph

[Ruth]

I think it's nature and I also think it is the result of a number of factors in combination.
Different mixtures and different strengths of the factors will produce the various flavours of CDers that we see.

[Patricia1]

It's clear to me from everything I've read, experienced, thought about or fancified that the "condition" severally summarized as cross dressing is, at its core, a biological imperative. When presented with an opportunity to express this imperative those affected will be unable to resist the expression. The behavior is learned and reinforced. Usually, acceptance follows. It looks like Nature put one over on us girls. So I say, it's only natural; resistance is futile. Enjoy!

[battybattybats]

It looks like Nature put one over on us girls. So I say, it's only natural; resistance is futile. Enjoy!

Worse, the evidence says resistence is harmful!

I'm seeing that fact underlined more and more the more i learn about it. Some of the links and quotes I put in this thread really make that clear.

This has profound implications for everyone. For SO's who must acknowledge that any limitations they put on their spouse, no matter how needed for their comfort, is harming their spouse and may lead to symptoms of mental illness from depression to alcoholsim that will also harm the family.

That doesnt mean that easing the SO into acceptance gradually isn't vital for the relationship, but it does mean they must be aware of the risk they take with every iota of restriction.

It also means that we CDs must consider that remaining in the closet, especially deeply, has harmful consequences on ourselves and may lead us to depression, substance abuse, aggressive behaviour even domestic violence and suicide all of which will harm our loved ones. And we must weigh the harm we imagine coming out may have to the harm of inflicting the symptoms of closetting upon them.

And again we all, CDs and SOs together, must consider the harm our being closetted and inactive does to society! In that it allows young CDs to grow up closetted too knowing that they too will suffer, that many TG kids WILL commit suicide if we do nothing and that some TG people growing up in deep repression will MURDER other out TGs in Internalised Transphobic Violence.

So even those who cannot come out need to be active, those who are out need to be active especially if they pass. We all need to make self-acceptance and acceptance of others not a pleasant goal but a critical need for ourselves and our families.

Resistance causes harm.

[Jenniferpl]

Nature all the way. Just try stopping and see were nurture gets you. No one in my life nurtured my cross dressing.

[mklinden2010]

I'd vote for natural, normal, or, common - as opposed to an abnormal, unnatural, or uncommon genetic variation....

Seems that what is unsaid in most the responses is that there are genetic variations between people that account for some of these behavioral differences and that CDers and the like ARE the less normal, or, less common, variations.

I'd argue that everyone, or, the majority of people are actually wired up to respond to nerve stimulus in about the same way. In other words, this is common behavior because the common gene arrangement, not a variation, responds favorably to certain stimulus. It's the variants that "can't" get it and who insist there's something wrong with what feels good to so many others. It's a mistake on their part: "If it doesn't work for me, it must not be right." Must? Maybe the reason it doesn't work for them is because THEY are different; "right" has nothing to do with it; you either have brown eyes or you don't.

An apparent logical failure to come up with one theory that covers ALL "normal" and "abnormal" responses results in constant bickering and power struggles over what's "right." Do you suppose the variants, under my theory, want to suddenly find themselves in the new minority? But, I think they must be, else how can this behavior we're discussing always have been with humanity and to have often been tolerated/celebrated instead of simply wiped out like some early human variants or the passenger pigeon?

Young boys have all the nerve endings in place to respond to smooth fabric, etc. Young women and older women, given the choice, select what feels good to wear. Put that on a boy or man, and, "Surprise!" it feels good to them. Not the same, perhaps, but good enough, or, maybe even better... And, the "double whammy" for boys and men is being visually wired to respond, a bit more than most females, to what they see in the mirror, not just what others see them wearing. The primitive brain is simple and responsive, "HEY, THAT LOOKS LIKE... SCORE!" Is it unnatural to like honey? Honey is, you could argue, bee vomit. But, there you go: "I don't care what it is, the fact is that it tastes great!"

This would account for a lot of people, having never given CDing a thought, suddenly finding this a good behavior to repeat. If would also account for a lot of the trauma that comes with having to reject something that, at some level, works - but which "must" be avoided. Much of that avoidance, it seems to me, is not about avoiding the pleasure that is so obvious to the actor, but from avoiding the "social" pain from the audience which makes less sense but is still there to deal with none the less.

Think of social "taboos." At one time or another, most made some sense, but when removed from their context, actually do more harm than good. The current issue of gays (not) in the military, for example... An idea whose time has come and gone - far fewer people, especially young people, care what someone else does on their own time. "If all gays would rape all men in the barracks, what's to keep all the heterosexuals from raping all the women in all the branches of the military every ****ing day?"

People are people. When they know more, they change their behavior to create the current society, or, perhaps, the "better" society of the future.

I don't think you have to root out the "abnormal" genetic cause for a lot of behavior. I think what you have to do is look at the "abnormal" thinking and mores that make some behavior taboo - and brush it aside when it's just a waste of time and energy to debate it.