Amazing imprinted early minds

[Julie Gaum]

Part 3 (Sorry but parts 1 and 2 may be found in the Lounge)
The majority of those children that would find themselves in the CD community were wrestling with strange, unsettling feelings and emotions during these infant years though few are/were aware or able to recall --- awareness by other CDs came later in life and they still wonder, understandably, where that uniqueness originated. Did that major event --- the wiring of connections being almost completed during this period ---
contribute in some degree to the CD persona?
In no way do I denigrate all of the studies and research that formed our knowledge of unbalanced chromosomes or the genetic effects contributed by H. Benjamin and others. However, from my observations of birds (Part 1 and 2) --- not the smartest of our fellow creatures, the thought entered my noodle that our initial wiring - infinitely greater than that of these geese who possess abilities far out of proportion to the tissue capacity of their skulls --- must contribute a greater measure towards our unique gender development --- exposure to our early environment --- than we heretofore gave credit.
Another tidbit to ponder.
Julie

[Beverley Sims]

I have experimented with imprinting of chickens and birds.
I have hand reared birds from the egg hatching and I am their greatest friend.
Children when young have seen their parents cross dressed when they are one and two years old.
This is also imprinted in their minds, and a shock when their parents find out.

[Julie Gaum]

Thank you Bev for your observations --- adds to my yet unproven theory that inclinations towards CDing may just have an initial influence through imprinting --- and a greater factor than so far admitted by the "expert associations".
Julie

[suzy1]

Interesting Julie.

Whenever I think of this argument for CDing I naturally think of my own ‘early years’ I don’t think I could have had a more normal early life. Two loving parents and three brothers. A happy life in a normal semi detached house.

You can always make the argument that there was some kind of ‘imprinting’ going on that I have no recollection of but I think its highly unlikely.

And yet there I was, dressing in my grandmother’s night dress at about four years old.

I have real doubts about this Julie. But I have been wrong before.:straightface:

[Jennifer in CO]

If I was living as a woman, would that still be cross-dressing?

Just funny (or not) thought that went through my head as I was reading the OP and comments. Our oldest daughter was about 3 and 1/2 when I transitioned back to living as a male. It was her calling me "Mommy" that triggered my wifes desire to have a "man" in her life again...jealousy, what ever but before that, and after that, she called me "Daddy". We never were sure what caused the sudden change, and conversion back, but for about 2-3 days she called me "Mommy" as well my wife.
Imprinting?...When asked/pushed/etc, the earliest memories she can work up were her 5th birthday. Maybe it would be different for a boy, but our daughter is/was fine. When I had surgery in 91 and wore a skirt for almost 3 months she didn't say anything or hint that she had seen such activity before. I'll admit that during that time, she had none of her friends over (the house was a revolving door prior and after) so either she was embarrassed or protective of her family life...not real sure...

[Julie Gaum]

I don't think that I communicated properly. There is now sufficient scientific proof that the human brain is most active in making neuron connections from inutero to the end of the 5th year of life and then slowing down more and more as the brain ages. In addition, or perhaps as part of that early imprinting, the "Sixty Minutes" topic illustrated that the infant was also learning from visual cues "bad" action from "good" action and so much more that researches are now gaining insight. Accepting the components that are already known --- chromosome mix,
the Benjamin theory and so on --- that alter physical and/or mental appearance or thinking --- these are, evidently, the major influences that create our gender/sexual identities ---granted! Many of us also believe that a "trigger" early or later in life seems to react on some that slants them to CDing while for most persons that "trigger" has no effect whatsoever. There has been no explanation that I know about (doesn't mean that somebody hasn't offered an explanation). My hypothesis is that a small percentage of males and females have been imprinted by sound and visual means in a manner that that "trigger" causes them to become CDs. I think we all agree that imprinting has no influence on whether one is born bi-sexual or homosexual as environment is not a causation for them. Good example of that are the children reared by same-sex couples but those children's genders are no different than in the rest of the population. Suzy's experience merely indicates that we need to look elsewhere for her (and others) causation but doesn't negate the hypothesis --- only means that there is so much more we need to learn.
Hope there is some validity in the above.
By the way, I will post in the Lounge how my geese snookered me today.
Julie

[Jenniferathome]

Humans are not ducks. In fact, humans can not imprint because babies have no visual acuity. Imprinting has the same credibility as "past lives" it's nonsense.

No "event" makes a cross dresser. We are genetically programmed to be this way, just as gay people are programmed to be gay.

[ReineD]

Here's an interesting article about sexual imprinting in humans, from the University of Minnesota:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/ISF27.html

It makes sense to me.

[Rachelakld]

I suppose that being around attractive and intelligent females during my earliest days up to now, and the fact that beautiful clothing was off limit to me is a major factor of imprinting. My female sub personality was allowed to develop as a coping mechanism for the imprinting.
Reasonable assumption
I prefer the multiple lives concept as it fills more holes than imprinting for me, yet your truth could still be significant

[Jenniferathome]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/ISF27.html

Come on... this is psychobable at its worst: "And the process of schooling is intended to teach the information we all need in order to live successfully in the adult world. But consider this contrast: Even tho many hours are devoted to teaching arithmetic, most adolescents are much more interested in sex. In short, their brains are ready for every little bit of sexual input, but they seem to have no ‘area’ of the brain for math imprinting."

I think simple genetics explains this. Cavemen didn't need calculus to kill a Mammoth. But they NEEDED to procreate or they be extinct. This nut seems to be using "imprinting" for genetics.

and his credentials:
James Park, attended public school and the University of Minnesota,
where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree (philosophy and humanities).
He also holds a Master of Divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

He's no scientist

[ReineD]

Oops. I usually do check the credentials. I'll read the whole thing and then see if there isn't more elsewhere.

[LilSissyStevie]

The imprinting hypothesis at least makes sense. The idea that there is a crossdressing gene is the height of lunacy. How does this gene, for example, know about open bottom girdles and fully fashioned stockings? :heehee: Where is the scientific evidence for a crossdressing gene? It's just an updated version of "The devil makes me do it.":devil:

[ReineD]

I only had the time to look briefly yesterday for more knowledge about imprinting. There are many studies (look at scholar.google.com) at least in the area of human imprinting when it comes to mate selection. I would like to find more about sexual imprinting, but access to academic libraries is useful for this. :p

Another thought, is how people develop unorthodox sexual behaviors that are so entrenched they cannot be changed. Whereas learned behavior can be changed. If imprinting is not the explanation, then what is?

[Jenniferathome]

...Where is the scientific evidence for a crossdressing gene?

it's right next to the gay gene. Funny, no one seems to debate the gay gene any longer and yet there is zero proof of it, except that we all know one does not choose to be gay any more than we choose to be straight. I never choose to be a cross dresser. If it were a choice, there would be a lot fewer cross dressers. Tamara cited a statistic of the registered users here. MORE than 100,000 cross dressers. Choice is not an explanation for that number nor for cross dressing.

[ReineD]

Jennifer, this is indeed the largest CD support forum that I know of. But still, 100,000 people compared to the total male adult population that uses the internet is a very small amount.

I think the root causes for the CDing is a combination of epigenetic influences and childhood sexual imprinting (which I would like to see studied) which then becomes embedded in later years. We can't say that all crossdressers were exposed to a hormone wash in utero, nor can we say that all crossdressers are fetishists even if it does begin sexually for many boys, at least according to the reports in this forum and in several studies.

Also, isn't the hormone wash theory more applicable to transsexuals than crossdressers?

[Jenniferathome]

Reine, indeed the forum members here are small compared to the population at large, but I'd be willing to bet that the total number of forum members of all forums on the planet is still a small percent of the population at large.

The hormone wash theory I think covers cross dressers, homosexuals, transexuals, and straights. How much and when makes for an interesting cocktail and a very different result, I think. The reason that imprinting doesn't work for me is that the human mind can not take an event and store that with any logic for years. Language resides is an area of the brain. So when language happens, it is stored in that area. Connections are made with repeated use millions and millions of times. There is no local area for weirdo sexual events. Such things would be randomly stored and lost for lack of use because millions of connections are not being made every day for years, like language. A duck's brain imprints for survival. Humans don't have to do that and have no need to imprint.

Commenting on my own experience only, there was never a time when cross dressing was exposed to me in any way prior to my own interest. There is no external factor in my history, in the remotest sense, that could account for my cross dressing. So the idea that somehow, some event that occurred prior to my memory (I can remember all the back to my 5th birthday) somehow caused my cross dressing doesn't fly. THAT'S voodoo. That's past lives theory. Can't be disproven, just like Noah's arc. But that doesn't make it real. Genetics do make sense and are real.

[ReineD]

The hormone wash theory I think covers cross dressers, homosexuals, transexuals, and straights.

I don't know that it's a hormone wash specifically (it's still just a theory), but I too suspect that most forms of non-hetero normative natures are, for lack of a better term, a form of intersex. I know that we tend to think of intersex as a condition where the people have either ambiguous or non-standard primary sexual characteristics, but I've often wondered if intersex conditions can't be more subtle in nature, affecting a person's brain chemistry which would inform gender ID and sexual preference without necessarily affecting primary sexual characteristics. The effeminate gay male, and the masculine butch lesbian come to mind (even though all gay men are not effeminate and all lesbian women are not butch and they do identify with their birth sex). I also do believe that other hetero CDers begin for purely sexual reasons (they do have a solid male identity), not unlike people who develop sexual preferences for objects or situations rather than human partners - and further, these preferences are deeply ingrained. This is what I referred to earlier as imprinting and I would like to learn more about the causes for such conditions.



How much and when makes for an interesting cocktail and a very different result, I think. The reason that imprinting doesn't work for me is that the human mind can not take an event and store that with any logic for years ...

I hear what you're saying, but so much of the causes for non-standard human development is unknown, that I am not willing to rule out alternative theories. As mentioned, I would like to learn more about the physical mechanics of imprinting both in animals and humans. It is difficult to imagine that in humans, it only affects mate selection based on parental influences.

[Rachelakld]

Considering the fact our bodies are re-newed about every 7 years, with every cell being replaced, Hormonal wash theory I would tend to cap at 7 years max (actually shorter as my daughters have hormonal washes every month that last for only a few hours), as to genetics no one in my family has ever come out as CD or TS or anything else other than the "standard human" model.

When we consider brain injurys and see the lengths the brain re-routes and compensates for damage where it can, or how normal people can have depression for a month or a year and snap out of it, I would put hormonal wash and genetics at the bottom of the long list of whys and start looking at the spiritual energies within the body (only applicable for those bodies that have a soul or spirit)

[Amy R Lynn]

Very interesting topic!

I think that the desire to cross dress or be more feminine is part of our likes and dislikes. Why do you like a certain flavor of Ice Cream? I happen to REALLY REALLY love the color pink. I would wear it all the time if I could.

I don't know that imprinting had anything to do with my desire to CD. My mother never dressed me in girls clothes or anything like that. My home was certainly a very normal male household. My brother and I would play football, wrestle, and play in the mud.

I can remember at a young age wishing that I could wear a dress, and get my hair braided. When we would go to the store, I was always envious of the things available to the girls. The boys only had a couple of aisle's. All of the boy's stuff was dull colored and didn't smell pretty like the girls stuff.

I think it all boils down to the "This is what we like" factor. I don't know that anyone can really explain why we like the things that we do. I know our brains reward us for doing the things that we like, but we don't know why it does.

I have to think that imprinting young kids could have an effect. For instance, I'm quite certain that had my mom dressed me as a girl and primped me and did more girly things with me, I would be a lot farther along with accepting my CD'ing. However, had my mom done the same thing to my brother, he wouldn't have liked it at all, and would have been traumatized from it. It could have some effect if the desire was already there!

[Jenniferathome]

...I also do believe that other hetero CDers begin for purely sexual reasons (they do have a solid male identity), not unlike people who develop sexual preferences for objects or situations rather than human partners - and further, these preferences are deeply ingrained. This is what I referred to earlier as imprinting and I would like to learn more about the causes for such conditions....

I sure can't explain that. But imprinting doesn't make any more sense to me as an answer to that either. Actual discovery and proof of a "gene" or other scientific explanation would be fantastic, but then those affected would fear the "cure."

[ReineD]

I spoke to my SO about this earlier. Apparently (I didn't realize this), "imprinting" at least in animals is a one time impression that causes bonding for life! For example, the first time a baby duck opens his eyes, if the mother isn't there and he sees something or someone else, then he will take it for his lifetime that the substitute is his mother. I agree that it doesn't work this way with humans.

But, I think there are events in our lives (for some people ... not everyone), that mark us profoundly and alter our behaviors in certain areas for life. I'm thinking specifically of people who develop deeply embedded fetishes or perhaps other sexual behaviors. This is what I was thinking earlier, when I used the term "imprinting". The life-changing event is more than "learning".

[Jenniferathome]

?.. But, I think there are events in our lives (for some people ... not everyone), that mark us profoundly and alter our behaviors in certain areas for life. I'm thinking specifically of people who develop deeply embedded fetishes or perhaps other sexual behaviors.

I'm with you on this one. What I can't get behind are events that happen before memory. Events can "shape" us.

[Julie Gaum]

First I'd like to address a few posts. Often, when Jenn is dogmatic in regard to labels I agree completely but when one says: "humans cannot be imprinted" we are getting into bioscience that's still in its infancy. More later. Though Reine explained much of what I was expressing better than I can --- when Reine and Jenn both discard a hypothesis because that person is not a "scientist" I think you both have fallen in a trap. A few examples:Bill Gates and Paul Allen were both college dropouts; Tom Edison was initially not considered a scholar; Karl Benz went to college however his inventive skills created the internal combustion engine and Isaac Newton was "an undistinguished Cambridge student" but his genius flowed while in his private study. Point is that we can't discard a theory merely because that person didn't have a Phd..
I'd like to mention one example of what I would believe is inutero imprinting from me, a non-scientist: A relative possesed
almost complete memory recall plus could play a musical instrument or speak a foreign language in a few minutes of exposure --- his first (of 4) wives was a classical pianist--- while their first child was still in the womb he spoke French close to the fetus daily and the mother made a point of playing piano daily --- the infant apparently was able to do both within a few years of birth (not well but was learning extremely quickly). I grant you that's not a scientific study but one has to wonder. Now, without having the intelligence to understand fully what I've read from bioscientists: "Imprinted genes are those expressed when inherited from only one parent'. A recent study of 2000 Swedish children found possible links to autism and schizophrenia when exposed at early age to poverty-like environment! A rubella outbreak in the US in 1964 and pregnant women exposed to ethanol and thalidomide --- produced unusually high numbers of autisim along with other abnormalities. Early environmental influences both good and bad. Further the mapping of the human genomes (cost one billion bucks) has indicated that about 80 of them appear to be subject to imprinting (that word again). The first projects undertaken by neuroscientists with this new-found knowledge are to find cures for autism, schizo, dimentia and sexual abnormalities.
Why are some autistic people able to tell you what date Easter Sunday fell on in, say, 1888? Or able to play the piano fantastically with little training? And that "Sixty Minutes" illustration of infants able to distinguish a "good" puppet from a "bad" puppet without having obvious learning experiences whatsoever. Jenn, you "can't get it" and neither can I but there is so much to be learned that we can't allow ourselves to be dogmatic --- at least in this area. Are there gay genes? Maybe.
Is there a CD gene? Not likely. Can I explain the reasoning? Nope --- but someday maybe they will.
Julie

[Marcelle]

Hi all,

Thought I would weigh in . . . (oh no here she goes again). The problem with human cognition comparative to others in the animal kingdom (i.e., ducks) is that we have a heavily convoluted cerebral cortex (grey matter) in comparison to most mammals (the only exception is a dolphin which is one hundred plus times convoluted in comparison to humans . . . go figure). Humans cortex development begins early during gestation and ends about age 3 (we are plastic until that point). Executive functioning (pre frontal cortex) begins about age 3 and we become fully cognitively aware and explore our surroundings at the point (give or take a few months). We typically do not have memory recall until about age 5 although some people may recall fuzzy memories earlier but they are normally awash with inaccuracies.

Can we be ingrained with CD tendencies, it is hard to say. The neuroscience world knows little about how neuronal connections are made during development of higher cognitive reasoning. So did I see my sister in dress when I was three and go . . . hey I like that . . . not sure. Did I have a predisposition to wear feminine clothing ... possible. Was it sexual or genetic . . . who knows. In the end, we are what we are, even the world of neuroscience cannot explain it.

What we do know is that various senses are highly susceptive to memory recall ( sight, smell, feel). Is this linked to CD . . . who knows. Specifically, did the smell of your mother or other feminine figures in your life or the brush of silk when you were an infant make you CD . . . it is possible. However, why do we (the CD community) have a need to continually determine why we are the way we are. Can't we just accept it the same way a person accepts they are GG or GM (genetically male), homosexual or bisexual. We are what we are and if it is genetic, personality or imprinting we still need to accept it . . . Right?

Hugs

Isha

[LilSissyStevie]

it's right next to the gay gene. Funny, no one seems to debate the gay gene any longer and yet there is zero proof of it, except that we all know one does not choose to be gay any more than we choose to be straight. I never choose to be a cross dresser. If it were a choice, there would be a lot fewer cross dressers. Tamara cited a statistic of the registered users here. MORE than 100,000 cross dressers. Choice is not an explanation for that number nor for cross dressing.

Well I'm not much of a believer in the gay gene or the gender identity gene either but I think you could make a better argument for those than you can for a crossdressing gene. The beauty of the imprinting idea is that it bridges the nature/nurture divide. Nature supplies the algorithm and nurture supplies the initial data. I don't see how you can think that makes it a choice. It's kind of like language. Nature supplies the ability to process language but the language you learn comes from you environment. Once you learn your native tongue, it's almost impossible to unlearn. But there is no English gene. I bet you don't remember learning how to speak or choosing your native language. Imprinting is just learning at a critical period in your development. Imprinting also seems to happen outside critical periods if the stimulus is strong enough. PTSD, for example.

Also, I don't think that crossdressing per se is what is imprinted. Crossdressing is merely a symptom. But that's a subject for another day.

[MelanieB]

This is one of those discussions that we will never really find an answer to yet always amuse me.

As a rather long in the tooth ex scientist Ive never really understood how everything we see around us is basically produced from the same relatively small selection of elements chemically combined in a myriad of combinations.

Our bodies are made up of multi thousands of very different, very complex compounds, many of which our best research laboratories would struggle to synthesise, yet our bodies turn them out at will in usually just the right concentrations to keep us fit and well.

Our mind, whatever that is, seems to be a highly complex mess of electrical impulses somehow put together by another mulch of randomly produced chemical compounds (our brain).....trying to analyse these would make Bill Gates look like a complete amateur.

I reckon I probably have the best part of 50 billion (only a guesstimate) atoms randomly assembled into hundreds of thousands of different simple and complex compounds forming...."me".
All of this has taken place without any input from our collected human intelligence, these little atom chappies just go about their business as they see fit.......whatever makes us think we could ever get to the bottom of why we are who we are??

I know for one, I gave up worrying about it long ago......just my thoughts

[TheMissus]

Also, I don't think that crossdressing per se is what is imprinted. Crossdressing is merely a symptom. But that's a subject for another day.

I'd agree with this. I also think MANY things are a result of imprinting. Certainly sexual imprinting (fetish etc) has already been observed, but I read a research article the other day that was looking at partner choice stemming from imprinting on the opposite sex parent. Seems we do marry our fathers! (Or mothers)

Anyway, it's an interesting theory and I'd like to see more of it in the future. Not because they'd be a cure for CD as imprinting is as permanent as any birth gene, but because knowledge might give everyone a rest from this question :)

[Frédérique]

In no way do I denigrate all of the studies and research that formed our knowledge of unbalanced chromosomes or the genetic effects contributed by H. Benjamin and others. However, from my observations of birds (Part 1 and 2) --- not the smartest of our fellow creatures, the thought entered my noodle that our initial wiring - infinitely greater than that of these geese who possess abilities far out of proportion to the tissue capacity of their skulls --- must contribute a greater measure towards our unique gender development --- exposure to our early environment --- than we heretofore gave credit.

And we are SELF-AWARE to a fault, over-thinking everything and not doing what comes naturally. I think our bird friends have it right – they’ve evolved to a point where there isn’t any time to think too much about things. Their lives are exceedingly short, pushing maturity along at a fast pace, all with survival in mind…

It’s open to conjecture whether or not human self-awareness is a good thing or a bad thing, but we are too wrapped up in ourselves to care. This selfishness is often imprinted on young minds, and I can give a few examples to support that claim…
:straightface:

Birds: beautiful creatures, in all ways…:thumbsup: