So what if it was in your DNA???

[Katey888]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katey x

[Rhian]

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

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

[mykell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DaphneMiller]

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

Daphne

[Kate Simmons]

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

[LilSissyStevie]

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

[Tinkerbell-GG]

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



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

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

Anyway, interesting thoughts.

[Kate T]

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

Interesting.

[Kate T]

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


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

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

[Dana M]

Hello everyone.
on a related note to this thread. I just read this story on the Huffington post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/homosexuality-evolution-social-bonding_n_6218406.html

[Mia Brankovic]

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

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

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

hmm, good question...

[Kate Simmons]

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

[Teresa]

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

[Mia Brankovic]

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

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

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

Mia

[kimgirl]

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

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

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

Kim

[sometimes_miss]

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

[Cheryl T]

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

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

[mariehart]

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

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

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

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

[marshalynn]

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

[GretchenJ]

Happy Thanksgiving Katie,

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

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

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


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

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

[CONSUELO]

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

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

[Katey888]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Katey x

[Minerva Morgan]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with LilSissySteve:

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

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

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

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

Minerva.

[Marcelle]

Helloooo Katey . . . quiet Isha here :),

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

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

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

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

So taking the above into account and your original questions:

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

I know it is autosomal recessive:

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

I know it is maternal inheritance:

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

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

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

Hugs

Isha

[Stevann]

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

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

[Lorileah]

NICKY
YOU CAN COUNT ON ME
TO ALWAYS BE
BESIDE YOU EVERY DAY,
TO TELL YOU IT'S OKAY,
YOU WERE JUST BORN
THAT WAY,
AND, AS THEY SAY,
IT'S IN YOUR DNA, IF YOU WERE....

It could be a slight genetic mutation. Since time immemorial there have been males dressing and or acting in female gender roles. I kind of doubt that though because it would be easily explained then and even though the song from AvenueQ says it, they haven't found a gay or CD gene (and they would not be relater either since more than 1/2 here are straight and dress.)

A combination of nature and nurture to EXPRESS the desire is more likely. Otherwise there would be a obvious line. Your Uncle Joe...his cousin Ralph...your great aunt Gertie who was really a spinster male living with 30 cats and a canary.

[kimgirl]

Or maybe all men are really female, but most just don't know it yet. We are the real pioneers of this world.

[Isabella Ross]

Katey...to suggest that transgenderism is somehow anything but a product of genetics is ridiculous. Virtually all major characteristics that make up an individual are the result of genetics, be it intelligence or lack of, sexual orientation, skin colour, psychotic behaviour, height, preference for beef over chicken. We are born the way we are, and in our case, our genetics put us somewhere in the middle of the gender scale that all human beings have a place on, regardless of the equipment we were born with. As for genes not being responsible for making us wear panties, perhaps...but genes are responsible for the fact that I have a deep desire to feel pretty and feminine and girly, and wearing panties is one method I have at my disposal to satisfy my desire. As for the question of whether or not I would hesitate in passing my TG genes to offspring, obviously I wouldn't hesitate passing down traits that can provide so much joy in a young person's life! Why do we always default to the "TGism is such a terrible burden" position? Thought provoking post...thank you.

[Kate T]

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

I so seriously hope that no mother would end a marriage because their partner had what is essentially a cosmetic hereditary condition. What are those children supposed to think? That a cosmetic condition makes them less loveable, that they aren't beautiful enough to deserve a happy marriage? I'm sure there were other factors but I do hope that the parents do not bring it into the picture because frankly I think that is a little bit shallow.

I have an inherited liver disease. When I was diagnosed (at 16) and got married (at 24) all of the literature and my specialist advised that I would probably need a liver transplant before I was 40 years old and life expectancy for those with my condition was less than 20 years from diagnosis. My wife knew this before we got married and had children. And yes, we did discuss whether we should have children, how many, how would my wife care for them if I did die at a young age. But when you decide to marry the vows are there "in sickness and in health".

Sorry Katey, nothing against you on this one, just seem to have my hackles up at the moment.

:hugs:

[Claire Cook]

Katey et al.,

Interesting thread. As a biologist maybe I can add my two cents' worth here. If we are thinking about genes that promote transgenderism that are passed on to future generations, then most if not all of us would have parents or grandparents who showed signs of transgenderism -- I think Daphne made a similar point. Similarly, our kids or grandkids should show signs of TG -- do they? We certainly have had numerous posts about our kids's acceptance or not of our CD'ing to indicate the contrary. Anybody care to care to comment from their experience? As far as I know (which may be not much), there is not much evidence for this, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Gay kids do not generally have gay parents (or gay children), and transexuals generally do not have TG parents. So if our worry is that our "condition" will be passed on to our kids, I think our wives and girl friends need not worry, to address Katey's question.

This is NOT to say that TG / CD (or TS or gayness ) does not have a genetic basis. I think there have been studies showing that TS individuals have brains that have similarities to those of their opposite birth gender. True, most of the responses of what our bodies do are controlled by genes (even hormonal responses), including development in the womb (possibly explaining the TS brain question) and thereafter. There are what are called "epigenetic" effects, in which environmental influences control what genes do and in some cases these effects have been shown to be heritable. I myself believe that my TG'ism (and perhaps the effects on TS individuals) resulted from hormonal exposure in the womb, and as I and others have written elsewhere, this experience pre-conditioned me to identify with my female side (if that is what I am doing). Personally, accepting that has helped me to overcome guilt and angst about CD'ing.

So, yes, this is the old nature-nurture argument, which studies of epigenetics have show is not always a clear-cut issue. There should be some serious scientific studies of this, perhaps using identical twins -- studies of them have shed much light on the nature-nurture issue. Thus endeth the lecture.

Speaking of TG, Claire needs to sleep off her TG dinner...

[Rhian]

I don't know much about Biology as I dropped it at 16 but is it not possible that the gene could be recessive?

[Tinkerbell-GG]

... this experience pre-conditioned me to identify with my female side (if that is what I am doing)...

Interesting point. How would anyone ever really know if it is a female side you're identifying with? Maybe females feel nothing like crossdressers, and vice versa, and this could just be a standard male feeling? Or a human one? Argh, this hurts my head! :)

Back to Kateys fascinating question, the only other thing I might ponder as a newbie wife contemplating having children with a crossdresser (if we're assuming the genes are hereditary) is how much happiness have y'all found being TG? Is it something most here would choose if given that option? Or, if we're being brutally honest, would you prefer you were not born this way?

The answers to these questions, especially coming from a prospective partner, would likely help sway me one way or the other as no mother desires a hard life for her children. But as Adina mentioned, it would also be pretty shallow to forgo a desired relationship because one partner had a relatively minor condition. Crossdressing, when managed well, should be a minor issue.

Still...I'm curious as to how many here would have wished these genes on themselves?

[sometimes_miss]

This is NOT to say that TG / CD (or TS or gayness ) does not have a genetic basis. I think there have been studies showing that TS individuals have brains that have similarities to those of their opposite birth gender. .
Some do have brains which work more like the opposite sex, but almost as many do not, which screws up that theory. Then of course, there are GG's that have brains wired like mens', but have no masculine behavior at all, and vice versa.
One of the biggest problems is, that many things about us are influenced by more than one gene. So this search suffers from the same thing as the concept that there is only one cause of crossdressing. Just when you think you found it, whoops, here comes an example that disproves your theory and you're back to square one.

[noeleena]

Hi,

It all starts at conception and our program is started then not some time later ,
Are we all male who are female or females who are male, well lets put it this way yes and no in our program it is set what we will be unless theres a miss match as iv said before as i am.

or a chemical imbalance due to added before birth or toxens or other man made chemicals while the baby is growing from conception or interbreding and theres any number of cause,s that we know more about now than say before i was born 67 years.

as an idear , from very young my body would react to some foods it was not a learned behavour or a told detail it was what i was born with, three foods i react straight off and go into sick mode apart from the smell,

now brain wise im hard wired and you all know how , was that a learned detail or a told detail or a born with detail , again you know my answer i did not think it or so acted on it because i wonted to, no, it was part of my make up in what i am ,

At conception gender is determined by chromosome characteristics and it will be the male or rather the males sperm that will dictate whether the baby will be a boy or a girl

prior to conception the unfertilized egg carries an X cromosome while the sperm can carry ether an X or a Y chromosome ,
The gender of the baby comes down to one simple event ,

If the sperm carring an X chromosome feritilzes the egg a girl will conceived

If the sperm carring a Y chromosome fertilzes the egg a boy will be conceived .

Going back to how im wired and how my body reacts to some food . could some like that be the same for how you react to clothes or well every thing we do , why seperate one detail and make that different form other things about us and what makes us the way we are,

you see some thing and like it i may see it and hate it , or you have a gift to be able to do something and i cant . or you cant play an instriment and i can, singing is another i can can you , are all those details learned or part of my or your makeup,

because we are all so different and how our bodys / minds works is it not true to say we are born with these gifts or what ever it may be. of cause we can lose sight of who we really are and not just be happy in who we are ,

we all so limit our selfs and hide or afraid to be who we are, yet we are born with so many neat detail,s about our selfs . yea ...okay ....

...noeleena...

[sometimes_miss]

If the sperm carring an X chromosome feritilzes the egg a girl will conceived

If the sperm carring a Y chromosome fertilzes the egg a boy will be conceived .

Nope. There are phenotype males with XX, and phenotype females with XY. And a whole assortment of others, too, as you know. Turns out you need to have the hormones turned on at the right times or what those genes are supposed to do, don't necessarily get done. http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome

[Lynn Marie]

My father had a "gay period" in his life, and although I'm not gay I'm obviously TS. So that makes me wonder if my father was really a CD when no one understood CDing! And yes, it's probably hereditary.

[Jenniferathome]

...Still...I'm curious as to how many here would have wished these genes on themselves?

So Tink, I think you know I am firmly in the "it's genetic" camp. Now, imagine, even today, if you ask this same question to a gay person? Being gay is still not easy. Even today, people think it is a lifestyle choice! So, would a gay man or woman wish to be "gay" ? It is who they are and not a choice. And even though life would have been easier for them, I'll bet that being straight is not in the list of choices. I think it is no different for a cross dresser. It would be easier for me to not be a cross dresser but I am. Now, extending this analogy to gay children, if being gay was proven to be a hereditary trait (not just running in families) even predictable, would I take action so as to save this child from some future pain? For me the answer is no. I would love them no differently than I love my kids today and I would help them prepare for the future difficulties. I would help them get to place of understanding without shame and yet still live in the real world.

the only cross dressing regret I have is not being man enough to admit it to my wife sooner. Perhaps it took me years to become that man? Ironic for sure.

[NicoleScott]

This may be the modern version of:
"Daddy, this is the man I want to marry."
"Young man, open your mouth so I can see your teeth".

[AngelaYVR]

I think that it may not be your DNA per say but rather how the genes are expressed. That is, you have 'normal' genes (don't bother even trying to go after that one!) but circumstances - either natal, birth order or otherwise - dictate which genes are expressed. As an example, boys with older brothers can have their testosterone levels reduced by chemicals left behind by the previous siblings.

[Isabella Ross]

Tinkerbell, to answer your question: yes, I would have wished them on myself. Couldn't imagine not being who I am.

[Melissa in SE Tn]

I am praying that our need to cd is genetic. It would be wonderful to have a definitive answer to the groundswell of questions & concerns as to why I need to dress & look like a woman. The genetic link might also help our troubled wives to better understand why we need to dress. I'm not smart enough to figure out what the cause is, but certainly would feel better if the answer was indeed genetic. Thanks to all for making me think. Peace, mel

[Lorileah]

I don't know much about Biology as I dropped it at 16 but is it not possible that the gene could be recessive?

In simple Mendelian genetics this would be a great explanation but it isn't that simple. And that would mean that both parents carried the gene

[JessicaJHall]

Well one thing is for sure, you (Katey888) and I appear to be very similar as far as our CD tendencies are concerned, and we couldn't have all that similar backgrounds on nearly opposite sides of the globe.. (or did we?).
Anyway, my take is, who on god's green earth would opt to shave their entire bodies on a regular basis without some genetic predisposition? Let alone buy all that makeup? I'm only half joking here, because seriously, who would?
IMHO re LBGT people anywhere on the spectrum: Who would "choose" such a rocky path unless they had deep, innate, genetically defined preferences? And why, if they could, wouldn't they want to be considered stereotypically "normal"?
I always like to ask members of the "choice" crowd, if they think there was anything that could have happened to them growing up that would have turned them gay, because I'm pretty sure that wasn't possible for me!

[Rhian]

Still...I'm curious as to how many here would have wished these genes on themselves?

You have to look on cross dressing as like any other hobby, if I didn't dress I probably wouldn't wish it on myself as it would hold no appeal but if someone offered me a pill to lose the urge to dress I'd turn it down as it gives me a genuine sense of enjoyment. Say there was a certain gene that gave people an interest in classical music I wouldn't wish I had the gene as I have no interest in it but if it was discovered there was a gene that gave people an interest in football I would of course wish it on myself as I have an interest in football; cross dressing is the same.

Lorileah but that could then explain why people CD when there is no sign of it in there family.

[Kate T]

Rhian, nice explanation.

[noeleena]

Hi , Sometime miss

I did allow for mismatch or hormones being mixed plus dont for get the other 15 or so and all the different types

Chromosome 18 abnormalities are caused by a change in a persons genetic makeup ,

There are 46 chromosomes and we have 23 pairs called autosomes the 23 pair is know as the sex chromosomes and determinea persons gender ,

Because the karyotype has an x and a y we know that it belongs to a male,
it was a print out of a male,s chromosomes chart, sorry cant redo that bit.

As i said a mismatch some women have males and some males have womens or it can be different yet again. heres one for you a person has no sex organs born with out so whats their karyotype im not sure i know its different , subject matter its very interesting and a lot more detail .

...noeleena...

[Tina_gm]

Wow, a lot of active minds on this one. Good stuff here, I love the deep thinking threads.

I believe there is at least a hard wiring issue in our brains. It is there at birth, and some of us connect with it earlier than others due to our environment and life circumstances. Also due to how much of the "wiring " is on the feminine side.

I don't think it is something necessarily genetic in that it is passed down with any greater consistency. It is a random occurrence that some who are born of a certain gender will relate, identify with or just have some need or desire to be connected in some way with the opposite gender.

[Claire Cook]

Well, my previous comment about twin studies got me to do some research. While I found no studies of crossdressing (per se) in twins, there have been a number of studies of "transgenderism" in both monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins, and in these cases "transgenderism" seems to mean "transexualism", or at least GID. There is a paper in the International Journal of Transgenderism (I didn't know that existed!) that summarizes the known case histories when at least one twin was transgendered. Some fascinating results. For identical twins born male (total of 39), in 13 pairs (33%) both twins transitioned, or at least identified as female, while in the other 26 only one did. For fraternal male twins, in only 1 of 21 cases did both identify as female, while in the other 20 only one did. The numbers for female identical twins were lower: there were 27 cases of at least one FtM transition, in 8 of which (23%) both transitioned. In none of the 15 female fraternal pairs did both individuals transition. Overall, both twins transitioned in 20% of the pairs studied. :whew!:

Now if you are still with me, (:yawn:) what does this mean for us? I think one thing that is clear is that a recessive gene is probably not involved, as some have suggested. If so, all, or at least a large majority, of identical twins (which would have the same genes) would have been TG. The author does conclude that there is likely a genetic basis for GID, but this does not mean that it is an inheritable trait. This does seem to cloud the issue of the effects of hormonal exposure in the womb. Shouldn't both individuals be exposed to the same hormones?

Bottom line: we shouldn't be concerned that because we are CD, our kids will be. And I still believe that my TG is something I was born with.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to the paper:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2013.750222#.VHm4A9LF_Ss

[NicoleScott]

I am praying that our need to cd is genetic. It would be wonderful to have a definitive answer to the groundswell of questions & concerns as to why I need to dress & look like a woman. The genetic link might also help our troubled wives to better understand why we need to dress. I'm not smart enough to figure out what the cause is, but certainly would feel better if the answer was indeed genetic.

Serial killers and child molesters are hoping for the same thing. That would explain what they do , and relieve them for any personal responsibility for their actions. They could come out of the shadows and openly do what they are driven to do by their genes, and the world will just have to deal with it. Be careful what you pray for.

[Minerva Morgan]

I have found Milton Diamond to be unusually rational in his concepts. His article is also transcribed at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
I haven't read it yet.

Minerva.

[Tiffany Jane]

Very interesting topic. I would love an easy fail-safe answer to my activities, but until then I will find comfort in who I am and what I enjoy to make this life more appealing to myself. I have also been curious if this is an evolutionary process we are being subjected to, but that would just lead to more questions than answers.

[Nadya]

Interesting questions. Since I've tried to suppress this desire before, there's probably some genetic trait to makes you more prone to this behavior. This is probably a bias from my personal experience but it would not change my perspective about disclosing it to my significant other. I feel like if a relationship were to move forward, complete openness is necessary. I told her and got a really supportive response. As for children, I would be conscious about the potential consequences but if I choose to have kids, I don't think I would avoid it due to what possible genetic traits I could pass on. I know that any kids I would have would grow up in a loving home even if the outside world wouldn't always be. Tough to say for sure since I'm not in a position to have children yet. :)

[ArleneRaquel]

I believe that it is generic. But I will never give it up.

[Minerva Morgan]

“Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation”, Milton Diamond Ph.D, International Journal of Transgenderism, 14:1, May 2013, pp 24-38, retrieved from Pacific Center For Sex and Society, University of Hawaii, Mãnoa, Hawaii, 27 May 2013, retrieved 29 November 2014 from:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html


The following is a few thoughts on Prof. Diamond’s study of Gender Reassignment in twins, basically whether both twins transition (‘concordance’) and/or show elements of GID or not. This, as is indicated by the discussion in this thread, a significant issue and it is not clear why the matter was not considered earlier. One difficulty would be the building of a database that would create a large enough number of instances wherein at least one twin transitioned. The habit of basing conclusions regarding gender issues on one or a handful of cases is not one that I am comfortable with and it is a technique that has create problems and that still does. These problems are reflected in Diamond’s work but need not be discussed here. As Diamond points out it is largely the existence of the Internet that has made gathering single cases together into a larger group for consideration possible. Diamond also briefly alludes to contemporary studies with very similar purposes and states that the results in those studies are comparable to those given here. Diamond bases his findings on 112 sets of twins. The significance of twins is that monozygotic twins share a great deal in the way of DNA but are not exactly identical while dizygotic twins are no more identical that any siblings and may even (although unlikely) have different fathers. The hypothesis is that persons with a closer DNA ‘resemblance’ will share characteristics and personality traits more frequently than those siblings who’s DNA are much less ‘matched’. That is, it is a means of answering the question as to whether a behaviourial pattern has a genetic basis or not.

Diamond proposes a finding that:

“Combining data from the present survey with those from past-published reports, 20% of all male and female monozygotic twin pairs were found concordant for transsexual identity. This was more frequently the case for males (33%) than for females (23%).”

I read this to mean that in the cases of identical, male twins where one transitioned, in 33% of instances, both transitioned. Also, in the case of identical, female twins where one transitioned, 23% transitioned. To me, mathematically, over 20% in both sets (male and female) of identical twins should be also over 20% the set of all identical twins where at least one transitioned. That is 0.33X + 0.23Y should be greater than 0.2 (X + Y). The discrepancy, according to Table 5, is that in deriving the male and female percentages indicated he used only a ratio of the sets of male identical twins to get the 33% and of the female identical twins to get the 23% but used all of the concordant sets of twins divided by all sets of twins (concordant or not and identical or not) and even then left 2 sets of twins out of the divisor. A variation on these calculations could have been that 14 male twins out of 112 twins were concordant (13%) and 9 female twins out of 112 twins (8%) were concordant. I am not sure if this is meaningful other than pointing out that the results of the calculations in this study can be misleading.

Diamond highlights the significance of anecdotal information in such studies. It has not been that long since, and it may still be true in some cases, it was assumed that persons eager to transition invariably lied. What was not taken into account was that such persons were forced to lie in order to gain ends necessary to their very existence as well as necessary to their mental health. This necessity for mendacity was based on the erroneous premises and perceptions of physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, the media and the general public. Taking anecdotal material on the Internet (which has a greater probability of truthfulness than case studies before the Internet) into account as valid and valued, scientific material can be useful and enlightening. At the same time, Diamond falls into the same error regarding gender that he did regarding the sexes in referring to:

“Transsexuality has been defined as transitioning from living in the gender assigned at birth to that of the opposite gender.”

Again, genders are not opposites, just differences. The assumption that they are ‘opposite’ is based on the fallacy that gender is predetermined by sex, which is demonstrably (as this work demonstrates) untrue. Since there are three genders, which two genders does Diamond propose as ‘opposites? Also, a neonate cannot present gendered behaviour so the concept of ‘gender assigned at birth’ is ludicrous at best and simply derivative of the errors made by those who believed that sex could be ‘assigned’ at birth, that sex predetermined gender and that gender and sex were equivalents. Diamond’s study of twins, in which he uses this somewhat hoary and misleading concept actually demonstrates the fallacy of ‘assigning’ gender at birth to twins, triplets or any birth. The phrase is more connotative of the continuing practice of attempting to force (‘socialize’) individuals into gender patterns as defined by conventions. This is a practice that is also questionable ethically and practically. It also ignores two points. Gender, like sex, is composed of various aspects (appearance, demeanour, interrelationships, body language, and so on), and not determinable (least of all by genitalia which is the only means for ‘assigning’ gender in a neonate) at birth. This cannot even be done accurately in all cases for sex. Secondly, gender is not only a matter of identity in how we see ourselves (and this is a variable) but also in how others see us (also a variable and defined in different societies and different times). Diamond actually almost immediately points out these problems:

“From the literature or survey only twins age 10 years or older were accepted for our consideration, since younger children often have doubts about their sex or gender and express a desire to change their gender but do not follow through (R. Green, 1987; Zucker & Bradley, 1995). For those, not yet fully adult, a clinical confirmation of the desire and expectation that such a transition would occur was accepted as a transition.”

He had (2000, p. 50) also indicated that assigning sex or gender at birth was not in the best interests of a child:

“This works similarly, on the other side of the coin, for those individuals mal-assigned as males who discover the female in themselves (Diamond, 1997a; 1997b).9.”

He also pointed out the distinction between culturally defined gender and biological sex:

“One’s gender identity, recognition of how he or she is viewed in society, develops with post-natal experiences. It comes from general observation of society's norms and expectations and from comparing self with peers (Diamond, 1997; 1999; Harris, 1998) and asking: “Who am I like and who am I not like?””

So his use of ‘assigned at birth’ and ‘opposite’ seems to contradict his earlier positions and to be mere repetitions of questionable ‘buzzwords’ that should have been more judiciously dealt with long ago.

A search of case studies produced 43 sets of twins and colleagues rounded up another 69 case studies for a total of 112. Four types of twins were considered:

Male monozygotic.
Male dizygotic.
Female monozygotic.
Female dizygotic.

Monozygotic is what is usually referred to as identical twins developed from the same egg (one zygote) that split into two persons. Dizygotic (two zygotes) twins are fraternal twins from two, separately fertilized eggs. Monozygotic twins share very similar DNA and, therefore, should develop pretty much physiologically the same and, inferentially, pretty much psychologically the same assuming that psychological patterns (such as gender) have some origins in DNA. Dizygotic twins are more likely to be physiologically different (except as siblings usually share features, colouring, disposition, etc.) but what is key is that they will share, as do identical twins, substantially similar nurturing and conditioning. This makes twins useful in assisting in determining ‘nature-nurture’ questions.

Twins are more frequent in the United States of America (1.89% in 1980 to 3.33% in 2000) than they were before. On the other hand, multiple births are less likely to come to full term. Dyzygotic twins (such twins might even have different fathers) include:

Male–female twins are about 50% of dizygotic twins.
Female–female dizygotic twins.
Male–male dizygotic twins.

Note that female-male twins do not seem to be considered in Diamond’s study. This probably is because they were not considered in the studies and anecdotes he referenced. Later, Diamond writes:

“Six sets of twins who responded to our survey were brother-sister pairs who were not included in the total count or statistical analysis.”

Of these, two brothers transitioned and, in the other four sets, it was the sisters who transitioned. Why this should be so is not yet clear as the possibility that one male and one female twin sharing similar genders seems worth considering.

Monozygotic twins include:

Female–female monozygotic twins.
Male–male monozygotic twins.

Note that one-egg twins are apparently necessarily either both males or both females as they both either have or do not have a Y-chromosome. Female twins seem to be more common. Apparently it is impossible or at least very unlikely that there would be male-female monozygotic twins. I wonder if there ever have been cases of monozygotic, male twins where one had CAIS and the other did not? Monozygotic twins have a general, worldwide frequency of about 0.3% of live births. Dizygotic births, on the other hand, vary widely in frequency depending on geography. ‘Identical’ twins, in spite of sharing practically (but not wholly) the same DNA are not necessarily ‘identical’. The differences increase with age. There are other variations (such as the ‘vanishing twin syndrome’) that need not be considered immediately, but which are of interest.

In Table 1 the table references:

17 male monozygotic twins of whom 7 pair were both MtF transsexual persons (concordant).
10 male dizygotic twins of whom 1 pair were both MtF transsexual persons.

In Table 2 there were:

14 female monozygotic twins of whom 5 pairs were both FtM transsexual persons (concordant).
2 female dizygotic twins of whom no pairs were both FtM transsexual persons.

This adds up to the original 43 sets of twins. In both cases of male and female twins, those who shared more in the way of genetic material AND upbringing were far more likely to both have GID and require transition than those dizygotic twins who primarily shared upbringing. That is there appears to be a greater, genetic based probability (41% in males, 36% in females) that identical twins share a genetically triggered predisposition to a particular gender than fraternal (10%)/sororal (0%) twins who only share upbringing. This is reflected in Table 3 which seems to be missing the two, dizygotic, female twins for some reason, although the percentages remain the same except for the ‘total’ percentage which should be 13/43 = 30%.

A survey was administered in which additional information was gathered relative to each set of twins’ life, lifestyle, sexuality, etc. In this case, I will not comment on the comparison of Kinsey’s meaningless Sexual Orientation Scale (heterosexuality to homosexuality) to the terms in “androphilic to completely gynecophilic” except to say that ‘androphilic’, etc. are terms meant to be totally distinct in meaning, context and concept from ‘heterosexual’, etc.

Table 4 is composed of:

22 sets of monozygotic male twins of whom 6 pairs (27%) both transitioned.
11 sets of dizygotic male twins of whom none (0%) both transitioned.
21 sets of monozygotic female twins of whom 3 (14%) both transitioned.
15 sets of dizygotic female twins of whom none (0%) both transitioned.

The 6 brother-sister pairs appear to have been ‘subtracted’ from this group. Again, genetics seem to have a strong influence on gender development at least amongst transsexual persons. Nurture seems to have no effect, although that conclusion would very presumptuous.

Table 5 combines the two studies and indicates that of:

Monozygotic male twins 33% of the pairs both transitioned.
Dizygotic male twins 5% of the pairs both transitioned.
Monozygotic female twins 23% of the pairs both transitioned.
Dizygotic female twins of the 0% pairs both transitioned.

The dizygotic, female twins row has an error where the two in the first study were not included, so the total dizygotic, female twins should be 17 rather than 15, but 0 ÷ 17 is the same as 0 ÷ 15. So the percentage remains the same. The total, however, of sets of twins should be 112, as indicated earlier, so the ‘mean’ (?) prevalence of both twins transitioning should be a tad lower at 19.6%, but that is hardly significant when rounded off. What is important is the sense that genetics seem to far outweigh nurturing in terms of gender development, although these are rather specialized cases. This in spite of the fact that most MtF’s believed their upbringing had been very gender restrictive. About 50% of the FtM’s thought their upbringing had been gender permissive. On the other hand, most of both sexes found that “cross-gendered activities” were discouraged to varying degrees, but that, again, such activity was less repressed for females. This would reflect the social convention that masculinity is more valuable than femininity. There was actually some indication that in the case of females (35.7%) they were actively encouraged to be masculine and that similar encouragement to be feminine was less evident for males (13.3%).

An interesting factor is that there were three sets of twins, separated while young, who both transitioned without being aware that the other also transitioned. Another is that Sexual Preference seems rarely to have little to do with the motivations or necessity to transition. A sad comment to the question as to whether both twins were always treated the same by their parents (the majority stating that they were treated the same most of the time) was:

“The single male who was separated at birth from his brother left this question blank, with a comment regarding his separation. His brother had committed suicide subsequent to transition and prior to having received a survey.”

As to sexuality, changes in Sexual Orientation and comparative Sexual Orientation, these are things best discussed as a separate topic except that monozygotic twins showed a same propensity for likely sharing the same Sexual Orientation suggesting that this, also, has a genetic predisposition. It was simultaneously clear that Sexual Orientation was not the basis for deciding to transition. Gender and Sexual Orientation are not mutually interdependent. There may be a connection (as sexuality is gender-based) but not a predestination of one by the other.

Diamond notes a contemporary study (Heylens et al. (2012)) on the same topic with very similar results (39% to 0%). A larger study (Gomez-Gil et al. (2010)) considered siblings apart from twins.

“These investigators claim that their data indicate that the probability that a sibling of a transsexual will also be transsexual was 4.48 times higher for siblings of MtFs than for siblings of FtM transsexual probands, and 3.88 times higher for the brothers than for the sisters of transsexual probands.”

(Proband means someone studied in conjunction with another, in this case siblings.) This study was in Spain, considered the most inclusive nation for transgendered persons in the world. Respondents, then, would be more forthcoming and more truthful than in other locations. This study seems to suggest also that while there is very likely a biological basis for a predisposition to gender, it may not be wholly genetic, but also developmental (i.e., hormones or whether genes are activated or not) as well. That is, there may not be a specific, gender gene (or genes), as such, so much as a developmental path (probably gene activated) that affects gender.

“And Martin, Boomsma, and Machin (1997) present a clear description of how a zygote cascades prenatally through many antenatal environmental effects and post-zygotic genetic effects sufficient to dramatically alter traits between identical twins.”

As to the comments suggesting that GID was heritable, one might intuitively suspect this to be possible, but the numbers cited seem too small to be conclusive. Out of billions of father-sons, one might expect a few to both transition without necessarily being evidence of transmitted genes being the only cause. I would be reluctant to conclude that, “Overall, the results support the hypothesis that there is a strong heritable component to GID”, without something more substantial. If gender were largely hereditable then the frequency of monozygotic twins both transitioning should be much higher than indicated in these studies. So gender may be genetically catalyzed but developmentally actualized and manifested within societal parameters and conventions.

What seems to not be considered in the matter of hereditability is that if one inherits DNA and/or genetic material that predisposes one to be feminine then that genetic material is far more likely to originate with the mother and not the father. If a male is predisposed to being feminine, then perhaps the principle of heredity would predict that his mother, sisters, grandmother, aunts, female cousins, etc., would also be predisposed to be feminine. This idea is consistent with the idea of ‘immunization against masculinization’ proposed by Camperio-Ciani and his team (2004) and anticipated by Blanchard and Klassen (1997).

Minerva.

Camperio-Ciani, Prof. Andrea. Ph.D., Corna, F., Capiluppi, C., Evidence for Maternally Inherited Factors Favouring Male Homosexuality and Promoting Female Fecundity”, ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences’, 7 November 2004, Vol. 271, No. 1554, The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, London, UK, pp. 2217-2221. Also published by the Royal Society and the National Center for Biotechnology Information 18 October 2004 and retrieved 28 November 2013 from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf

Diamond, Milton, Ph.D., “Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation in Children With Traumatized or Ambiguous Genitalia”, ‘Journal of Sex Research’, Vol. 34. No. 2, May 1997 (1997a), pp. 199-222.

Diamond, Milton, Ph.D., “Sex and Gender: Same or Different?”, ‘Feminism & Psychology”, Mary Crawford, editor, Vol. 10, No. 1, University of Connecticut, Women’s Studies Program, Storrs, CT (Sage, London), 2000, pp. 46-54.

Diamond, Milton, Ph.D., “Sex and Gender are Different: Sexual Identity and Gender Identity are Different”, ‘Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry’, Special Issue In Press for July 2002, special editors: Bernadette Wren, Portman Clinic and Fiona Tasker, University of London. Retrieved from the Pacific Center For Sex and Society web site 29 January 2014 at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html

Diamond, Milton, Ph.D., Sex, Gender, and Identity Over the Years: A Changing Perspective”, ‘Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America’, No. 13, 2004, pp. 591-607.

Kniffin, Cassandra L., “Homosexuality 1: HMS1”, or, “Sexual Orientation, Male”, a summary 30 May 2006, edited 7 April 2011, at a site created by Victor A. Cusack, part of “OMIM: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man”, Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University and National Human Genome Research Institute, retrieved 28 November 2013 from:
http://omim.org/entry/306995#reference3
referring to, “Blanchard, R., Klassen, P. H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men. J. Theor. Biol. 185: 373-378, 1997.”

[kimdl93]

As I fondly recall from my time with a therapist, "it's not a crime, you know".

Neither is it a disability nor a deformity. It's a way of being. As such, I have no fears or reservations about passing along this part of myself. I just hope it's a modestly better world I pass along with it.

[Claire Cook]

Minerva,

Thanks for amplifying what I tried to say about Diamond's review of twin studies -- although I'll admit it's a bit to wade through! :) Let's not forget that this thread parallels Isha's thoughtful thread about the Girl Lizard Brain ... and that one common theme is that there is a spectrum of possible genetic / environmental (nature/nurture) combinations, and that we all fit somewhere in that broad spectrum of CD / TG / TS. And where ever we fit ... it's the way we are as individuals.

If this makes any sense....

[Melissa_59]

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

Katey x

My own feeling on this, since I have a difficult time (I have a full time job already that is very stressful) coming up with tests to prove my theory, is that it's not "nurture" for me. I can't think of any environmental conditions as a child that might have lead to my crossdressing. Eliminating that leaves "nature", which means it's genetic, and my Mother hinted at this once when she told me she thought my father was a closeted crossdresser (which would certainly explain a lot of his behavior - hyper masculine, former Marine Force Recon, etc etc etc). So that being said:

1. When I was young I hid this away thinking that it was "wrong" and there was something defective about me. As I learned over the years that I'm not only not alone in the world, and there are many others like me, I started realizing that I'm not defective, broken, or insane. With that realization came a few things - peace of mind is one, but also that I need to be honest in my relationships going forward. So YES, this is something that needs to be declared to a potential spouse, and well ahead of time. In fact it's my opinion that you need to tell this to anyone you consider dating more than once. If they don't like crossdressers now, they're NOT going to like them later, and if you hide it then they'll have TWO reasons to hate you. Hiding your crossdressing from them and expecting them to suddenly accept it 5-10 years later is like barrelling down a cul-de-sac at 70MPH expecting it to turn into an Autobahn when you get to the end. It's not going to happen, there's going to be one terrible wreck, and a lot of people are going to get hurt. Including you.

2. This is only a "terrible burden" because our society as a whole is really stunted and emotionally backwards. We're socialized from a very early age that "boys act this way, girls act that way" and while a few examples are barely tolerated (look at message boards about Danica Patrick some time for an example, some of the completely ignorant comments made about her because of her sex), it's not acceptable for society as a whole to see us as human beings. I know some people will complain about this and give anecdotal evidence about how in San Francisco or some such that it's perfectly fine and nobody cares, but you're not in Jackson Mississippi, Hole-in-the-wall Texas, or Who-knows-where Nebraska or MOST of the puckered up backwards world who really DO have strong and violent opinions about crossdressers. This is why I don't go out dressed in San Angelo. I know way too many people who would like to show me how "Jesus hates crossdressers an' gays" (or vice versa) - I've heard them say it. And when I confront them on it ("Seriously? You DO know they're human beings too right?" // "Yeah, but they've gawdt tha DEBBIL in dem" or similar response). With all that being said, for those who are very close to me - they know. And they make their decision to either stay with me or go. Long before Roxy and I tied the knot I told her. She's very important to me and I wanted her to know so she could make her decision then, and happily she's fine with it. And I don't think it's a "terrible burden" for her either. In fact we discuss women's clothing, styles, shoes, makeup - all sorts of things. My oldest daughter also knows, and while she says she doesn't want to see me that way yet, I know she's amused when she can discuss shoes with her Dad.

3. Not a GG, but my two cent's worth: What if GGs knew they might be passing on homosexuality? That is absolutely genetic, and any hetero GG has a chance of having homosexual children (they certainly DON'T come from same sex relationships do they.) Are GGs willing to stop having children completely, because they "might" have gay/lesbian children? Same thing with crossdressers, if my theory is right. And I've already said my piece about "the reveal" - it should be done before everything goes very far in the relationship. Refer to my cul-de-sac reference.

~Melissa

[LilSissyStevie]

Some random thoughts on this thread:

Even GGs are not compelled by genes to wear "women's" clothing, to "act like women" or to "feel like women."

Why the desperation to attribute a cause beyond your control for your behavior?

If the (CD, gay, trans*) gene is discovered, will pre-natal testing be far behind so that these pregnancies can be terminated the way Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated now?

If the (CD, gay, trans*) gene exists, where can I go to get tested for it today? All the studies in the world are useless if I can't do that.

Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation! Correlation does not equal causation!

How can identity precede existence or experience?

Genetics or choice is a false dichotomy. Many things are neither choice nor innate.

The idea that a particular trait is feminine or masculine, whether the trait is innate or otherwise, is culturally determined. There is no scientific way to determine whether something is masculine or feminine.

Crossdressing is not a trait like the tendency to be aggressive or lazy. It is a complex behavior.

DNA is not necessarily destiny.

We can't even adequately define crossdressing or gender let alone transgender, so how could we know if we found a gene for it.

Do you claim that your native language is genetic simply because you don't remember learning it and you "always knew it"?


On a personal note and relevant to this thread, my wife has a rare genetic abnormality called a Robertsonian Translocation. She can have genetically normal children, children that carry the Robertsonian Translocation, non viable pregnancies (a high likelihood of miscarriage) or children with Down Syndrome. She's had all but the normal kind. There are a lot worse things in life than having Down Syndrome. In fact I envy my daughter's life.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

I agree with every thought you wrote, Stevie. This idea that there can be a gene for crossdressing just seems like wishful thinking. Fact is, when viewing this from the outside, crossdressing looks awfully similiar to some other behaviors that are sometimes mentioned here, so I highly doubt there's a 'crossdressing gene' but rather an inclination for some human males to create a seperate 'identity' for themselves. One that frees them, even temporarily, from the confines of being male. But no one wants to connect other lifestyles with crossdressing because that would be weird. :)

Fact is, no one knows the answer and until they find that elusive gene, it's all just theory. Though, finding it might bring more issues, as you mentioned. Your wife's translocation can be tested out through IVF these days, by genetically screening the embryos. Are we naive enough to believe that a crossdressing gene wouldn't lead to the same?

[Lorileah]

...my theory, is that it's not "nurture" for me. I can't think of any environmental conditions as a child that might have lead to my crossdressing. Eliminating that leaves "nature", which means it's genetic,

false logic. You were exposed on a daily basis to females wearing feminine articles of clothing...thus there is your environmental cue. Stevie makes a huge point, that a lot of what TGs do is due to society and artificial standards set upon to divide male/female behaviors. We live in a Fraternal society where the males are "in charge" and do the sweat work. However there are societies in the world which are Maternal (which actually makes more sense since you always know who your mother is, your father not so much). In other societies the wearing of items associated with femininity in our world are often part of the masculine life (skirts, makeup).

So I think it is a lot to do with environment and nurture. Many feelings mix into why people dress here. A want for love and attention and seeing that women get more of that while men have to act without. So there are some here who reflect that in the hopes that they will get the attention from whatever sex they desire. Why do so many fantasize about being with a male while dressed...they want the feeling of being desired that men don't get in this culture. Sexual roles are no longer as rigid and the younger TGs are less likely to have anxiety over what they wear.

If it was genetic, why are there not more stories of men who became women 100 years ago? You know there must have been MtFs out there... and since, as stated over and over here, you can't stop it, how did they manage to not be seen? You may argue that there were less gays 100 years ago but the truth is that there weren't, they just presented differently. Brokeback Mountain wasn't an unusual thing for those cowboys. And those spinster sisters? Often not sisters. Yet (with the exclusion of the Beardache or two-spirit native Americans) one rarely hears of MtFs. So it can be controlled at the very least (shoots the whole "you can't keep it hidden or not dress your whole life" theory now doesn't it?) There are tales of women who lived as men...yet few the other way. If genetics were true then we would be still hearing a greater number of FtMs. Yet, the opposite is true, MtFs are far more common.

There are many things that blend to make the current MtF explosion. Yes there were TSs 150 years ago. Some I am sure became female presenting and never married but lived as women in far away places. Now, with the advent of shopping and the ease of getting clothing and wigs, it is far easier to present. And you don't have to be a spinster.

The perfect answer isn't going to occur. Nature/nurture? Combination along with a few other things like environment and opportunity. You are seeking an answer for which the question really doesn't matter

[PaulaQ]

I agree with every thought you wrote, Stevie. This idea that there can be a gene for crossdressing just seems like wishful thinking. Fact is, when viewing this from the outside, crossdressing looks awfully similiar to some other behaviors that are sometimes mentioned here, so I highly doubt there's a 'crossdressing gene' but rather an inclination for some human males to create a seperate 'identity' for themselves. ]

I think it's unlikely to be a single gene - because it's not like there's a single "bit" that controls "Male" or "Female" in humans - we're talking multiple organs in the body that have to develop as either male or female. Most of the time, this works just swimmingly. But when it doesn't, it just doesn't.

TLDR: Our brains our different, and this happens during development. It may not be a gene at all.

1. Human beings can clearly be intersexed. The brain is a sexually dimorphic organ, and, interestingly enough, the last one to differentiate between males and females.
2. It's increasingly apparent that the brains of transgender people map more closely to the brains of cis people of their desired gender, rather than the brains of those matching their primary and secondary sexual characteristics. (Translation - I got a girl brain.)
3. I suspect that "behaviors" such as sexual orientation and gender expression are wired into our brains to a much greater extent than we realize. Gender expression between men and women varies over time based on social constructs - but we appear to be wired to need these differences.

When it's all finally understood, I'd be really surprised if we didn't find one or more structures within our brains that made combinations such as:
- feminine gay man
- crossdressing straight man
- MtF transsexual
- gender queer
and all the other combinations of behavior / identity / sexual orientation / and need for physical change (or lack thereof.)

Look - I can only really speak from my own personal perspective, but the need to be perceived in society as a woman, the need to BE a woman, is incredibly strong with me. So much so that if denied this for some reason, I'd literally choose self-destruction over life as a male. Given that CDing seems to be impossible to shake, I suspect it has to be a similarly fundamental part of the identity of the CDer. I think this stuff is wired into us, and as best we can tell, and for reasons we don't yet understand, this happens to some of us to some varying degree while we are developing in utero.

But it's probably not going to be just a single gene. There are a number of organs in the body that can be affected by intersexed conditions to varying degrees. It seems unlikely to me that there's just a single "bit" stored in our DNA that makes us who we are, in terms of gender. Human beings are just a lot more complex that that. I mean, maybe it's that way - who knows? But I wouldn't bet on it.

I know y'all would like for CDing to be a totally separate deal from being transsexual, but there really isn't even a credible model proposed that supports that. I'm sorry. I know that's scary. :/

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Great answer Lorileah. And I don't know if you ever watched Seinfeld, but there was an episode where Seinfeld contemplates what aliens would think of the dynamic between dogs and humans upon viewing us following them around, collecting their poop. Their first impressions would be completely different from reality. Equally, I think aliens would have the same wrong impressions of human life. They would land here and find that 99% of the print media and otherwise portrays buxom, big haired beautiful women. They would likely think these women are our leaders and the most valued human life.

I suspect it's these same signals that small children are also receiving that aids in this crossdressing explosion. Beautiful women are portrayed as living easy, envious lives and both boys and girls are growing up feeling this is the way to a valued existence. There are a million other reasons that affect childrens behavior, obviously, but given, as you mentioned, there was not the level of MTF's 150 years ago as there is now, the real difference is this cultural over-valuing of the female form. Throw in the many other factors that have changed with a modern time and it's not entirely surprising that men also seek the power that a beautiful woman apparently has.

I also find it telling that back in the day, men dressed as ruffled and primped as the next girl. These days, male clothing seems to grow plainer and plainer. It's almost like we're actively encouraging a vast gender difference. Yet, the average GG does not dress like the women in the media, so the reality for most of us is very different to what those aliens would see.

Anyway, this is a fascinating thread and it's always interesting to see what people think.

Edit: Paula, I assume there is a connection between CD and TS. Problem is, if they ever discovered 100% that CDing is caused by nurture and not nature/in utero etc, would you still want that connection? Personally, I see no less value in environmental causes than genetic as both are equally defiant and environmental conditions are no more or less serious or curable than genetic. So I guess, in the end, does it really matter why? That's the age old question, isn't it, lol. Glad to see you back, by the way. You seem very light and content in your posts so I assume life is good :)

[kimdl93]

Well, I won't delve into whether or not there's a CDing explosion. Increased awareness and visibility perhaps. What I find unpersuasive about the environmental arguments..other than perhaps in-uterine exposure to hormone-like substances...is that the vast majority of GM children, though exposed to the same social and family dynamics, do not become CDRs. It seems evident that at least the predilection is somehow wired into the transgendered brain.

[NicoleScott]

Katey, it seems that some didn't accept your premise and chose to argue whether it's hereditary or environmental. If it is hereditary, not all traits are passed down to each generation. but your premise says it does, so I'll go with it.
1) whether or not it's an inherited trait, if we crossdress we should tell our future wife at some appropriate time before marriage.
2) maybe we should ask our parents "would you have had me if you knew...?".
---------------
Childbirth is hereditary: chances are if your parents didn't have children, neither will you.
Insanity is hereditary: you get if from your kids.
haha

[PaulaQ]

Edit: Paula, I assume there is a connection between CD and TS. Problem is, if they ever discovered 100% that CDing is caused by nurture and not nature/in utero etc, would you still want that connection? Personally, I see no less value in environmental causes than genetic as both are equally defiant and environmental conditions are no more or less serious or curable than genetic. So I guess, in the end, does it really matter why? That's the age old question, isn't it, lol. Glad to see you back, by the way. You seem very light and content in your posts so I assume life is good :)

I'll accept whatever the facts are. However I'll be quite surprised if CDing is totally an environmental behavioral effect, while being transsexual isn't. Or the alternative would be that both are environmental behavioral effects. I'm quite certain that isn't the case. There's too much evidence that transsexualism is a biological process. (For one thing, estrogen seriously improved my mental and emotional state.)

Yesterday marks 25 years of sobriety for me. I had an easier time giving up drinking than I did cross dressing. Indeed, it wasn't until I realized that the behavior that was making my life insane and unmanageable wasn't the obvious one - dressing in women's clothes - it was, instead trying to live my life as a man when I just wasn't one!

Oh, and yes, life is good. I have a boyfriend now. He's awesome. Took me a long time to admit that I really was (mostly) a straight girl. I spend a lot of my spare time volunteering in the trans community. All good stuff.

[Melissa_59]

false logic. You were exposed on a daily basis to females wearing feminine articles of clothing...thus there is your environmental cue.

So was everyone else in the environment in which I grew up - a military brat. So why are they ALL not Crossdressers?

Talk about false logic...

~Melissa

[Dianne S]

Serial killers and child molesters are hoping for the same thing. That would explain what they do , and relieve them for any personal responsibility for their actions.

I believe pedophilia and psycopathy do have some genetic basis. There are plenty of studies showing that psychopath's brains do actually differ from normal people's brains. While this may partially explain what serial killers and child molesters do, it most certainly does not relieve them of personal responsibility. Someone with a genetic predisposition to harm others has to control his or her impulses for the good of society. That person may have a harder job than others, but that's just the luck of the draw. Unfortunate as it is for the individual involved, society has a duty to take all necessary steps to prevent the person from harming others.

If predisposition to transgender behaviour has a biological basis (which I believe it does) that's a whole other kettle of fish. Cross-dressing doesn't harm anyone else, so there's no reason a transgender person needs to fight against his or her nature.

Also, I don't believe "nature vs. nurture" debates are particularly helpful. It's likely impossible to prove how much of our personality comes from nature and how much from nurture... and anyway, what difference does it make? If a person ends up being a serial killer because of a rotten childhood, that equally absolves him or her of responsibility as rotten genes would.

[Tina_gm]

Some good observations here. I think the nurture side effects, how much, or how soon to a point. I was an only child and never bonded with my mother. So without solid female surroundings, it wasn't until my teenage years where I started to realize how I was different. But, that there would also be a great argument for the nature side, because I never had the nurture side to create a desire in the 1st place. It just took a little longer for it to become obvious to me. Looking back though, I can see how I was more effeminate than most of the other boys.

Paula and Tink, in regards to TS and CD, I believe it is all part of the same thing, but on a higher level for TS. There are cis gendered people, CD's who are somewhere in the middle, then there is TS, which is a complete opposite of the birth gender. When I look at my life in the big picture, I relate to women a lot, but not with everything. Some things are still a mystery to me and always will be. Same goes for men. I relate a lot to men, but some of the standard male behavior I just do not get and never will. And the same goes for TS. I relate to a lot of how their issues are, how they feel, but some things elude me and always will. I personally feel I am close to the middle, and it is a blessing and curse at the same time.

[NicoleScott]

Dianne S, you quoted me out of context to my reply to Melissa's hope (prayer) that her CDing is genetic. I'm certainly no advocate for excusing anyone's behavior because it's genetic and therefore they have no control over it. I'm not particularly concerned (only curious) about what drives me to crossdress. It doesn't really change anything. I agree with you that these debates aren't very useful.

[ReineD]

I'm opting out of the nature vs. nurture debate. Nothing has been proved. I tend to agree most with Zylia (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?221774-Nuture-Nature-and-the-Girl-Lizard-Brain-(GLB)&p=3645439&viewfull=1#post3645439)(in the other thread) … an argument for either side is logically fallacious when it is likely there are multiple causes for the CDing.




I suspect it's these same signals that small children are also receiving that aids in this crossdressing explosion. Beautiful women are portrayed as living easy, envious lives and both boys and girls are growing up feeling this is the way to a valued existence.

This is a good point. CDers represent a small percentage of the male population. Likewise, there is a small percentage of women who source their self-confidence from the way they look. You know the type … the woman whose life seems to revolve around clothes, makeup, her hair. Don't get me wrong, most of us do care how we look but not nearly to the degree that I'm speaking of. This is the woman who mistrusts and is jealous of other women, even when they are not a threat. This is the woman who is devastated by the process of aging, who is deeply bothered by an imperfect haircut, a broken fingernail, who prioritizes all sorts of cosmetic procedures in order to not lose the freshness of her youth, who will never go out without a lot of makeup on, way past the age when she should have scaled down years ago … a stereotypical example would be Tammy Faye Bakker (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GiZTWdi2o1I/TpLpDIukvsI/AAAAAAAAB1o/SnJLb_xnfPw/s1600/tammy-faye-bakker-1.jpg).

Something must have happened to cause such women to place so much emphasis on their looks and my instincts tell me this is deep rooted. Maybe they felt as a child they could only be loved by their father if they were beautiful. Or maybe they witnessed their father disrespecting their mother and felt their mothers would have had an easier time of it if they were more beautiful. And maybe a basis for such deep-rooted lack of confidence in the self is genetic. It could be a number of things.

My own son was imprinted by the most random thing! I owned a batik top with a very artsy, beautifully executed, large fish on the front. My son just loved it! He would snuggle up and hug me a lot more when I wore it, I remember him shouting out with glee and running up to me when I had it on, and I'm convinced this is what caused his lifelong love of fish! I brought him to a Japanese restaurant when he was four, and the minute he saw the whole raw fish he was mesmerized and determined to eat the sushi. I knew there was a connection between my top and the fish that my son saw that day. Imagine a 4 yr-old loving sushi! He still will choose fish over any other type of food, raw or cooked.

So who knows what random things cause deeply-rooted impressions during childhood.


Why do so many fantasize about being with a male while dressed...they want the feeling of being desired that men don't get in this culture.

This is an aside Lori, but women desire men just as much as men desire women (it's what makes the world go 'round). The difference is that most of us were taught by our mothers to not show it.

[Katey888]

Nicole - thanks for reading the premise and assumptions... :D You can guess I might have done that just because I didn't necessarily want to spark yet another debate over nature and nurture (please depart to the Lepidosauria thread started by my esteemed colleague Prof. Isha now, if you want to...) - but hey! The best laid plans...

I am pleased that most did treat the question at face value as I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to make particularly in the absence of any evidence that proves one way or another... so to those who stuck with that question and gave it a good shot.. :thanx:

And to those who were then brave enough to answer the hard question of whether you would see this a desirable trait to be passed on knowingly (if it was definitely blah, blah, blah...) - because I think a lot of folk have skirted around this one, either consciously or sub-...

Of course most of us would not love our children any less if they acquired this condition... but how would you feel if you knew you could have stopped it? I used the very real example of a friend whose children now have a lifelong, incurable condition that is cosmetic in a way, but potentially life changing all the same - I think our condition is like that too... In the wrong environment, if the degree of transgenderism is high (but not high enough to transition) this can be a difficult lifestyle to reconcile.

In simple terms - if I had a choice, I would hesitate to pass on something that I continue to see the majority of muggle world thinking of as abnormal, perverted, something to ridicule or find a cure for... but at the same time I think there is so much we don't know and can't be sure about, and maybe what we do have is a positive in some other ways, related to stress, relationships, empathy - who knows...???? Not me... And the nature of evolution is not always 'survival of the fittest' - as I believe this is now regarded as passé - but sometimes there are oddball mutations that pop up and allow unexpected leaps to take place rather than predictable progress - perhaps we're revolutionary rather than evolutionary...? :)

This leads for me to the most important point: that it is the way that society sees this condition that matters most - that with the right education and acceptance amongst the muggles, the 'problem' such as it is, goes away...

Good thoughts - thanks to everyone that contributed this far...

Katey x

[DonnaT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis

The central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) is sexually dimorphic. On average, the BSTc is twice as large in men as in women and contains twice the number of somatostatin neurons.[5] A sample of six male-to-female transsexuals taking estrogen were found to have female-typical number of cells in the BSTc, whereas a female-to-male transsexual taking testosterone was found to have a male-typical number.

The authors (W. Chung, G. De Vries, Dick Swaab) also examined subjects with hormone-related disorders and found no pattern between those disorders and the BSTc while the single untreated male-to-female transsexual had a female-typical number of cells. They concluded that the BSTc provides evidence for a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder and proposed that such was determined before birth.

In another finding:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961


There was no difference in INAH3 between pre-and post-menopausal women, either in the volume (P > 0.84) or in the number of neurons (P < 0.439), indicating that the feminization of the INAH3 of male-to-female transsexuals was not due to estrogen treatment.
We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.
These finding aren't conclusive proof that INAH3 and the BSTc are a cause for being trans, but indicates there is genetic influence at work.

[PaulaQ]

Of course, both of these discussions completely ignore the existence of FtM's... But, you know, go ahead and ignore them like everyone else does, and keep looking for social causes. Maybe we'll find the cure for transgender yet! /sarcasm /bitter


If this was a definitively hereditary condition that would be passed on to successive generations of your family:
1) Would it change your perspective about declaring this condition to a potential spouse before starting a relationship or having children?
2) How would you feel about knowingly passing on something that we can accept is not wrong, but might still be a terrible burden or blight for those who are forced to accommodate this condition in their lifestyle or environment?


To answer the OP's original questions:
1. There are tons of medical conditions that would fit this situation. Should both parties exchange full medical histories on the first date? Seriously, I hate this idea.
2. I hate this hypothetical. The handicap I suffer from was thought to possibly be genetic when I was younger. I never wanted children because of this. I was furious, when my wife at the time got pregnant. I was terrified for the term of the pregnancy until I saw my son was healthy. It's unlikely to be that simple, or they'd have figured this out already. Don't do this to yourself - I did, and it sucked.
3. Since there is a fair chance that being TG is a developmental issue in utero, it's possible that the mother's genetics may actually play a role in this. Should GG's report if they have a trans sibling or relative?

You know, before we start trying to eugenically manage the transgender condition, perhaps we could, you know, treat it as what it is medically first - a disabling and disfiguring condition affecting young children. Maybe if we started treating the trans kids humanely, we could have a lot more civilized discussion about this...

[Michelle789]

I think it's unlikely to be a single gene - because it's not like there's a single "bit" that controls "Male" or "Female" in humans - we're talking multiple organs in the body that have to develop as either male or female. Most of the time, this works just swimmingly. But when it doesn't, it just doesn't.


This is very likely the case. The fact that we can have several bits and pieces that make up our gender identity, and they all work just swimmingly is totally possible in most cases, and occasionally there are some mismatches is totally possible. Let me illustrate using holiday gift packages. Let's suppose that the North Pole Holiday Greetings Company produces holiday gift packages for the holiday season. There are two packages - a male package and a female package, each consisting of several gift items.

The female package consists is wrapped using a pink ribbon (this represents the birth sex, and is used to initially identify a package as female). When we open the package, we usually will discover.
1. A small pink egg stuffed animal. This represents the true gender identity.
2. Lipstick. This represents the gender expression.
3. A blue greeting card. This represents sexual orientation, with blue meaning attracted to men)
4. A copy of the movie Sex and the City 2. This represents the hormones the body needs to function properly - not the hormones your body already produces - that is determined by the ribbon.
5. A $50 gift card to Victoria's Secret. This represents your psychological makeup as stereotypical feminine.

The male package consists is wrapped using a blue ribbon (this represents the birth sex, and is used to initially identify a package as male). When we open the package, we usually will discover.
1. A small blue egg stuffed animal. This represents the true gender identity.
2. Baseball cards. This represents the gender expression.
3. A pink greeting card. This represents sexual orientation, with pink meaning attracted to women)
4. A copy of the movie Conan the Barbarian. This represents the hormones the body needs to function properly - not the hormones your body already produces - that is determined by the ribbon.
5. A $50 gift card to Sports Authority. This represents your psychological makeup as stereotypical male.

90% of the time, the employees at the company will produce the packages exactly as shown above with the correct ribbons on the outside. This represents the stereotypical cisgender, straight male or female.

0.03% of the time, the employees at the company will produce the contents of the package exactly as shown above, but put the wrong color ribbon on the outside of the package. This represents a transman or transwoman who is straight, stereotypical male or female, but born in the wrong body.

The remainder of the packages (9.97%) will be various mixes and matches of the contents and the outside ribbons. This represents cis-gays and lesbians, trans-gay and lesbians, crossdressers, genderqueers and gender fluids. Most of the time the outside ribbon is correct, and most of the contents match the ribbon, and maybe 1 or 2 of the contents don't match the ribbon. This represents cis-gays, cis-lesbians, male identified CDers, and some genderqueers or people outside the binary. Occasionally, the ribbon matches only with 1 or 2 of the contents, and the remainder of the contents don't match the ribbbon. This represents trans-gays, trans-lesbians, and people who need opposite sex hormones, name, gender pronouns but still are CDers or genderqueer or something else outside the binary.

Sometimes, an item will be completely missing. Sometimes there are duplicates of an item, both belonging to the same sex - such as two lipsticks representing a super feminine woman, or two sets of baseball cards representing a super macho man.

Sometimes you get the correct item, as well as it's opposite. Example you get both the pink and blue egg stuffed animal - this represents someone who is both male and female. A package might consist of no stuffed animal thus a genderless package. Maybe two pink and one blue stuffed animal.

A package might consist of both a pink and blue ribbon, or might be missing a ribbon completely. This represents someone who is interesexed. Maybe two pink or two blue ribbons.

A package might consist of both a pink and blue greeting card - represents bisexual. A package might consist of no greeting card - represents asexual. Maybe two blue and one pink greeting card - hence dates mostly men but might find a few women attractive.

A rainbow colored greeting card represents the pansexual - which means attracted to the soul.

I apologize if my analogy was lengthy and a bit confusing. I hope this makes sense to everyone and helps you to understand gender and sexuality diversity.

For the employees who produce the gender diverse package, they face varying consequences.

Some employees will get fired or docked pay for "making mistakes". Some employees will get a bonus or even a promotion for their creativity. Other employees will have absolutely nothing happen to them. This represents society's perceptions of gender and sexual variance.

The workers might make these variances in the packages for a few of reasons.
1. They were under so much pressure they weren't able to match up the items correctly.
2. They were not under so much pressure, but they were careless, and still mis-matched the items.
3. They might be very creative souls who like to occasionally experiment and try new combinations for fun.
4. Someone higher up in the company might purposely want to see some experimentation, and a success may lead to a new package being produced in the future.
5. A customer custom-ordered a package to be made differently.

Here are some more questions.



How do you explain that among cis-women, most are straight, but among transwomen, the majority are lesbian or bisexual?

What about butch lesbian and tomboyish straight women, which can exist in both cis and transwomen.

The feminine gay male or crossdressing straight or gay male not only exists in cis men, but in transmen as well.

Someone could transition from female to male, take testosterone, get necessary surgeries, go by a male name and pronouns, but still like to crossdress occasionally. Several possible outcomes may happen. This could also happen to someone who transitions from MTF as well.

1. Such a crossdresser might not pass as a woman, and keep their beard but wear a dress. This is sometimes called gender****. Gender**** can also exist in someone who does not alter their bodies and still goes by their birth name.
2. Such a FTM TS CDer might also occasionally pass as a woman and have a partial female identity or no female identity at all, but identify primarily as male. Basically an transmale version of the typical MTF CDer on this forum. Yes, it does happen in real life.
3. Some might still identify as gender fluid, but lean towards the side they transitioned to be. In our example, they are happy on testosterone, and going by a male name, and even legally changed their gender to male, but might identify as 20% female and dress as female occasionally. Once again, the transmale version of a gender fluid person that was born male, doesn't transition, but switches back and forth between male and female because of a fluid identity.
4. They might be genderqueer. Remember that taking hormones, going by a new name and pronouns, is separate from presentation and identity. Yes, some genderqueers may take hormones or go through a name, pronoun, or legal gender marker change.

If you don't believe me, I have personally met people like this in real life. None of the cases I have met regret their transition, nor wish to de-transition. They are comfortable taking hormones of the opposite of their birth sex, and comfortable going by a name and gender pronouns opposite to their birth sex, but are still genderqueer or gender fluid.