Crossdressing a lifestyle choice or genetic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

What about the evidence for a myriad of gene-behaviour connections then?

---

There is a big difference between simple behaviours and complex patterns of behaviour. My father and I have much the same temperament and many behaviours in common, and since he did not raise me they are almost certainly hereditary. Our habits, interests, and work are very different, despite that.

While it surely is true that we inherit some things which may make us more likely to dress (a possible example: being overly sensitive to touch and therefore preferring softer clothes), it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

I wish people would learn more about biology before thinking about the origins of CDs.

First of all our genes contain instructions on how to build a biological body - they are like construction blueprints. They do not indicate what color a tenant on the 23 floor will paint his room 10 years in the future. Crossdressing has got zip all to do with genetics.
....

Remember all behaviors are common to all humans irregardless of gender. To believe that you need to have a female brain or be genetically different to enjoy normal human behavior is silly. It is only society's rules that makes us believe we are different from others. We are not. Period.

---

Ah. Thanks for enlightening us... Behaviour has nothing to do with genetics. I obviously just learned to be left-handed, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

..it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

---

Surely people are saying the causes for cross-dressing (e.g gender dysphoria) may be genetic.

Genes can't make you a carpenter - but they can provide you with the talents to be a good carpenter, or artist, or fast-jet pilot, or mathematician?

They may be the reason why you feel more comfortable wearing clothes of the sex opposite to that you were born with.. But I agree, particularly given the range in which we present, it's highly unlikely that there's just one cause.

I feel I was born this way. What I want to know is what happened to have me know it was something I had to hide even as a small child. I know my mother and sister both knew I CDed but nothing was ever said. My father hated me. I retired as a senior research scientist(in physical chemistry) and my father always called me old stupid( it did take me 13 years to get my first degree)... did I offend him?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

There is a big difference between simple behaviours and complex patterns of behaviour. My father and I have much the same temperament and many behaviours in common, and since he did not raise me they are almost certainly hereditary. Our habits, interests, and work are very different, despite that.

While it surely is true that we inherit some things which may make us more likely to dress (a possible example: being overly sensitive to touch and therefore preferring softer clothes), it is just way too simple to say "crossdressing is genetic." That's like saying that being a carpenter is genetic.

---

Rather I'd suggest it's like saying being artistic or creative is genetic. Which we know it often is as schizophrenia is often but not always hereditary and non-schizophrenic family members of schizophrenic people where there is a family history of schizophrenia are vastly more creative than the general distribution of creativity in the population which is why the current theory is that schizophrenia is an uncommon side-effect of having the advantageous gene for higher proportions of creativity.

Crossdressing is the simple behaviour, what style you wear is the complex so long as it's associated with the other sex.

There is evidence for genetic/neurological aspects of both gender identity and expression. With neuron counts and size and activity in different brain areas related to being closer to the identified or expressed sex. The question is how are they related. Autopsy studies, FMRI scans, this is evidence that cannot be dissmissed without cause.

Is crossdressing a mild case of neurological transgender while transexual more severe? Like mild, moderate and severe Autism? Or is it a variaton? Like Aspergers? Or is there both, both of which currently get called crossdressing?

Only more testing on crossdressers compared to transexuals will give us the answer.

People like to shy away from some things but here's some facts for you to learn to cope with.

FMRI brain scans have shown that in some parts of the brain many gay men are like average women and many lesbian women are like average men in their brain activity.

That means homosexuality is a form of transgender!

While the areas of this activity are different in Transexuals nonetheless they too are more like the self-identified sexes average brain activity.

So being Gay IS a variation on being transgender. Tough for all those TG folk who keep saying 'im not gay' cause yes you are, or rather, gays are transgender like you, just in a slightly different way.

As for brain development I was just listening this morning to a neurologist explaining that brain wiring occurs in stages and that lack of sufficient stimuli like the physical contact between mother and baby, during these stages has permanant results on brain wiring. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm (relevant portion should be up in transcript or for download in a day or so)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

What about the evidence for a myriad of gene-behaviour connections then?

---

All behaviors linked to gene instructions have an evolutionary reason to exist. They gave an advantage to survival and reproduction and over thousands of generations become infused into the human genome. What advantage is there to males pretending to be females remembering that there is no way a male in a natural environment could ever fool another person. There is no "passing" in the jungle.

Until very recently life was short and brutal, most people did not live long enough to successfully reproduce. The traditional behavior of males being competitive, protectors and providers is the behavior that females do seek because it increases the chance of successfully raising offspring.

And if you believe CD behavior did ever occur in our evolutionary past then there must have been a time when all males pretended to be females for this code to be inserted into genome. This also means all males carry this behavioral sequence in their genes.

Quote:

---

But the brain, like the rest of the body goes through stages of growth and development, it's not a steady-state but one of bursts. And there is only so much regrowth. Only some who suffer substantial brain damage are lucky enough to have their brains rewire around the damagedd sections so that other brain parts can take over the role of the dmaged areas.

---

Indeed but all cells in the brain like the rest of the body do eventually die. There is not a single cell in your brain that has survived from the time you were a baby. They have all been replaced.

Behaviors are based upon the linkage between cells. These linkages grow and become increasingly more permanent the more often we carry out the behavior. This is why as adults our CD behavior seems so intrinsic. But the average CD does not emerge until between the ages of 8-12 often without any previous experience of desiring to be female. This indicates that CDing begins more out of curiosity and experimentation which leads the child to learn that it enjoys the feelings which then progresses to an entrenched behavior. There are no doubt factors in the child's life that may push or pull the child to experiment - the belief that girls have it easier, the desire to creatively dress up, the desire to avoid growing up into an adult male, the desire to avoid responsibility, the desire to be quiet and submissive etc. The child finds adopting the opposite gender role satisfies parts of his personality that were being ignored by adhering to the strict male gender role.

Behaviors are not linked to genetic code. In my primary class at school there were identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other). But these twins had completely different personalities, almost the polar opposite of each other. If genetic code could determine personality then this event could not occur, the twins would have to have very, very similar personalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

Ah. Thanks for enlightening us... Behaviour has nothing to do with genetics. I obviously just learned to be left-handed, then?

---

No genetics builds both hands exactly the same. The choice as to which hand is made the primary tool for exploration which then becomes an entrenched behavior appears to be determined by on which side the fetus lies its head inside the womb. It is immaterial which hand is favored as our genes have built them exactly the same way so there is no detriment to the person.

I like the theroy ...Really smart ,,But logic tells me that we recieve our DNA....not only from our father but our mother as well.....Sometimes babys are born bearing both sexual organs..now if the gene pool is so perfect then how does this happen? ..and couldn't the same go for CDing ?Cding has been in existance for centrys it may also be a form of evolution....If you haven't noticed the male role has changed ..we no longer hunt and gather to provide and have a civil service to protect us.. Our instinct still exisit but is rarley carried out.... I don't know about most but I am sure every male has heard several times in his life or 100s of times....that when more was expected out of him....and less was performed ...he was compared to a sissy ..amung other choice words relating or pointing to the opposite sex... I'm sure this went on for centrys.. In tribes..which we all grew from...the weaker not as physical sensitive males stayed behind ..when the stronger more physical males did the hunting and the battles..Now cding has be going on for a long time some say 1000s of years I know Adam didn't tend to wear Eves fig leave but I believe Transgenderisum has be around almost as long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

Crossdressing is the simple behaviour, what style you wear is the complex so long as it's associated with the other sex.

---

If crossdressing is simply genetic at that level, it should be easy to trace in families, in the same way other neurological characteristics are. Do you have any references showing this?

Quote:

---

There is evidence for genetic/neurological aspects of both gender identity and expression.

---

I'd be interested in any links you've got on the subject.

Quote:

---

People like to shy away from some things but here's some facts for you to learn to cope with.

---

(Do you realize how rude that sounds? I hope that was just a blip).

Quote:

---

That means homosexuality is a form of transgender!

---

Again, I'd be interested in any links or other references you have on the subject.

Quote:

---

As for brain development I was just listening this morning to a neurologist explaining that brain wiring occurs in stages and that lack of sufficient stimuli like the physical contact between mother and baby, during these stages has permanant results on brain wiring.

---

I think that's pretty well-known. There are even some who believe attachment disorders can never be remedied for this reason. It's a disturbing thought but one that is hard to deny.

That also fits with the rather unpopular views expressed in another thread, about both crossdressing and homosexuality being related to a close mother and an absent father. :) No doubt somebody will come along to debate that further.

Personally, I am wiling to give serious thought to any of these notions. I am also perfectly willing to consider that I might have no inborn sexual identity at all, even though I find women attractive and not men. But that does not mean I will just blindly accept any theory that gets tossed up. You say these are facts. Ok, please show us some references so we can study the facts for ourselves.

If there is an organic "cause", it is probably hormonal rather than genetic. There are a lot of data in the medical/psychological fields on the role of various hormones at different developmental stages. Reading some of this (e.g., Brain Gender) really seems to support the idea of a gender gradient controlled by the independent mix of hormone doses we got in early development. Joni

Its funny you say that Joni...Now I am gonna duck out from this real quick before I get stoned..But the brain does control how much testosrone you produce.. The old theroy of a boy being to much of a sissy and forceing him to do more manly things..well it got shot down..But I can pretty much say you will rarley see a Cder changing a starter in an old Buick wearing a mini skirt and pumps. There is also a large percent of CDers who loose the urge after ejaculation..Hmmmm ..Hard to say why..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curse within

But I can pretty much say you will rarley see a Cder changing a starter in an old Buick wearing a mini skirt and pumps.

---

Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?

Quote:

---

There is also a large percent of CDers who loose the urge after ejaculation..Hmmmm ..Hard to say why..

---

That is an interesting and relevant detail. Presumably that percentage would be among the same ones who see dressing as a sexual act and not those who see it as just self-expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?



That is an interesting and relevant detail. Presumably that percentage would be among the same ones who see dressing as a sexual act and not those who see it as just self-expression.

---

Elaine ..Thats just it sometimes you ( people I mean I know you already do) have to seperate those who CD as an act and those..who CD has a behavior.. Not try to put CDing as a whole.. Here is why I say that..You could put 100 randomly selected crossdressers in a room ...Study them and find..most have nothing in common.....Now...lets say you put 100 people who feel secure with being called Transgender...You will find more of them having things in common... Why..because Cding as a whole is a crap shoot on why one perfers to do it,sexual act,growing up in a disfunctional house hold,or lifetime dersires of being a female I'm sure there are more but I am keeping my post short..

Id like to comment on the "dont know, dont care" attitude as I kinda fall into this camp. I really feel my desire to crossdress is a combination of both genetics and early experiences. I find that being in denial carries a heavy price as mentioned in earlier posts.

Accepting that I am a crossdresser was huge relief and a very positive step for me. It answered the "who" and "what" questions. At that point "where", "when" and "how" become very important and time consuming. thats kinda where I am at the moment.

"Why" is the last piece of the puzzle, an intriguing piece to be sure, but it just doesn't seem that important to me. In time it may become more important as I sort out the others.

I also wonder what I would do with that answer and how it would change my life. Do I really want to know ?

Say its all chemical : There is the classic question about if there was a cure would you take it. In my case no.

If its was proven that its all genetic: Would we have an "I am Spartacus" moment where everyone steps out of the closet ? Would society at large open its arms and accept us ? (race relations answers that one) It would certainly speed up the process of acceptance but we would be on the same road just a bit farther along.

Say its all environmental: What doors would knowing Mommy, Daddy or society caused this open ? Not sure I want to go there.

I do have one real regret on the "why" question and that is that I wasnt far enough along on my journey of acceptance to talk to my mother about it. After she passed; it became very apparent that she had done some research on the subject and knew what I was before I accepted it. I always figured that she knew, but thought it was a phase I had grown out of. I dont blame my parents and wish I would have told them that, might have learned allot and been able to contribute to the little bit of research being done.

I guess its not that I dont care about the "why"; but that I think we can do more with the "how", "when" and "where" by acting responsibly and presenting ourselves in a positive light when we do present in public.


Cari
Ohio

Cari, I am very happy for you and others who think just as you do at this stage in your life.....Me and those who feel the same way as I do would like a cure to be found......Its easy to say I do this because of choice ..when that is correct I do.. But that is not the answer I am looking for...What makes me so un controlably want to do this.. and others is the answer I am looking for..

I would like to live a normal life as a genetic male not a crossdressing male.. Crossdressing consumes to much of my time for I choose to live in the closet..
I will never change that choice...I would like to live a normal genetic male life with the next Misses C.W. and not have dressing a problem...Most GG's do not accept that men like to wear female clothing...So I am stuck and in the hunt but leary as I go....IT interfers with my new relationships I get nervious when the hopefull next Misses C.W. gets close.. I don't want to hurt her and I don't want to expose myself to her in fear of being exposed... Tough road to live in the closet I know no need to point that out..

But I believe in order to treat Crossdressing it has to be broken down into the different ways it is carried out from individules..It could then be easier to find the source or what is causeing the urge.. taking the maze effect away and going to a direct path. In theroy I hope but it's a good dream..

I feel I was born a crossdersser.If only I had accepted myself I could have save many years of doubt about my self.I now love who and what I am.

I think it's genetic.
As I have commented before, ask someone if they are left-handed or right-handed. Then ask them why. They don't know why, they just know they are.

And since it is genetic....I choose to enjoy it. :D

dressing for me has to be genetic I wanted dress like the girls in school I love to dress as a woman

i agree not really a choice i have always thought i was femme. i have been through all the (symptoms), shame, secrecy, hiding but i shill dressed. i have been dressing for about 34 yrs and im only 38. i think it has alot to do with a nuturing mother figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

No genetics builds both hands exactly the same. The choice as to which hand is made the primary tool for exploration which then becomes an entrenched behavior appears to be determined by on which side the fetus lies its head inside the womb. It is immaterial which hand is favored as our genes have built them exactly the same way so there is no detriment to the person.

---

Handedness isn't determined by our hands, but by our brains - and there's plenty of evidence out there to show how left and right-handed brains differ?

What about which eye and which foot is master? There are left-handed, right-eyed people out there and vice versa..

Lastly, if it is purely behavioural, why, in generations previous to this when it was literally beaten out of people, did they generate other mental health issues, like stammers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joni Beauman

developmental stages. Reading some of this (e.g., Brain Gender) really seems to support the idea of a gender gradient controlled by the independent mix of hormone doses we got in early development. Joni

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curse within

But the brain does control how much testosrone you produce..

---

So what makes the body/brain act like that, if not the way it has formed - which is determined genetically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

Why am I suddenly expecting to see somebody post a picture of themselves doing exactly this?

---

Look around the forum - there have already been plenty posted previously. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

Handedness isn't determined by our hands, but by our brains - and there's plenty of evidence out there to show how left and right-handed brains differ?

What about which eye and which foot is master? There are left-handed, right-eyed people out there and vice versa..

---

That is what I said. Like several others here you are using the term genetics without understanding what it means from a technical point of view. Your genes built two identical hands, your genes built your brain. The choice of which hand to use was a decision that became entrenched in your thought processes. This happened after your brain was built, so the choice of your handedness has got nothing to do with genetics. Science says it is chosen on the basis of which side a fetus lies its head.

Indeed the fact that historically left handed people were prohibited from using their left hand and they had to subsequently learn to use their right hand proves this point. They became ambidextrous, something which would not be possible if handedness was genetic since that would mean it was hard-wired so that only one hand can be favored.

Quote:

---

Lastly, if it is purely behavioural, why, in generations previous to this when it was literally beaten out of people, did they generate other mental health issues, like stammers?

---

Perhaps precisely because it was literally beaten out of them? They were told they were abnormal and were systematically bullied so their self esteem disappeared.

Just because something seems intrinsic to you does not mean it is genetic. Most fundamental behavioral traits become so entrenched with so many linkages inside our brains that they become impossible to dislodge.

Our genes are blind to society's gender rules. The personalities we were born with are also blind to gender roles. We are not born fated to be a CD. But as we grow up and learn and interpret our world each in our own unique way of thinking some of us appreciate our personalities do not fit very well into society's assigned gender roles or we get envious of the other genders' freedoms and so we bend the rules to accommodate our wants.

Quote:

---

So what makes the body/brain act like that, if not the way it has formed - which is determined genetically?

---

Genetics builds brain cells, genetics does not determine how cells are linked together. Linkages are formed from physical behavior and thoughts which if repeated often enough becomes entrenched with many linkages. Thoughts and behavior create new linkages not genetics, this is how we learn. Only instinctive behavior favored for survival is coded by our genetics. This is inherited from our evolutionary past and is coded within our older primitive parts of the brain. Our frontal lobe area which is the thinking/learning center (the part that makes us human) does not grow while we are inside the womb but grows outside during our first year where it is already interacting with our environment.

The only time genetics impacts on human behavior is when the brain is not built correctly leading to abnormal linkages not normally found in healthy brains. There is no evidence that CDs have genetic defects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

All behaviors linked to gene instructions have an evolutionary reason to exist.

---

Yes, but not always an advantage in all circumstances as moths and candleflame demonstrate eloquently.

Quote:

---

They gave an advantage to survival and reproduction and over thousands of generations become infused into the human genome.

---

Or often a few generations depending on if all the species carry the gene or just a few.

Quote:

---

What advantage is there to males pretending to be females remembering that there is no way a male in a natural environment could ever fool another person. There is no "passing" in the jungle.

---

As in schizophrenia not all genes produce advantage alone but often advantage (creative family) and disadvantage (some in that family have scizophrenia). Yet the advantage of extra creativity is such that the gene is widespread and so is the negative side effect.

The people of Samoa did not have metal technology untill recently. Yet they had and still have crossdressers as a 'third sex' that function well in the society. They are often a males first sexual experience, they do a great deal of housework and child rearing.

And as ants bees termites and other animals show Kin Selection, where a non-reproducing sibling helps the reproducing sibking thrive and prosper is of massive advantage.

Quote:

---

Until very recently life was short and brutal, most people did not live long enough to successfully reproduce. The traditional behavior of males being competitive, protectors and providers is the behavior that females do seek because it increases the chance of successfully raising offspring.

---

And yet on Samoa and many other places where technology remained at the stone and shell and wood and sharksteeth level the Fafafine prospered.

Quote:

---

And if you believe CD behavior did ever occur in our evolutionary past then there must have been a time when all males pretended to be females for this code to be inserted into genome. This also means all males carry this behavioral sequence in their genes.

---

Very much not so!
Not every human has the same genes for starters. And then most genes work through mulltiple expression. One copy and you get an advantage, two double the advantage or a genetic illness. Two copies of the apotheosis gene for example results in a 400% decrease in cancer as tumours kill themselves off while two copies of the Maleria resisting gene and you have sickle-cell aenemia!

Quote:

---

Indeed but all cells in the brain like the rest of the body do eventually die. There is not a single cell in your brain that has survived from the time you were a baby. They have all been replaced.

---

But the pattern, placement and associations of those cells, the positions and attachments of axons and dendrites shift very little except in certain circumstances. Which is why small children with brain damage to their speech centre dont just re-wire their speech centres as they get older all the time. It dies happen in rare circumstances but not often.

Quote:

---

Behaviors are based upon the linkage between cells. These linkages grow and become increasingly more permanent the more often we carry out the behavior. This is why as adults our CD behavior seems so intrinsic. But the average CD does not emerge until between the ages of 8-12 often without any previous experience of desiring to be female. This indicates that CDing begins more out of curiosity and experimentation which leads the child to learn that it enjoys the feelings which then progresses to an entrenched behavior. There are no doubt factors in the child's life that may push or pull the child to experiment - the belief that girls have it easier, the desire to creatively dress up, the desire to avoid growing up into an adult male, the desire to avoid responsibility, the desire to be quiet and submissive etc. The child finds adopting the opposite gender role satisfies parts of his personality that were being ignored by adhering to the strict male gender role.

---

But certain parts of the brain are related to specific behaviours. And neurotransmitter levels in those parts of the brain effect their functioning. And genes are part of brain development and neurotransmitter levels and hormone function etc etc all of which do effect behaviour.

Remember were not just talking about behaviourisms, like the skill for walking or throwing a basketball, but in behaviour drives like hunger and the desire for sex.

Quote:

---

Behaviors are not linked to genetic code.

---

Schizophrnia et al says otherwise.

Quote:

---

In my primary class at school there were identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other). But these twins had completely different personalities, almost the polar opposite of each other. If genetic code could determine personality then this event could not occur, the twins would have to have very, very similar personalities.

---

Heard of epigenetics?
Did you know that as Identical twins grow older they become genetically and often anatomically different?

That is because events in life switch different genes on and off, and the switch of the gene can then be passed on to the next generation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

If crossdressing is simply genetic at that level, it should be easy to trace in families, in the same way other neurological characteristics are. Do you have any references showing this?

---

When in the closet it is hard to trace. And yet evidence is turning up amongst gay people that often uncles and cousins are also gay at a higher level than the rest of the population. There have been genes found related to TS and so logicly we should expect CDing to follow suite though it may not. Also I have heard anecdotal reports of people finding out relatives crossdressed. It's not confirmed but cannot be ignored as a possibility till it is ruled in or out by studies which alas are yet to be done.

Quote:

---

I'd be interested in any links you've got on the subject.

---

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/07/...of-puzzle.html
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/...and-brain.html

and there should be more on that blog

Quote:

---

(Do you realize how rude that sounds? I hope that was just a blip).

---

My apologies, I didn't mean to be rude.

Quote:

---

I think that's pretty well-known. There are even some who believe attachment disorders can never be remedied for this reason. It's a disturbing thought but one that is hard to deny.

That also fits with the rather unpopular views expressed in another thread, about both crossdressing and homosexuality being related to a close mother and an absent father. :) No doubt somebody will come along to debate that further.

---

Only if a true causation or correlation can be found. But alas for the freudians the studies since Freud did not find such a correlation between sexuality or TG and parental neglect.

Quote:

---

Personally, I am wiling to give serious thought to any of these notions. I am also perfectly willing to consider that I might have no inborn sexual identity at all, even though I find women attractive and not men. But that does not mean I will just blindly accept any theory that gets tossed up. You say these are facts. Ok, please show us some references so we can study the facts for ourselves.

---

Absolutely! What is 'fact' today may be the 'mistaken belief' or 'partial truth' of tomorrow because that is how discovering observable measurable truth always works. Everything must always be considered questionable. But data should never be dissmissed because it's inconvenient or doesn't match expectations. So either we must take the data into account or find the flaws with the data that shows it can't be considered valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

Yes, but not always an advantage in all circumstances as moths and candleflame demonstrate eloquently.

---

True but that does not invalidate the original behavior which developed before candles were invented.

Quote:

---

Or often a few generations depending on if all the species carry the gene or just a few.

---

The human species diversified over the globe 50,000 years ago. So any genetic basis for gender must have developed a long time ago well before any recognizable society or knowledge existed.

Quote:

---

The people of Samoa did not have metal technology untill recently. Yet they had and still have crossdressers as a 'third sex' that function well in the society. They are often a males first sexual experience, they do a great deal of housework and child rearing.

---

Absolutely! the genuine TG role that exists throughout the Pacific Island societies is as good an example you will ever find that gender is not genetic or preordained. Gender can and is controlled by one's surroundings and so it is actually straightforward to mold a child's gender identity so long as society approves of this role allowing it to peacefully exist with prejudice.

Contrary to what is believed in the West there can be as many types of gender as society dreams up.

Quote:

---

Very much not so!
Not every human has the same genes for starters.

---

But nowhere is there evidence for a gene that acts like a switch between masculine and feminine gender. This is impossible since the definitions of gender except for the sexual roles are created by society.

Quote:

---

But the pattern, placement and associations of those cells, the positions and attachments of axons and dendrites shift very little except in certain circumstances.

---

But when a cell dies its linkages are broken. These linkages can be regrown if the behaviors are repeated.

Quote:

---

But certain parts of the brain are related to specific behaviours. And neurotransmitter levels in those parts of the brain effect their functioning. And genes are part of brain development and neurotransmitter levels and hormone function etc etc all of which do effect behaviour.

---

I think you are looking down the telescope the wrong way around. The brain is like any other part of the body in that it responds to the individuals needs. So if we exercise a certain part of it by doing a certain behavior then that part will grow with more cells and more linkages. It is not genes which grows certain parts bigger but behavior which induces growth in exactly the same way a muscle grows upon exercise. The key then is a person's personality and how this personality interacts with the surroundings.

Quote:

---

Remember were not just talking about behaviourisms, like the skill for walking or throwing a basketball, but in behaviour drives like hunger and the desire for sex.

---

Some behaviors are instinctive though for survival and should not be confused with learned behaviors which must adapt to the society the person is born into.

Quote:

---

Schizophrnia et al says otherwise.

---

Only for genetic defects.

Quote:

---

That is because events in life switch different genes on and off, and the switch of the gene can then be passed on to the next generation!

---

This would only be relevant if there was a gender gene. There isn't.

Quote:

---

When in the closet it is hard to trace.

---

Except that in the case of identical twins it is actually very easy to trace. Overwhelmingly identical twins do not share behaviors like being transgendered or being gay. If either behavior was based in genetics we would see 100% (or close to) match in identical twins. We have a ready made scientific experiment which proves these types of behavior have no genetic basis. This easily trumps all other anecdotal evidence and until it can be explained why genetic clones do not share the same TG behavior then everything else is essentially mute.

Quote:

---

There have been genes found related to TS

---

I would disagree, so far this is all disputed speculation based on tiny unscientific sampling or animal experiments. None of these theories have been endorsed by the scientific community. That does not automatically mean it is wrong but a lot more data needs to be gathered and large gaping holes in reasoning closed before any of these theories can be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raleighbelle

If it truly were [all] environmental and upbringing, then I would expect to hear certain similarities in the stories of cross-dressers growing up, and also would expect a certain ability to predict, seeing a young boy in a similar situation, that he will become a cross-dresser (without knowing anything else about him), and I certainly have not seen that.

---

You may have not seen that, however "it" may exist though....:)

As an instance, the first-born child (of a family of 2 or more childs) is more prone to crossdress than the last-born child. :brolleyes:

So that you can predict that in such families the first-born child has 1.5 time more chance to CD than the last-born.

If CDers were born that way, as many forum members seem to believe it, you would expect that first-born childs and last-born childs would have the same probability to CD.
It's not the case.

This rather simple fact would be sort of a proof that nurture plays a role in crossdressing.
But which role ?
That's the question.

Regards

Oh my god - when will people let the nature verse nurture thing go? What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes. It is both at the same time, often one more than the other, but still both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora27

it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes.

---

You are right.
And if this statement satifies wholly your curiosity, I am happy for you.

As for me, I would prefer to know a bit more.
May I ?

Don't get me wrong, I find this subject intensely fascinating and I love learning more - about anything for that matter. I'm still curious but it just irks me when people array themselves into teams led by the captains 'nature' and 'nurture' and then futilely do epic intellectual battles with each other. Each team has part of the answer yet is unwilling to accept the other part from 'the enemy'.

So bring on the battle and the research, just don't expect in 5 or 10 years to suddenly go "wow! so thats why?" and have one of the teams do an instant conversion to one unified explanation of the source of crossdressing.

I firmly believe it is a lifestyle choice. I was never curious about wearing female clothes until I was a teenager. Sure I thought they looked nice before then, but one day I was curious about what a dress felt like. I tried one on and sure enough I liked it. Had I not done that I may have grown up without any crossdressing desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora27

What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour.

---

Nothing is hard about it ... I just like to understand things, especially when they relate to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

When in the closet it is hard to trace.

---

I was thinking about this and am not sure if it is or is not any harder to trace than other things. Yes, CDers tend to stay in the closet but ... how many actually succeed over the course of a lifetime? I have a very good idea as to the sexual quirks of my parents and uncles and aunts (and CDing is not among them).

Also ... while we might argue forever about why we crossdress, there is next to no ambiguity that we do. If you like to wear clothes of the opposite sex, you are a CDer. Nothing more to be said. That is very different from studying things like bipolarity or autism. For those it is very subjective just to identify people as belonging in those categories.

Yet headshrinkers have studied those other areas and we know with much certainty that they have (at least) a strong hereditary component. There does not seem to be any such clear trail for crossdressing even though it has been known about for as long as people have kept records.

If there were some genetic component then it might be that it expresses in one person as crossdressing and in another as homosexuality (or bisexuality or asexuality or some other gender-related quirk.) But again I have not heard of any such published results, and this does not fit the anecdotal data I have seen. That might be a good thing to poll ourselves about.

It still would not conclusively prove anything, however ... because the fair response is that people with sexual issues are likely to impress them on their children one way or another.

Thanks for the links. I will follow them up when I have time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

Overwhelmingly identical twins do not share behaviors like being transgendered or being gay.

---

That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please.

There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance. Even in these enlightened times probably most people still expect men to be dominant and women to be submissive, on some subconscious level if not consciously.

I don't believe it's a question of choice, because we like what we like, and as far as genetics are concerned, I don't believe modern science is able to tell what motivates us to do certain things or behave a certain way.

So, basically put, we need to enjoy what we can, do our best to fit in with the rest of society, and get on with life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

That is what I said. Like several others here you are using the term genetics without understanding what it means from a technical point of view. Your genes built two identical hands, your genes built your brain. The choice of which hand to use was a decision that became entrenched in your thought processes. This happened after your brain was built, so the choice of your handedness has got nothing to do with genetics. Science says it is chosen on the basis of which side a fetus lies its head.

---

Point me to a link where 'science' says that.. All I've ever read says the way the brain is built differs between left and right-handed people. It was only once that was realised that right-handers stopped trying to beat it out of us?

And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said?

[edit]A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10?[/edit]

Quote:

---

They became ambidextrous, something which would not be possible if handedness was genetic since that would mean it was hard-wired so that only one hand can be favored.

---

No... Actually, they became damaged, by being forced to think in a sub-optimal way? Like many left-handers, I can easily mirror-write. That's not practised, it just comes naturally - we just have to become accustomed to writing the way the right-handed population do..

But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

This is impossible since the definitions of gender except for the sexual roles are created by society.

---

I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true?

Satrana, what are your qualifications for making such absolute statements? I don't think many genetic researchers would be so definite as you seem to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora27

What is so difficult about accepting that it is a whole range of things that contribute to behaviour. Nature - yes. Nurture - yes. It is both at the same time, often one more than the other, but still both.

---

Absolutely. How can it be otherwise? But we didn't all turn out this way just because we laid on one side of our heads.. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekGirl1701

I firmly believe it is a lifestyle choice. I was never curious about wearing female clothes until I was a teenager. Sure I thought they looked nice before then, but one day I was curious about what a dress felt like. I tried one on and sure enough I liked it. Had I not done that I may have grown up without any crossdressing desires.

---

I'm really glad that works for you. :) Can you choose to stop?

Just a thought from me..

For those of you who believe CDing is only about wearing clothes and material aspects of being a woman (i.e. I just like to dress up in women's clothes and don't want to be a woman - and don't get me wrong I'm not saying this applies to all CDs just some of them!) and also firmly believe that CDing is genetic, how do you explain your attraction to what can be considered modern items?

To explain a little more, it's unlikely that there have been any real changes to our genetic codes in terms of behaviour for thousands of years (or atleast changes that have spread throughout the population - afterall CDing is pretty much spread throughout all cultures in the world) yet many of the items you are attracted to can be considered modern when taken in this context? Surely this would indicate that while there may well be some genetic basis for the behaviour (such as an attraction to feminity) this cannot explain an attraction to specific modern items so would suggest that there must be some element of learnt behaviour in choosing what items you are attracted to?

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I guess I'm just interested in this very topic as I studied the relationship between genetics and behaviour at university and wondered your views on it from that angle?

Before I discovered CDing, I liked to be wrapped up tightly in my sheet/blanket. I thought it would be the neatest thing to be an astronaut, not because of weightlessness, but because of the total (and imagined tight) coverage of the spacesuit.

During puberty, I learned about sex from dad's magazines, one of which featured some bondage and forced CDing. The models in their corsets were just stunning, and from then on I knew that I would one day be wearing such things.

So, for me coming to crossdressing came from a predisposition to seek out interesting tactile sensations, such as tight clothing and a variety of fabrics, coupled with the environmental influence of my dad's literature. With the "pornification" of America, I may have wound this way eventually, whether my dad had those mags or not (I'm thinking of music video girls, especially).

If men's clothes were more varied in style and fabric, I might be able to live without CDing (men's skirts appeared on the runways of NY a few years ago- what happened to them?). We have already seen this change in one area: undergarments for men now are quite diverse, and this wasn't the case 20 years ago.

Anyone know where I can get a nice kilt in forest green?

CDing from other cultures, especially ones where the men's and women's clothing differs little (such as the robes of North Africa), would shed more light on the subject. The U.S., with it's freedoms and great emphasis placed on the individual, may not be a valid sample of CDing in terms of the sum total of the human population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

I'm really glad that works for you. :) Can you choose to stop?

---

Yes I can, actually. I've gone months without dressing or even wanting to dress. And I've never felt an overwhelming urge to dress during those times. That's just me, though.

I think it all has to do with taste. Certain types of clothes I used to like, but now would never wear. To me it's just clothes. Maybe if I wanted to make a full transition to look and act feminine 24/7 I might see it as genetic. But even then I don't think it's that easy.

I guess I'm siding with the camp that thinks it's too complicated to figure out whether it's a choice or genetics.

Well I've provided links to Zoe Brain's blog which cites specific studies etc.

The critics of these studies could do us a favour by providing links to study-citing counter arguments. as i'm just not that good at googling.

Regarding brain development.

It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it?

And please lets not be ablist regarding Autism and Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a disadvantage side-effect of an advantageous gene, that results in increased creativity. Humanity owes much of it's art and science and progress to that gene with schizophrenia the result. Hence why it is a widespread gene, the gene is an advantage ven at the risk of getting schizophrenia!

The same can be said of Autism, especially Aspergers. Aspergers-brained people appear to have been amongst the great scientists and engineers upon whose work the modern world is based.

These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society.

According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are dissproportionatly found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?

Also as for handedness, I've met plenty of people forced to use their right hand when they were naturally left-handed (in Catholic schools the practice continued longer) and they all either reverted later or had wretchedly bad handwrinting despite using their right hand all their lives.

Yet, I was born ambidextrous. I only came to favour one hand in year 2 when because of seating arrangement at school could not keep switching between hands while writing when one grew tired because I'd bump elboys with the kids on either side on out tiny desks.

Since then I have grown slowly increasingly more right-handed noting a distinct difference in unconcious fine motor control between either hand, I do calligraphy right-handed and can barely make legible words lefthanded.

However when doing martial arts I was bale to swap hands with ease with swords of a variety of types (Japanese, Chinese and European swordfighting) taking only a very short time to be equally proficient with either hand.

And back in the days of commadore 64 computers with their then ubiquitous joysticks I found that often my left hand was better for manouvering while using my right for fast trigger action.

So the more I use my right hand for things the more it predominates and yet the swifter ease I can learn to do things lefthanded when I put some effort and attention to it shows that I retain an advantage over born right-handers and born left-handers! I can more quickly gain skill in my off-hand than thy even after decades of being mostly right-handed.

As my ability to beat both right and left handers in fencing showed well.

So then this suggests to me that both some nature and nurture is involved.

Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElaineB

That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please.

---

I don't have the statistics to hand but this was looked into with some depth by a doctor who sought to discredit the infamous Dr Money and the David Reimer case. This is because David had an identical twin brother so the contention was examining identical twins would show that either both twins were TG or neither were and you would not have instances of one being TG and the other not. Unfortunately the data he collected show that the latter was the normal result. Similar studies on homosexuality have produced the same results. This is one reason why theories about the existence of the gay gene are not taken seriously in scientific circles. Genetic clones disprove the numerous claims that certain behaviors are genetically based.

Quote:

---

There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance.

---

The nature of twins often means that the submissive twin routinely copies the behavior of the dominant one. This means if the dominant twin becomes TG or gay then this may result in the other following suit.

The result of this is although identical twins normally do not share TG/gay tendencies, the number that do are a higher number than you would expect from statistical chance alone. This is excellent data which indicates that neither gender nor sexual orientation are fixed at birth but rather we are all born essentially bi-gendered and bi-sexual and still need to learn behaviors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

Point me to a link where 'science' says that..

---

Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

Quote:

---

And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said?

---

All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.

Quote:

---

[edit]A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10?[/edit]

---

No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.

Quote:

---

But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous..

---

Yes we all possess different levels of skills but genetically you were born with equally developed hands

Quote:

---

I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true?

---

So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmandaM

I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

---

Same here for me, I suffer depression and anxiety also when I have suppressed my crossdressing. when I dress up as a woman I am relaxed and calm.

I think it is definitely genetic. I remember putting on my mom's high heels when I was 7 yrs old. I was a macho kid playing tackle football with no helmets etc. Played baseball, basketball at that age.

I did not decide at 7 to be a CD'er, besides it would be easier to not be a CD'er as far as GF's go and society.

Every time I throw away my fem stuff and try the "normal" male route I always end up buying new fem stuff.

Theresa9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it?

---

In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.

Quote:

---

These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society.

---

Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better. Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results. Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.

Quote:

---

According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are disproportionately found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?

---

Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.

Quote:

---

Yet, I was born ambidextrous.

---

If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.

Quote:

---

Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use.

---

To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

---

And asymetrical favouratism has been spotted in other species. Elephants (preferred tusk and using the trunk assymetrically) and octopi (preferring some tentacles over others for specific tasks) and Bats (curling one wing over the other more often, similar to the way most handed people fold their amrs in a regular way).

Quote:

---

All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.

---

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation. Variation is not neccessarily abnormality. Unless we are going to call female brains (or more rather male brains) abnormal because the average female brain has differences from the average male brain. As shown in FMRI scans and autopsies. In both proportions of white-to-grey matter, cell counts in parts of the brain (especially the Lymbic Nuncleus) and size of various sub-parts of the brain.

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones, the same result was found with Lesbian brains in some brain anatomy being closer to males. And the same thing has been found with transexuals, particularly in MtF transexuals the Lymbic Nucleus is more like an average womans than an average mans.

Quote:

---

No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.

---

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than umlikely. And don't elephants slep standing up?

Quote:

---

So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

---

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

So then no matter what is relegated to 'womens' or 'mens' these will be what the TG person desires because of this inner gender identity.

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

Or, and here's the kicker, as many male brains are closer to standard female deviations and vice versa mightn't all those women joyfully taking on male roles be simply finally getting to express the masculine aspects of their individual mixture of male/female brain traits?

Quote:

---

All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

---

How are we sure on that? How do we determine what are the minimum required traits for a homonid ape to be considered a human? Which traits are common to humans but not universlly found in all humans?

Thats a question with some big consequences to the answer! Was Homo Floresiensis a human? Australopithicus? Gigantopithicus? Is a Chimpanzee Orangutan or Silverback Gorilla a human? Or is your nextdoor neighbour missing one of the 'vital' components to be calssed as human?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

---

Of course not, as a limited degree of rewiring and plasticity has been observed. And the degree of plasticity appears to be variable, partially on use, excercise, diet and other environmental factors and it's also possible that some people have greater brain plasticity than others because of genetic and/or inheritable epigenetic advantage.

Quote:

---

A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

---

Actually a study into why elite sports athletes occassionally mess up easy shots has found that the brain regularly induces errors into signals to muscles to create additional variation that may lead to improvement. An unconcious evolutionary error-generator inbuilt into basic muscle and skill function in order to increase evolution in learned skills even if that often causes mistakes, which if one were throwing a spear at a leaping Smilodon might have been a fatal one.

It may well be that the same forced-error/variation procces may work in all our skill sets, even language and even thinking.

Quote:

---

The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

---

There is far more variation in each individual human being as detailed examinations of identical twins shows. No two identical twins are in fact identical. There are many subtle differences from placements of hair whorls on the crown to length of fingers to the finer details of the iris. Studies into how animals develop from spherical stem-cell masses into complex anatomical forms shows that there are many forces and variations in play.

Quote:

---

Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.

---

Almost wholly? I'd like to see the methodology used to test that hypothesis!

Quote:

---

Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better.

---

Try normal variations. As these variations are common even if they are not the average they are part of the standard variations of normal brains. So they are a less common form of normal.

Quote:

---

Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results.

---

Most people are not white. Most people have black hair. Yet white skin and blonde hair are not abnormalities but common variations.

Quote:

---

Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.

---

The term abnormal has been used for a long time to oppress people. I suggest it may be too far demonised to be resurrected without easilly offending people.

Whereas describing them as normal variations within the range of brain development offends none and accurately describes these less common differences. After all white skin is very uncommon amongst humans. Red hair is more so. Yet it is just one of the standard variations.

We need to move away from false notions of 'standard normal' and 'abnormal' because there is far too much variation in any individual species for 'normal' to be anything but an approximate estimate of 'average'.

Quote:

---

Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.

---

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds. The Breast Cancer gene doesn't guarantee Breast Cancer, only about a 10% increase in it's risk iirc. Most people with the schizophrenia gene/s are fine, and only some in their family, a minority at that, will develop the condition. If they are pot smokers the chance goes up dramatically, yet not all schizophrenics were exposed to maijuana.

Quote:

---

If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.

---

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function. A person may then have RR (two strong right handed genes) RL (an equal strong right and left) Rl (strong right weak left) etc. And thats just with double-expression of a gene. Genetics gets way more complicated than that! Imagine if 6 genes are involved in being right or left handed?

And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that!

Quote:

---

To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

---

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently. That handedness and TG are less common by far suggests otherwise. Bisexuality I don't know the figures but it seems far more common than either handedness and TG and if Kinsey was right is indeed the default sexuality, but his methodology while good for its time is far from reliable.

Quote:

---

So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

---

But I did speciakise. From year 2 onwards I have ben using my right hand ever more frequently, finding it ever easier to use the right than the left, a clear indication of brain plasicity and adaption! If i try an unfamiliar task with my right hand i succeed easier than doing so with my left.

And yet if I were to try and do something left handed compared to someone who has always been right handed I will do far better. This suggests that I retain a from-birth advantage in my left hand.

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity but that as I have been using almost entirely my right all the new neural netowrks are dedicated there, but as the hardwired paths remain it is easier for me to grow new paths in my left than someone without the hardwired advantage.

Imagine an asphalt road with set juctures and a series of dirt-roads that require regulat dozing to keep in driving condition. Instead of one asphalt road i have two but the the dirt-roads on one side are in much better condition because it's the only one being used daily while the other asphalt road has branches in poor condition and is used only weekly rather than daily. But because the asphalt remains it is easier for new dirtroads to be dozed leading off from it compared to a single-road one with just a big load of scrub on the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

---

That doesn't explain why the foetus turns it head one way or the other preferentially in the first place? Surely you're confusing effect and cause..

From just a short google..

http://www.springerlink.com/index/G6R6G56758T63274.pdf
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_...10_cr_lan.html
http://www.hcc.bcu.ac.uk/craig_jacks...gy%202.ppt
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...53811901908572
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5813,00.html
and many, many more..

Quote:

---

The right and left hemispheres
As you may (or may not) remember from high school biology, the brain is made up of two distinct sides, or hemispheres, like the two sides of a sandwich cookie. The right hemisphere is almost completely separate from the left, with only a small band of nerve fibers connecting the two. The right hemisphere controls the muscles on the left side of the body, while the left hemisphere controls the muscles on the right.

This switch-over is hard-wired in the developing brain. As the brain and spinal cord are forming, nerves originating on one side of the body send out long extensions, called axons, toward the midline of the body. Most of the axons proceed to cross over the midline and so end up connecting with the other side of the body. For right-handed people, the hand control center is much better developed on the left side of the brain than on the right. For those who are left-handed, the better-developed nerves live in the right hemisphere.

Differences are physical, too
But left-handed brains are not simply mirror images of right-handed ones. Functions such as verbal language are usually located in the left hemisphere regardless of handedness. However, among left-handers, there is a greater likelihood that the language centers turn out to be located on the right side or on both sides of the brain. In other words, the brains of left-handed people tend to be different, and to have a greater variety of configurations, than those of right-handed people. These differences have many implications for the different ways some left- and right-handers think.

---

So - not all our houses are the same? :strugglin

Both, I believe I was born with it but I dress as a matter of choice too. I dress 24/7 now and have for almost 2 months now. I am having a great time. I really wish I would have come out sooner in my life not that I did not try because I did, I was to afraid of what others think, but I really do not care what others think as long as I am happy within myself. I can say that I have always been sissy or prissy, but I will tell you as a male I have had some of the hardest ruffest jobs out there and I did them and most of the time I did better or faster than so-called real men. So to them I laugh and say, hey I am a sissy and I beat you at the male game.

I don't think that it is entirely genetic or entirely a choice either. I mean if someone had asked me , when I was 13, "Do you want to be a crossdresser ?" I'd have probably said no in the strongest terms possible. I'm sure there are probably a lot of psychological reasons why I am a CD but I really don't understand them and I've given up trying.

However, to claim that it is completely a "Choice" is utter nonsense in my opinion, it is just a side of me which I randomly discovered and not something I would have chosen (nevertheless, it is a part of me that I have grown to accept and like).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicki B

So - not all our houses are the same? :strugglin

---

It's a basic kit-plan house, but sometimes they build them from a mirror flipped plan and for a bit extra they can move the bathroom, add an ensuite and even a double garage playroom and den.

Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation.

---

Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.

Quote:

---

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones....

---

Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?

Quote:

---

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than unlikely.

---

Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.

Quote:

---

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

---

But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

Quote:

---

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

---

Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles. Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes. As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.

Quote:

---

How are we sure on that?

---

If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.

Quote:

---

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds.

---

Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.

Quote:

---

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function.

---

That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color. Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender. Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.

Quote:

---

And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that!

---

If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.

Quote:

---

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently.

---

I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?

Quote:

---

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity

---

Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katie B

WOW!

All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure.

---

Yes, Katie, I share your surprize, and even indignation !!:eek:

It's a reality already known from quite some time, that brains are no products manufactured in series....
At odds with manufactured cars, every brain are different, like a prototype !

And it's very interesting to study how they differ, and for instance if CDers have brain structures more like those of gay people, or more like those of TS, or even more specific. :devil:

Future resarch will be very enlighting about all that !!
I'm looking forward reading such hot scientific news.:battingeyelashes:

[QUOTE=Katie B;1510301]

Quote:

---

All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure. See "Brain Sex" by Ann Moir and David Jessel.

---

Wrong! the structures are the same, it is the linkages which are different. Please provide one example where men or women have a brain structure that is absent or built differently in the other gender.

Just as men and women have the same structures for every other part of the body (except the sexual parts obviously). Are all our hands built differently or are they all built the same but just differ in sizes? All normal brains are built in exactly the same way with the same number of folds arranged in the same pattern in the same places. All brains contain the same component parts which undertake the same tasks and contain the same neuron-transmitters etc. Variations such as size are irrelevant to the function of the brain. That is what I meant. As we age and learn then the wiring inside our brains become increasingly unique. That is a separate matter from what is being discussed.

This thread is about linking TG with the genetics we were born with. It is will known that women and men have different wiring due to hormones.

Quote:

---

Why do you speak of genetic abnormality? What's wrong with genetic difference? Which is abnormal, to be born with blond hair or to be born with black hair? Neither, they're just part of the wide range of human normality.

---

I was referring specifically to the genetic conditions raised by Batty which are abnormal because they are not present in the population in general. I use the word for its technical meaning not to infer any diminutive aspect about the conditions that result.

Quote:

---

Even if it's not upbringing, it doesn't have to be genetic. There are hormonal factors that influence development in the womb that are neither inherited nor learnt.

---

Well that is the point I am trying to make. It is hard to justify a genetic cause to transgenderism based on our current understanding. Hormones do affect our development but again evidence that this specifically causes TG is also lacking. It is not so much the lack of scientific data that troubles me personally but the lack of clear logical explanations of A+B=C. The very nature of gender does not lend itself to these types of explanations.