Printable View
I disagree. You and I were involved in a discussion about this in the "Men Being Men Part 2" thread, where you asked me to read some literature. I did, and my response to your quote is posted in that thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue101
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...=1#post2537306
Oh boy! Ok, I'll play. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue101
Everything has some degree of impact on our future selves including this very conversation. What I don't believe, is that childhood insecurity alone makes crossdressers. I am in the nature + nurture camp for good reasons.
I'm not sure if this is a joke. :) If you're going to extend the argument that nature has no part in homosexuality, then I'm happy for the company of my gay friends when I say how dangerous that notion can be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting from your posts is that you believe that CDers (and perhaps even gay people) are purely a product of what happens to them when they're young. Basically, that if we could pinpoint the reasons for it, we could essentially 'cure' CDing or gayness by nipping it in the bud. Show a boy that maleness also encompasses what he's feeling inside as an individual, and he won't need to veer off into exploring femininity?Quote:
How do you know you have not just found the source of homosexulity :)
And as an extension to that, we could potentially turn *any* person into a CDer.
Partially yes. Nature and nurture both play a role in how we develop. Two very different (genetically) babies, raised the same way, will not turn out the same way. One might turn out gay, one might not, one might be a CDer, one might not. If this were not the case, people could quite legitimately put a significant portion of "blame" on their parents for raising them gay or CD. It would be also be possible to cure homosexuality or transgendered people if you got there early enough after the feelings started to emerge.Quote:
We are the product of our experiences, thoughts and emotions with our childhood being the most important formative time.
This leads to a very very nasty world. A place where parents of a child could feel legitimately angry towards a person for "trying to make my son gay". It would increase hate crimes towards us all by validating the notion that CDers or gay people are bred, not born, and that people can be "turned".
So not only do the ideas you've presented not sit right with my own personal experience, or the stories I've read on these forums, but they lead to very dangerous places.
I feel you're targetting a specific group of CDers. For instance, you specifically stated that it doesn't apply to TS folk. So TS people you say have gender identity issues "from the get-go". This strongly points towards nature as a significant factor, and I think this also extends across the spectrum of T-ness. Some of us are born with varying levels of predisposition towards the opposite gender. Those who feel it most strongly become TS..and those who experience it to a lesser degree become the vast sprawling identities that we have here on this site. Some want to live full time, some only CD once a year. Pick a spot on the spectrum and you can find one of us.Quote:
It is about anxiety that you will not live up to expectations or dispondency that you will be left behind.
You mention a lot in your idea that feeling a disconnect between our inner selves and what we see masculinity to be is what makes us feel the need to explore other options, but where does that feeling come from in the first place? Why would some feel that, when others don't? I don't agree with your nurture argument, but if it were true, I believe only those with a certain nature could travel down your path. :)
I'm not completely against your view..i think there's a bridge between us. My own feeling on the nature/nurture debate is that we're all born with a percentage chance of being a CD, and our upbringing either triggers that or not. I feel in myself, given the raw strength of the feeling, that there was probably a 90-95% chance of me being CD, and if it didn't develop early on, there would be a latent framework for it throughout my life. I also believe that the vast majority of people couldn't be turned into a CD no matter what their childhood experience was like. They're simply not wired like that.
When I came out to my parents I didn't say "and it's because of how you raised me". I was likely always going to be this way with or without them. You said in an earlier post that genetic patterns could be easily traced within family trees. I'm not sure how, as most CDers are deeply closetted. We can't even get accurate statistics on how many of us there are yet. My grandfather could CD and I'd never know. My father could too. Actually I've seen him do it for drama productions recently but that's another story.
As I have said before, the person could also be drawn to femininity because they find women to be so attractive that they want to taste the PLEASURABLE experience of what it is like to be so supremely beautiful. I would even go further as to put forward the notion that there may not necessarily be a strong component of escaping pressure at all. It could simply be the desire for a particular type of pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue101
I would say that the pressures are indeed more centered on survival rather than issues of maleness. However I would not rule out the perception that someone may have that causes them to confuse issues of survival with maleness. My point is that it does not NECESSARILY have to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue101
Of course a female janitor cleaning an office or working in the serve out line at a cafeteria does not necessarily convey the sexuality or femininity that would cause one to want to emulate the behavior. However, if all of a sudden all women who did such things were as beautiful as Salma Hayek and dressed in booty shorts and halters, I would expect that we would see that situation change! LOL!
If the point that Sue was trying to make was that social conditioning was responsible for boys not wanting to dress, then I agree, that is inaccurate. That said, I think that you and others who hold the view that social conditioning ALONE is responsible for the differences in amplitude and performance that we observe between males and females, make the same mistake This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that two males can be brought up in practically the same environment, but yet one will have a greater aptitude towards something like engineering whereas the other will have more of an aptitude for the arts. If this is true between two males, then there is no rational necessity which would lead us to believe that it is not true between a male and a female. As as result, we are lead to conclude that environment is not the sole factor in determining aptitude and performance, and hence we MUST look to some biological aspect that is either the cause or a symptom of the difference. If this were not true then putting two individuals in the same environment should always result the same aptitude and performance being produced. And as you well know the differences in aptitude and performance between men and women in certain disciplines has been well documented.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
I believe we are born with a feminine side to our masculine self (nature) and then through exposure to society (nuture) we unconsciously decide that cding is the best way to express our feminine side. I've wanted to cd as long as I can remember, but it makes no sense that I was born with a desire to cd. I wouldn't have even known what clothes were then.
This is exactly my point. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetIonis
Ooh, ooh! I did a term paper on this very subject! Let's see if I remember it right... it's not genetic or nurture, it's the hormones you're exposed to prenatally. So, in essence, you're born that way, but it's not genetic. Anyway, certain hormones, particularly stress hormones, can rewire random parts of the brain to be more like the opposite sex's. If the part of the brain that determines what sex you're attracted to gets rewired, you wind up bisexual or gay (depending on the level). If the part of the brain that controls speech gets rewired, you SOUND like you're gay, but may or may not be. If the majority of the brain gets rewired to the opposite sex, you're transexual. These hormones can also effect the body. Like, a lot of us LOOK more feminine than most guys. (and don't mind it one bit!) Of course, come puberty, virtually all of us have only one set of genitals, so we develop the corresponding secondary sex characteristics. As for crossdressing, obviously there isn't a gene for clothing preference, but there probably is a part of the brain controlling our desired self-perception. And so naturally, we're all stuck with brains that want us to look pretty. :p
HOWEVER, there is something called androgen insensitivity syndrome, which is genetic, and essentially causes you not to respond strongly (or at all) to testosterone. A man with this condition will probably be quite feminine both mentally and physically. And a genetic male with total androgen insensitivity will be born with a vagina, albeit, a nonfunctional one.
Then of course there's Klinefelter's syndrome, in which boys are born with the XXY genotype. They will have male genitals, but will be very feminine. I believe one of the girls in a James Bond movie actually had a Y chromosome and was born with male genitals, but looked and acted like a girl growing up, and transitioned before puberty.
But virtually all of us are in the first category. Regular guys, made more feminine by our mother's hormones.
Ok, but you did say:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
"I agree with her there is no biological basis for any inequality between the sexes."
If there is NO biological basis, then you are implying that the differences are due to purely environmental factors. And I'm saying that is not true. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so perhaps you can clarify what you mean.
I'm sorry, I should have specified: I meant in terms of cognitive abilities.
I know it's not politically correct but I disagree with that position. That would imply that differences in cognitive abilities are due solely to environmental factors and that's just not the case. This can be demonstrated easily by observing that persons are born in environments that do not favor the development of certain skills yet, they end up exhibiting phenomenal aptitude and performance. Carl Gauss was born to an illiterate mother. His father was a gardener and brick layer who even discouraged his son from attending school. Yet he exhibited almost supernatural mathematical ability from the time he was a young child. He went on the become the greatest mathematician of all time. His work has no parallel, and many of the technological advances of today as well as many of the conveniences we enjoy are a result of and would not have been possible without his work. Clearly environment cannot explain the development of such genius. This indicates innate biological factors must play a significant role in the development of cognitive ability. Therefore, I don't believe it is accurate to say that there is no biological basis for the differences we observe between the sexes in terms of cognitive ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
No, Ionis, to spell it out, I mean that women are just as capable as men at being good at math. :)
Personally I buy into the recent research concerning brain development showing that if the hormonal washes aren't accomplished properly in males, the brain is left with some parts unchanged from the initial feminine brainstem. That can leave a male with a brain arrangement across the spectrum from primarily female to almost completely male. As has been said, it's then up to the individual to act.
tina
When you look at the results when aptitude and performance are measured, women, as a class, don't appear to be. And the differences CANNOT be solely due to environmental factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
I'm not getting into THAT argument with you, Ionis. LOL. As a woman, I hate to think I am less smart than any man just because of my chromosomes. :p
Getting back to the OP
My 20 year old grandaughter has not seen her father since she was 2 years old. No contact at all. Yet we are always seeing things that make us say OMG she is just like her dad.
You are bound to have traits of both your parents from Nature
You are also bound to have traits learned by the way you were Nutrued.
I believe where this seems different for males who like to crossdress is mostly becuause it's not socially accepted. Turn this thread around to the FtM . If females who were raised my macho dads and several brothers can live their life content to be feminine when they want and tomboyish or masculine when they want it is sociaty who accepts thats as normal. Only a rare few ever feel they are transgendered and want to totally escape their feminine self. This to me is what seperates the majority of us from the TS community.
It's seem perfectally natural to say that both nature and nurture play a roll in who we are. Sometimes we may even rebel against our nature or nurture by trying to be different from a parent who was too far to one side of our comfort zone
We who enjoy crossdressing and expressing our feminine side are being held hostage by our perceptions of how others will react when in reality we are not much different from the average female living her life expressing both her parents traits.
Well Reine, sometimes reality doesn't fit into the way we would like to see the world. When you look at SAT scores for example, year after year, females score SIGNIFICANTLY lower than males in math, although they are about equal in reading and slightly better in writing. That can't possibly ALL be due to environmental factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
I just thought it was interesting that while you pointed out the flaw in Sue's egalitarian position, you made a similar mistake in that regard.
That said, I'm willing to leave it at that.
If you are talking about the so called "tomboys" that you referenced earlier, I would say there is a significant difference in a man who crossdresses to express a feminine side and a tomboy. A tomboy is typically not overtly trying to express an underlying masculine nature, but simply likes to do things that are normally associated with boys. For example, climbing trees. One reason I like my girl is that when we go to the country, we really get into climbing trees and throwing and skipping rocks. Actually she can beat me climbing trees. But I can assure you, she is an EXTREMELY feminine woman. Nothing masculine about her.Quote:
Originally Posted by kendra_gurl
I think it's definitely innate and most likely genetic,
At least that's my current opinion. I've thought about this question quite a bit, and seen it come up here a few times on the boards. There are good views on both sides of Nature v Nurture, but one thing is for sure; it be very difficult to prove a genetic link scientifically. Study data would need to span generations, and finding willing participants would be a challenge because many are secretive about their dressing. A scientific study is only as good as it's data is reliable, and in this case human subjects are unreliable, and quite possibly unavailable.
That led me to ponder examples in nature of male animals displaying female behavior and traits in daily life, even in their mating rituals. Gender confusion isn't confined to the human experience, so the reason for it must exist in nature itself. Here's a good article I found on the subject...
http://www.galva108.org/aroundtheworld.html
Naysayers will claim, "There isn't any gene that makes a person put on clothing period, so claiming a genetic preference for female clothing is flawed."
That assumption understates the role that clothing plays in our socialization and the perception of our role in society. We put on clothing because we learn to clothe ourselves in the process of socialization and development. At some point, we learn that there is a different dress code for males and females. Yet for some reason, we still prefer female attire.
In the article, the author discusses a bird species called the 'ochre-bellied flycatcher.' A significant minority of males in the species exhibit transgendered behavior in mating and courtship. The male birds who displays female mating behavior learned the role from watching and emulating female birds. It was part of their socialization process to adopt a mating behavior, and despite being males, the birds followed a female example. In the process of socialization, it was instinct that ultimately led these birds to study and emulate female mating behavior. I believe it's also instinct that leads the fledgling TV/CD/TS to the panty drawer the first few times.
Here's where a critic might add, "But the bird 'learned' the behavior, so the learned component of 'Nature v Nurture' cannot be ignored."
And they'd have a point. I'd have to counter with a question of my own. "So was it lack of male examples that made the bird opt to learn cross-gender behavior?" Doubtful. "A more likely explanation is that the male bird was born with the innate desire to emulate female behavior, sought out a female role-model to emulate and since bird society is far less rigid than our own, the other birds just went with it." I'd have to admit that learning plays a role, but in the end, the driving force which inspires the adoption of transgendered behavior is innate.
If our society was as open-minded and flexible as bird society, perhaps we'd know the truth. Until then, I'll be scouring every pet shop I come across until I find a tranny parrot for company :)
Thanks for the link Krista. Some very interesting reading in that. :)
On a basic level I'd say both. I have toddler pictures of myself in my aunt's heels. I spent a great deal of time around them growing up and my female cousins. I even got a facial one time from my cousin and her brother's wife. So with that I'd say some is learned while genetics/hormones plays into the mix as well.
I realize this subject is much deeper. Skimming through some replies vouches for that. I will go back and read more intently when time allows.
Great thread.
This is exatly what I meant. Any activity that that is not defined as totally feminine is perfectly acceptable by most females as just something that is normal when they want to do it unlike a male doing any activity that is not defined as totally masculine is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetIonis
I am not trying to say its wrong. Most people would agree that any female who can pull off being one of the guys at times while still being very feminine is a great attribute for her. A lot of people( women included) just get a little weird when a guy wants to participate in more feminine activities and be just one of the girls.
Actually females can be quite cruel about such things, depending on the group. The "Barbie Doll' type crowd can especially be very cruel when it comes to such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by kendra_gurl
And as I said before "crossdressing and enjoying expressing a feminine side" is quite a bit different from a girl climbing trees and throwing rocks. A better comparison would be a girl dressing as a man because she wants to project a masculine persona and feel like a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kendra_gurl
I guess I can understand what the "Barbie Doll" type is. In my drawer full of definitions, it describes the undeveloped and immature female, the "Valley Girl" teenager, of the "gag me with a spoon" ilk. I guess some such girls grow up into shallow, superficial women, but when I close my eyes and actually picture the women that I know I can't think of anyone who would put down a male for enjoying art, appreciating fashion or design, wishing to decorate a room or bake a cake, or any other activities that some people here define as being feminine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetIonis
I hope my SO will forgive me for saying this, but she told me years ago it was her femme side that gave him permission to appreciate and begin to collect art a decade ago. I've also read on a few occasions here that ironically, many CDers fall into stereotypically male professions, such as airline pilots, or in the sciences, engineering, or IT fields. I've long suspected that CDers (I'm reluctant to say "some" or "many") do build an inordinately strong male veneer while they are growing up in order to prevent the world from seeing their more vulnerable, feminine proclivities and so there is a stronger demarcation between what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" for them. This may make them shy about saying they want to bake a cake, or knit a scarf, or having a strong opinion about what color should go on the wall, or even think they will be rejected by others for doing these things?
Lots of our discussions here revolve around concepts and general statements, and it's true that some sections of the socio-economic strata may be more or less tolerant of a guy who bakes a cake, for example. It's very difficult to make statements that will be universally applicable since obviously what might fly in the middle of NYC won't fly in a small town in a conservative state. But still, I honestly don't believe there are as many "feminine" vs. "masculine" activities as many members here seem to think, of course other than actually dressing or presenting in the gender opposite than birth, especially once people move away from the often less tolerant teen-age or young adult age.
Reine,Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
You have touched on something here that is really quite significant. Perhaps brilliant, but I don't want to be too presumptuous ;-)
I have something to say about this, but I don't really have the time right now so I will revisit this tomorrow evening after work.
Suffice to say, you have literally nailed a pattern of behavior in TG people of all flavors.
I promise to elaborate soon.
Actually Reine, I think almost all the tests and studies done in the past decade seem to suggest or confirm that women are BETTER than men and there are now more women earning PhDs then men. Too many men have fixations on the Budweiser girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
I am not sure why you have to inject melodrama into the discussion. There is nothing dangerous about suggesting that behaviors originate from a lifetime of experience, feelings and interaction with your surroundings and that can be targeted as a means to a cure. Let me be melodramatic. You say that this comes from nature. Well that leads to very dangerous places. Parents may begin screening pregnancies to eliminate the chance their child would be gay or transgendered. Science will seek to genetically engineer DNA if they discover possible markers for gayness or transgenderism. You cannot "cure" a child's feelings and emotions or how that child perceives the world but you can target DNA and hormones if you claim this is from nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Engendered
OK some points to comment on. Yes I am discussing a specific group of crossdressers, that is obvious from my description. This is the group who had a normal male upbringing but then began crossdressing in the years before or after puberty. This group makes up the majority of crossdressers. I am not saying my theory describes everyone but I am putting forward an idea which fits the facts better than just saying it is nature which has serious discrepancies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Engendered
Early onset transsexualism does not necessarily point to nature. It is just as likely it arises during the first two years of life when a baby's self identification process takes place. Babies do not acquire self awareness until their second birthday.
What is this predisposition? I hear about it all the time, its a great concept but how about defining what it is. Most crossdressers develop crossdressing out of the blue at mid to late childhood. Why only then? This concept of predisposition does not answer why boys were happy to be boys growing up, it does not explain the timing crossdressing develops.
Now that is an easy one. Since masculinity is a social construct most boys do not fit naturally into its borders. Like trying to insert a square into a round hole, it is necessary to knock off the corners to make it fit. That is why everyone needs to be conditioned so thoroughly. Some boys just become aware of the process, become aware that they may not end up as the masculine man society is trying to produce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Engendered
Very true but that also fits my theory. Your feelings about masculinity have got little to do with your parents unless they totally dominated every aspect of your life. Your understanding of gender comes from observations of life in general, peer pressure and exposure to huge amounts of media. This has little to nothing to do with how you were raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Engendered