"No Holds Barred"

[Dana]

I was thinking earlier tonight at work ~ (along the lines of John Lennon's song ~ "Imagine") What "if" there were no constraints to any given individual's child development. If there were no social and cultural conditioning for any given person ~ be they male or female ~ to conform to society's idea of what is male of female.

What I'm alluring to is Dr. Doctor's (actuual name) study about gender, transvestism and transexulism (I'm assuming any and all are familar with his ground break research and work) "nature or nurtrure" theory in which he concludes that approximately 40% (or more, given any given individual) is nature, and that 70% (or less) is nuture ~ and is the subject to "conditioning"
from the day that we're born.

And that gender dysporia is a function of re-conciling the sum difference between the two.

That is to say, that given the absent of "social and cultural" conditioning ~ that we would be the person's we end up becoming and being ~ that is to say we obtain an equlibilrium and reconciliation of our true "nature" and self we who we actually are?

Comments?

[Christina Nicole]

Sounds like the nonsense that John Money was pushing 40 years ago. It was nonsense then; it's is nonsense now. One of the doctors who helped to expose the lie, especially in the case of David Reimer is quoted in this article (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/13/ln/ln52a.html).

I posted about this elsewhere on the site. I also posted the results of a study that was publish in the NEJM. There are other scientic studies that debunk that nurture fairytale. There's no scientific data to back up nurture with regards to gender. If you have any data, I'd sure like to see it.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole

[Lauren_T]

It is pretty much acccepted by the present-day gender-science community that gender identity, like sexual orientation, is fundamentally biological (nature) and is modified only superficially by social and psychological factors (nurture). There are always dissenters, but unfortunately for them, their views are not supported by the scientific literature to date.

[Helana]

Dana

I agree. Without the social conditioning we would all be much happier people living the lives we should have naturally have lived with whatever gender/personality matrix we were born with. However that is not how society works, without rules and regulations there is no society just a collection of individuals. So in order for us to be the people we were supposed to be, we would have to be very individualistic and not have the close family/friendship bonds and live within a structured society. It is a catch 22 situation for us. John Lennon's "Imagine" is too idealist to ever work, alas.

If you are interested in exploring more about how powerful the nurture side can be then look into the "Mahus" from the Polynesian islands. This is a tradition where the first born male was brought up from birth as a female. The Mahus were considered to have special religious powers and brought good luck to their families as ordinary males living as women. Their job was to look after the children, look after their house, cook and wash etc, pretty much all the usual jobs women are tasked to do. They also looked and dressed as women but were not allowed to marry but typically had male suiters.

The Mahus are a classic example of how overwhelming social conditioning can be as these males chosen by their parents to be Mahus were not transgendered at all but still accepted their imposed female gender. The key here is that because Mahus were part of normal Polynesian society, there was no stigma to being a feminized male. Unfortunately as Christian missionaries entered Polynesia, the Mahu tradition was targeted as a sinful practice but it has been revitalised recently by CDs/gays interested in their own culture.

The reason why our gender dsyphoria often leads to crossdressing is because of our society's stigma with gender blending and the social pressure to conform to strictly defined gender roles which we CDs internally reject. Our Christian based culture is one of the worst for intolerance towards gender/sexual issues. I presently live in Asia and over here there is just not the fuss we Westerners make over crossdressing, the Asian attitude is just so much more relaxed and accommodating. The Polynesian society is so far the best example we have of allowing people to freely express themselves.

[Lauren_T]

However, Helana, your Mahu is a approved, traditional social rôle determined by birth order, not a genuine personal gender identity. Being a Mahu would appear to me from that fact to be an act of conformity, rather than an individual's own unique expression of where they feel they reside on the gender spectrum; the diametric opposite of self-expression, as it were...:)

Relatively primitive societies generally are far more dependant on clearly defined rôles and rituals than the contemporary West. Likewise, it pays to remember that societies differ greatly in the degree of importance they assign to self-expression. For we Westerners to assume that our culture's worship of self-examination and -expression is the norm for the human race in general, that is the epitome of ethnocentric hubris... ;)

[FionaAlexis]

Actually I'm not really sure what it means.

In my own case, is it saying that the fact my parents, school, society steered me towards the male behaviour - I ended up with gender dysphoria. Otherwise I would grow up a normal, happy tranny? Or a normal happy female with dangly bits?

Fiona xx

[Dana]

Outstanding post by one and all!:thumbsup:

Me? Peronsally, I subscribe to the "nature" side of the argument ~ Lord knows I done everything in my power and being ~ to be in denial of my femininie side.

Think of a three sided square cube, made of many individual three sided cubes ~such as is used in math class ~ or if you prefer better yet a Rubiks cube. Now twist and trun the individual sides of the individual cubes as you wish and as you may! The number of possible permutations though finite ~ are on the surface, seem almost infinite? Now take the permutation of the number 16! The number of used for creit cards ~ they will yield over 20,922,789,888,000 (that's almost 21 trillion) different possible combinations.

Now take the estimated popultation of the earth, which as last I heard was around 6 billion +, and permate that number, = infinity of the different possible combination of human being!

But, yet we are raised to believe, that there are 2 and only two "normal" possible combinations. Male Heterosexual and Female Heterosexual that fit what is construded as "normal" for each of the two possibilites!

When in truth there is and does exsist a "matrix" of possibilities and combinations! Thus one can be male and a straight "normal" heterosexual, or a male and bi-sexual and otherwise male, or male and gay, and otherwise masculine dressing and acting, or male, heterosexual, a cross dresser and otherwise masculine ~ etc.

[Dana]

Sounds like the nonsense that John Money was pushing 40 years ago. It was nonsense then; it's is nonsense now. One of the doctors who helped to expose the lie, especially in the case of David Reimer is quoted in this article (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/13/ln/ln52a.html).

I posted about this elsewhere on the site. I also posted the results of a study that was publish in the NEJM. There are other scientic studies that debunk that nurture fairytale. There's no scientific data to back up nurture with regards to gender. If you have any data, I'd sure like to see it.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole


Thanks for the up~date and info~ I've not read anything about the case until you gave me the link! Thanks again, Hugs!

[Helana]

However, Helana, your Mahu is a approved, traditional social rôle determined by birth order, not a genuine personal gender identity. Being a Mahu would appear to me from that fact to be an act of conformity, rather than an individual's own unique expression of where they feel they reside on the gender spectrum; the diametric opposite of self-expression, as it were...:)


Lauren, the point of the Mahus is that it dispels the myth that transgenderism can only be a generated by genetics/hormones. Social conditioning is quite sufficient by itself not only to switch somebody's gender personality but also their sexual orientation. Since transgenderism can be created by 100% nurture, the question arises whether there is any nature component at all.

Secondly, the tradition of choosing Mahus be birth is rarely practiced these days but Mahus are still very evident. Today it is crossdressers and gays who are choosing to pursue the Mahus traditional role as a means of self-expression.

Personally I believe that everyone has a degree of transgenderism in their inherent personality matrix which sometimes materialises in crossdressing. The mixture of nature and nurture will vary in person to person however since the majority of people in the transgendered spectrum lean towards the "light" end of transvestic fetishes and crossdressing, this would indicate it is mostly a nurture derived need. There is a high correlation between nurture derived theories and actual crossdressers' life stories.

[Helana]

When in truth there is and does exsist a "matrix" of possibilities and combinations! Thus one can be male and a straight "normal" heterosexual, or a male and bi-sexual and otherwise male, or male and gay, and otherwise masculine dressing and acting, or male, heterosexual, a cross dresser and otherwise masculine ~ etc.
Dana, your thoughts mirror mine.

There is an infinite combination of personality matrixes which is why everyone is unique. There has always been and will always exist a large number of people who are naturally born with a certain configuration which society lables as transgendered because it falls inbetween the accepted nodes of male and female behaviour. This is just part and parcel of natural diversity, indeed it is the basic premise of evolution.

Gender roles are social constructs, they are just artificial ideals. Just because we do not neatly fall into the approved gender definition does not mean that something went awry with us during our time in the womb. Quite the opposite, we are very much normal in wishing to express our true selves and not be subjected to social conditioning. Indeed most children pass through a phase of gender dysphoria in mid-childhood but most eventually conform to the behaviour expected of them.

Nor does this mean that because we are transgendered we will automatically become CDs. There has to be a certain level of self-awareness and trigger events for a transgendered person to become a CD. Each combination is unique to every one of us. Without these conditions a boy will grow up to be a sensitive but non-CD man. The fact that you can be transgendered and not be a CD demonstrates the importance of our environment in triggering our condition.

There is a major gulf between predisposition and predetermination.

[TGMarla]

Furthering Helana's thoughts here, when you look at society from outside (if that's possible), one could easily finger you average non-transgendered people as the ones who are the best examples of behavior brought on by the "Nurture" part of this argument. They all have been socially conditioned not only to be average straight heterosexual non-transgendered individuals, but also to abhor any who break from these boundaries. It is the persons who deviate from the accepted norms who are breaking from society's smothering form of nurture. And if society didn't place a taboo on crossdressing, would any of us developed the insatiable curiosity about wearing the clothing of the other gender?

And I, for one, never had any transgendered thoughts prior to puberty, when I tried on some pantyhose. I'd gone through the usual thoughts of "am I manly enough? Do others think I'm effeminate?" I think most all boys have these thoughts. But had I never tried on that pantyhose, I wonder if I'd ever developed any transgender tendencies. I have a tough time thinking that all this is because of something in the womb. I have a twin brother who I really don't think likes to wear dresses. If it was some kind of hormonal bombardment in the womb, he'd have gotten it, too. But I'm the one who likes the lipstick. I vote for nurture over nature.

[Helana]

Further I have a tough time thinking that all this is because of something in the womb. I have a twin brother who I really don't think likes to wear dresses. If it was some kind of hormonal bombardment in the womb, he'd have gotten it, too. But I'm the one who likes the lipstick. I vote for nurture over nature.

That pretty much nails the argument that nurture is the overwhelming determinant for most CDs. I have also heard of a case of identical twins - which are biological clones - one being a CD and the other not. The idea that there are magical hormone washes which only affect the brain and not the body are speculation. There is absolutely no evidence that imbalanced washes actually happen in human fetuses to creates us. The existance of twins like you Marla proves it.

It is important to separate belief and fact and to recognize the difference between individuals having a need to believe in biological determinism, on one hand, and scientific support for theories of biological causation on the other.

What science is showing is that differing physical structures in the brain manifest themselves in behavioral traits, this is hardly unexpected. The fallacy behind the nature argument is the belief that something went wrong. In fact nothing went wrong, we were simply dealt a hand that despite the normal masculizing effects of testosterone which made our brains gravitate towards a masculine gender matrix, the hormonal influence was insufficient to provide us with personalities which would make us fit nicely into the society's constructed gender roles. But we are just as "normal" as any other male you care to point out.

But none of the above means we will end being a CD/TS, we were just as likely to have grown up to be a non-CD/TG male. It is our environment and specific individual trigger events which determine if we become CD/TS. Alter society's definition of masculinity and you will change the numbers of men who become CD/TS.

We are essentially an expression of society's need for the bi-polarization of gender roles. So tip your hat to all those who desire to uphold traditional gender roles as their continuing intolerance fuels the creation of future generations of CD/TS.;)

[FionaAlexis]

I think we are dealt a hand to, at least, some degree - even twins have different personalities. I had a girly personality - I was shy, timid, unadventurous etc.and maybe this resulted in some sub conscious association that I ought to be female. Or I wish I was female.

In societies where gender roles have been minimised and I'm thinking of Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia etc. when the regime is removed - the genders differences quickly re-generate.

Fiona xx

[Helana]

Fiona

There are definitely real inherent gender differences for sure, so any attempt to suppress these in utilitarian regimes will never become permanent. Men and women enjoy and are attracted to the differences between them. All communist states were doomed to failure from the day they were created because they did not reflect core human values such as selfishness.

What we need is a society which appreciates and welcomes behavioural diversity so that there is no stigma attached to expressing yourself, whether that means being a crossdresser or a punk or body modifier etc. Cosmopolitan cities show this is possible but difficult. It means people have to learn to switch off their fear of different looking people and welcome everybody into their tribe ie learn to ignore feelings of sexism, racism and bigotry.

[TGMarla]

When I first tried on a pair of pantyhose, I was only 12 years old. My natural curiosity at that age (heck, at any age) kept me coming back to the well. Things progressed as they did more because I kept experimenting rather than because of some inherent feminine quality that I'd had since birth. Had I never tried on the pantyhose, or had I never done it again, had I been more thoroughly brainwashed against it, I might never have developed into a full-blown crossdresser. I didn't just pop on a pair of pantyhose and suddenly realize that I had been born the wrong gender and that I had suddenly found the real me. Didn't happen. Sure, I have gone through the whole spectrum and toyed with the spectre of transexualism within myself (I think we all have to some degree), but none of that was a result of anything in the womb, or some dormant trait that I was born with. My transgender traits were a result of nurture, and I'm the one who nurtured them. Heck, I'm nurturing them right now just talking on this forum. I nurtured them last night by wearing a dress for a while. I know a lot of transgendered people want to blame it on birth. It's a theory I can buy for transexualism or homosexuality....but not for heterosexual crossdressing. This is a nuance that I created, I developed, and I nurtured.

[Christina Nicole]

When I first tried on a pair of pantyhose, I was only 12 years old. My natural curiosity at that age (heck, at any age) kept me coming back to the well. Things progressed as they did more because I kept experimenting rather than because of some inherent feminine quality that I'd had since birth. Had I never tried on the pantyhose, or had I never done it again, had I been more thoroughly brainwashed against it, I might never have developed into a full-blown crossdresser. I didn't just pop on a pair of pantyhose and suddenly realize that I had been born the wrong gender and that I had suddenly found the real me. Didn't happen. Sure, I have gone through the whole spectrum and toyed with the spectre of transexualism within myself (I think we all have to some degree), but none of that was a result of anything in the womb, or some dormant trait that I was born with. My transgender traits were a result of nurture, and I'm the one who nurtured them. Heck, I'm nurturing them right now just talking on this forum. I nurtured them last night by wearing a dress for a while. I know a lot of transgendered people want to blame it on birth. It's a theory I can buy for transexualism or homosexuality....but not for heterosexual crossdressing. This is a nuance that I created, I developed, and I nurtured.


I will agree to that. But when nurture in the nature vs. nurture debate typically means how one is raised in the family and in society. Parents tend to raise their children pretty much the same. I don't think that Marla was in pony tails and party dresses while her twin was compelled to play football.

BTW, Ernest Hemingway's mom dressed him as a girl. He didn't grow up to be a transsexual or to live a feminine life. See this (http://www.nhti.net/library/authorresources/hemingwaybio.htm), this (http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,15,00.html),
and this (http://www.literarytraveler.com/hemingway/ernestyoung.htm).

This (http://www.timelesshemingway.com/themothercomplex.shtml) is an interesting article. This (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=c/c3/&name=ErnestHemingwayBabyPicture.gif) is the famous picture. I don't know if there are others.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole.

P.S.
In the event it wasn't clear, I was deriding "Dr. Doctor" not Dana. I reread my post and it appears that I could have been criticizing Dana. Not so. Sorry for the confusion. A doctor should know better.
--C.N.

[Dana]

I will agree to that. But when nurture in the nature vs. nurture debate typically means how one is raised in the family and in society. Parents tend to raise their children pretty much the same. I don't think that Marla was in pony tails and party dresses while her twin was compelled to play football.

BTW, Ernest Hemingway's mom dressed him as a girl. He didn't grow up to be a transsexual or to live a feminine life. See this (http://www.nhti.net/library/authorresources/hemingwaybio.htm), this (http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,15,00.html),
and this (http://www.literarytraveler.com/hemingway/ernestyoung.htm).

This (http://www.timelesshemingway.com/themothercomplex.shtml) is an interesting article. This (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=c/c3/&name=ErnestHemingwayBabyPicture.gif) is the famous picture. I don't know if there are others.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole.

P.S.
In the event it wasn't clear, I was deriding "Dr. Doctor" not Dana. I reread my post and it appears that I could have been criticizing Dana. Not so. Sorry for the confusion. A doctor should know better.
--C.N.

Christina~ No dis-respect meant! None taken!

I thank you for your frankness! I read Dr. Doctor's book back in the 70's and 80's! When I was looking for answers (the quest goes on) as to why I couldn't and wasn't a "normal" heterosexual male? At the time, hiis theories, seemed to offer so kind of explaination.

I still don't completely discount his work, nor his theroies! Nor do I completely and totally embrace them ~ clearly they are flawed! They're certainly not "absolute" At best they're "sophormic" in trying to clearly defined a complex subject! And, are lacking!

But, clearly, the answer lies somewhere between "nature" and "nuture"! Where that "point" is, I sure as Hell don't know!

Me? I work in a lab. And lab work is about "absolutes"! There's a difference in mixing 10 mm of this and 20 mm of that! The world I work in is defined in decimals! There's a difference in .001 and .0001! My work world exsist on the razor's edge!

Yes! We're splitting hairs here! Nature vs Nuture!

Its suffice for some to say, "What is ~ is!" and its suffice for others to say, "Be true to thyself!"

That works in an perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world! There are people out there who are prefectly willing to kick our faces inside out, maimed us, do us bodly harm just because to the clothes we choose to wear outside of our front door!

Just because we "choose" to be different? Just because we "choose" to live outside of the "norm" (whatever the Hell that is?)

To be honest with you? I kind of sort of, wished I was GAY! It would make the CD easier I think! In some ways? The thing is, men just don't do ANYTHING FOR ME! Not mentally! Not emotionally! Not spiritually! They just don't!

Women? They just "Send" me! Mentally, emotionally, spiriturally! They just do! I love everything about them! So much so, I want to experience "their" world, "their" reeality! "Their" persections! Their inner thoughts! I want to understand them! Be one of them!

I want to giggle, and laugh, and have fun like they do! I wamt to expereience "Caligon! Take me away!"

I want to be pursued! To be loved! To be wanted! To be needed! To be vulnerable! To be protected! To be taken care of! To have all of my questions ~ answered! To have all of my problems solved! To have all of my needs meet, by one person! A knight in shinning armour! To have all of my wants ~ meet!

Cross dressing is much more than just about dressing in women's clothes! Much more than just about dressing in women's clothes! A large part of it is about ~ being and making yourself ~ vulnerable! About submitting to another! Male or female!

Crossdressing is much more than just about dressing in the clothes of the oppossite gender! Crossdressing is about being "YOU"!

Who you are as a person! As an individual!

Crossdressing is about YOU!

Crossdressing is about who you are as a person!

Crossdressing is about CARING!

SHARING!

GIVING!

You want a loving, caring, sharing, sensetive, thoughfull man ~ marry a crossdresser! A man that is going to give thought about who you are as a person? A person who is going to think days, weeks, months about thay special gift days, weeks, months, years before the occassioin?

[Christina Nicole]

Women? They just "Send" me! Mentally, emotionally, spiriturally! They just do! I love everything about them! So much so, I want to experience "their" world, "their" reeality! "Their" persections! Their inner thoughts! I want to understand them! Be one of them!

I want to giggle, and laugh, and have fun like they do! I wamt to expereience "Caligon! Take me away!"

I want to be pursued! To be loved! To be wanted! To be needed! To be vulnerable! To be protected! To be taken care of! To have all of my questions ~ answered! To have all of my problems solved! To have all of my needs meet, by one person! A knight in shinning armour! To have all of my wants ~ meet!

Cross dressing is much more than just about dressing in women's clothes! Much more than just about dressing in women's clothes! A large part of it is about ~ being and making yourself ~ vulnerable! About submitting to another! Male or female!

Crossdressing is much more than just about dressing in the clothes of the oppossite gender! Crossdressing is about being "YOU"!

Who you are as a person! As an individual!

Crossdressing is about YOU!

Crossdressing is about who you are as a person!

Crossdressing is about CARING!

SHARING!

GIVING!

Dana said an awful lot that is great here. There's not much more to add. Thank-you, Dana.


You want a loving, caring, sharing, sensetive, thoughfull man ~ marry a crossdresser! A man that is going to give thought about who you are as a person? A person who is going to think days, weeks, months about thay special gift days, weeks, months, years before the occassioin?

I think that there are quite a few of the GGs here on this site who agree whole-hearted with you. I wish I knew one of them, or someone like them

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole