Printable View
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.
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. :)
I believe that it is generic. But I will never give it up.
“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/ar...sexuality.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/arti...f/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/ar...nd-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.”
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.
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....
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katey888
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
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.
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?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa_59
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG
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. :/
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 :)
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.
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
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG
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.
So was everyone else in the environment in which I grew up - a military brat. So why are they ALL not Crossdressers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
Talk about false logic...
~Melissa
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleScott
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.
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.
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.
I'm opting out of the nature vs. nurture debate. Nothing has been proved. I tend to agree most with Zylia (in the other thread) … an argument for either side is logically fallacious when it is likely there are multiple causes for the CDing.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis
In another finding:Quote:
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961
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.Quote:
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.
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
To answer the OP's original questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katey888
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaQ
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.