Quote:
Originally Posted by docrobbysherry
LOL Sherry....you truley are an interesting person....i AM HAPPY YOU ARE SO COMFORTABLE WITH yourself..
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by docrobbysherry
LOL Sherry....you truley are an interesting person....i AM HAPPY YOU ARE SO COMFORTABLE WITH yourself..
which one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie B
which is statistical unreliableQuote:
I'm quoting the results of a survey on this website
So why do you believe in a theory that has gaping holes at its core?Quote:
I don't.
this is a CD forum not a scientific journalQuote:
Come on, I don't want to play these academic games, I'd just like someone to come up with an explanation (backed with facts), and suggest how it might be proved or disproved.
Maybe this thread just needs be closed, it seems ?
yes in size, shape, color etc but not in structure. Variations in structure is a central component of species identification. A minor alteration of a bone joint for example would already define a new species.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineB
because you cannot rule out statistical chance. Also even within family members who are considered to have similar personalities you would find plenty of differences. But most importantly you can find plenty of people including parent-children who have diametrically opposite personalities. How do you account for this with a genetic cause theory?Quote:
If two people with the same genes and unrelated nurturing consistently show common personality traits, that is practically conclusive proof that aspects of personality can be genetic. So why continue to debate it?
True enough but the fight for life does have common traits which we see repeated throughout the animal kingdom. Those who specialize in more unusual features/behaviors leave themselves at risk of becoming extinct thus more unusual characteristics tend to disappear entirely.Quote:
What is and is not an advantage can change greatly depending on the natural and social environment. You can change somebody from being strong and capable to weak and disadvantaged just by moving them away from their home. So this reasoning only holds up when discussing the grossest, most universal and debilitating disadvantages.
Yes but even sexual selection is largely based upon features which are indicative of strong healthy genes.Quote:
Natural selection is only one selection mechanism. Darwin himself believed sexual selection to be equally important ... which many people seem to forget nowadays. Evolutionary theory has progressed beyond simple mechanisms in any case.
No I never said that genetic abnormalities were irrelevant to personality. The point I was making was disadvantageous variations are abnormal and thus must be considered separately from what personality traits are derived from a "normal" genetic make-up. I am aware of the issues about defining what a normal genetic make-up is.Quote:
We went down this path starting from the notion you expressed that things like autism and schizophrenia were abnormal (and by inference, irrelevant to discussions of personality and heredity)
So the question that I am raising is a behavior like TG based upon genetic code found in everyone or are all TGs genetically at variance with the rest of the human gene pool.
Quite true but the point was if the gene exists then it was used at some point in our past.Quote:
No, you cannot say that either. Traits can be disadvantages in one way and advantages in a different way, and advantageous traits can be linked to disadvantageous ones.
No the thrust of evolution is survival and the passing on of genes. Specialized animals exist because they occupy niches in the environment that are not being exploited by others and so competition is minimal. If the environmental niche disappears the species either has to quickly adapt and transform into a new species or go extinct. Those creatures which do not occupy environmental niches have to openly compete with many other species. In these scenariso it becomes important that your design is as good as the others or else species competition will force you out. This is why species do end up specializing because their design was not good enough to directly compete for the main food sources.Quote:
The driving thrust of evolution is to produce more specialized animals, not ones that are simply better.
Amanda is so right. I've tried to resist my own crossdressing at various points in my life and have got nothing in return but depression and self-hatred. And it never worked. Even if I succeeded in keeping my body clothed only as a male, my mind never followed suit and the girl inside just made herself more assertive. She never goes away!
[QUOTE=battybattybats;1511580]
True enough but these are not altrustic behavior as we understand it because there is no choice involved rather these insects are reacting robotically to chemical signals. We have no sense that they know what they are doing.Quote:
Ants are a darn good example as are bees, termites and the rest of the social insects which through millions of years have strong altruistic behaviour and non-reproducing individuals sacrificing themselves so that other ho carry their DNA can reproduce.
But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.Quote:
natural assymetry!
Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.Quote:
And having TG as well as gay siblings who can help raise children and look after the elderly could have given survival as well as sexual advantages to early humans.
No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.Quote:
And we know humans do react to pheremones.
Artisitc?Quote:
Ornagutans have artistic behaviours in the wild
Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.Quote:
But mny cultures have had many different ways of handling child rearing. Some have suggested menopause evolved specifically so the grandparents could exist for improved child-rearing considering the enormous length of time we take to reach sexual maturity.
Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.
Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.Quote:
Behavioural/evolutionary psychology argues just that, that the endorphin kick we get when our brain realises it has understood something is deliberatly addictive because of the survival benefit
Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.
That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.Quote:
The idea is we have instinctive face-recognition instincts and swiftly learn our mothers face very quickly in life from what I recall.
Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.Quote:
Some frmi studis have suggested that conservative or liberal outlooks is hard-wried into the brain and often hereditary
It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.Quote:
It's interesting though.
People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.Quote:
but to the extent of all strongly right handed people able to turn into strongly left handed people?
But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.Quote:
But if we are so adaptable should there not be greater variety? And should we not expect cultural variation?
Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.Quote:
After all in the west we right from left to right, easier for right-handers, but this is not so in many countries which nevertheless have the same right to left handers population proportions.
And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.Quote:
So we may speculate and hypothesise about things based on the known-science of the moment.
If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!
A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.Quote:
And it didn't make them genuinely straight! It just made them traumatised and dysfunctional!
[QUOTE=battybattybats;1511580]
True enough but these are not altrustic behavior as we understand it because there is no choice involved rather these insects are reacting robotically to chemical signals. We have no sense that they know what they are doing.Quote:
Ants are a darn good example as are bees, termites and the rest of the social insects which through millions of years have strong altruistic behaviour and non-reproducing individuals sacrificing themselves so that other ho carry their DNA can reproduce.
But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.Quote:
natural assymetry!
Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.Quote:
And having TG as well as gay siblings who can help raise children and look after the elderly could have given survival as well as sexual advantages to early humans.
No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.Quote:
And we know humans do react to pheremones.
Artisitc?Quote:
Ornagutans have artistic behaviours in the wild
Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.Quote:
But mny cultures have had many different ways of handling child rearing. Some have suggested menopause evolved specifically so the grandparents could exist for improved child-rearing considering the enormous length of time we take to reach sexual maturity.
Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.
Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.Quote:
Behavioural/evolutionary psychology argues just that, that the endorphin kick we get when our brain realises it has understood something is deliberatly addictive because of the survival benefit
Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.
That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.Quote:
The idea is we have instinctive face-recognition instincts and swiftly learn our mothers face very quickly in life from what I recall.
Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.Quote:
Some frmi studis have suggested that conservative or liberal outlooks is hard-wried into the brain and often hereditary
It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.Quote:
It's interesting though.
People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.Quote:
but to the extent of all strongly right handed people able to turn into strongly left handed people?
But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.Quote:
But if we are so adaptable should there not be greater variety? And should we not expect cultural variation?
Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.Quote:
After all in the west we right from left to right, easier for right-handers, but this is not so in many countries which nevertheless have the same right to left handers population proportions.
And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.Quote:
So we may speculate and hypothesise about things based on the known-science of the moment.
If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!
A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.Quote:
And it didn't make them genuinely straight! It just made them traumatised and dysfunctional!
Individual ants have personalities. Some are lazy, some hardworking, some get easilly frustrated and some are braver in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satrana
But isn't the 90% handedness being spread over all cultures telling in itself?Quote:
But how does this explain the 90% right-handedness? Asymmetry would follow a statistical distribution pattern.
But they can raise children without having some of their own.Quote:
Hmmm... I don't think you need any incidence of being TG/gay to raise children or look after the elderly. We are all capable of doing that irregardless of gender.
The relative scent study involved giving people pillows that smelled of siblings or strangers and measuring how well people slept. Once past puberty people did not sleep well on pillows with their relatives scent!Quote:
No they cant because our pherenome detectors are no longer linked to our brains. We can only detect pherenomes as a smell not a chemical signal thus the reason for their existence is lost for humans. Synchronized female periods remains unproven and nobody can detect who their relatives are through scent.
Thats what I'd heard.Quote:
Artisitc?
30's if a valid number is an average, there are always exceptions to that. Certainly amongst indiginous communities ther have been plenty of white-haired elders going back an aweful long time!Quote:
Sounds illogical. The natural life span of humans in natural surroundings is only in the 30s. Menopause is much more likely linked to stress and resource depletion that women experience which an aging body can no longer support. Also genetic abnormalities become increasingly common among older mothers.
And yet they do assist, in lots of communities. And in fact there is a similar phenomenon with fish! With older fish passing knowledge to younger ones.Quote:
Nor do you need grandparents to assist in child rearing, anyone whether related or not can help. In tribal societies children are usually kept in creches and are the responsibility of the whole village. Children mature much faster as well and are expected to help out after age 5 or so.
In my experience anti-intellectualism usually comes through fear.Quote:
Yes our intelligence was garnered using evolutionary tricks. I get a kick out of intelligent debates like the one we are having since it is an excellent means for advancing knowledge. Unfortunately this trick is getting swamped by other leisure orientated endorphin kicks giving rise to anti-intellectual trends.
Read H.G. Wells' The Time Machine?Quote:
Apply some evolutionary theory and we can foresee that those societies which cherish intellectualism and knowledge will overtake those who increasingly cherish only leisure activities.
We can still tell they are faces. And we only need the capacity to recognise what a face is and then know 'momma' and 'not the momma'.Quote:
That cannot be. If you travel to a another culture say China you will fair poorly to recognize faces - "they all look the same to me" syndrome. You have to relearn how to read faces through new pattern recognition. There is no instinctive program. After a few months you will be able to instantly tell chinese people apart. Also babies are unable to focus their eyes when born, it takes 3-5 months before they can see anything beyond a few inches. So they literally see their mothers only as a blur. Recognition must thus be through sound and perhaps smell as well.
Also the amount babies use their eyes in early life is hotly disputed by a fair number of people.
This was specifically relating to 'ok with change, newness and surprises' and 'not ok with them' IIRC.Quote:
Only in as far as they correlate to personality traits like aggression, competition, empathy etc. The definitions of conservative and liberal change dramatically every generation which genes are blind to. There is also a great degree of indoctrination involved in politics. Children automatically want to be in tune with their parents beliefs and please them so their initial starting point will be to copy them.
Still it makes eveolutionary sense to have a variety of drives to encourage certain behaviours which mya fond expression in a variety of ways and circumstances. It also depends if th selectionpressures are selecting for specialisation or adaptability. And in a strong social animal having some in each generation suited to either maximises the long-term adaptibility of the species.Quote:
It is a good article. I always get the feeling that people do not grasp how the brain works. We have brain skills that we deploy on a variable world. We cannot learn if our genes instruct us what the variables are. For example a+b=c. We can deploy this skill in any situation we like. But some people obviously believe our genes tell us what a and b are so c is already determined. They misconstrue common social constructs and think they are constants programmed into our genes. There are plenty of good reasons why we find common social behavior which have nothing to do with genetics. So the correct course of action is to eliminate all possible behavioral/learning reasons before proposing genetic causes. Too often this process is skipped entirely.
Yet while I have heard of sculptors able to relearn to scuplt after getting their primary hand blown off (in a cannon accident in a reenactment of a battle) I've also seen people who after crippling injury or amputation never get the same level of skill back despite constant practise.Quote:
People who lose their favored hand are able to transfer all their skills to their weaker hand. This is only a motor function we are talking about so it is 100% possible. But if both hands are intact then it entirely a matter of choice and willpower.
I've heard of cultures where the men are rett for the women, and where writing is from right to left, but I've never heard of a society with more left-handed people than right-handed.Quote:
But there is especially when you include not just the current cultures but all those which existed in our history, many of which we have no knowledge of anymore. Pretty much every imaginable behavior has existed in some society somewhere.
Most assuredly it is! Having once been able to do both and knowing a left-handed calligrapher I know this for certain! As your hand is passing over the wet ink even with a biro you end up with smudges. Left-handed writers writing left to right are substantially ergonomically disadvantaged!Quote:
Is it easier? If I had been taught to write right-to-left in school I would find left-to-right awkward. Some languages are written in columns. Some languages have no alphabet. Some use symbols. The Chinese have a different sign for every word. The variability is endless.
Absolutely!!!!!Quote:
And the more we speculate and debate the more knowledgeable we become rather than just staying silent or stating a belief without justifying it.
If we even got to the caves from the plains. We needed stone tools to fight off the cave-bears that lived in the caves.Quote:
If cavemen went around stating that "I am what I am and I am happy with my current circumstances" we would still be living in caves!
I dont think that is possible though. Unless they are patholocical, utterly insane in the extreme. Willfully ignorant and unthinking at best. Instead they can only be logically intending to impose an order they consider 'better' for everyone, rather than what is natural, innate or intrinsic.Quote:
A satisfactory outcome to those who believe that society's structure intrinsically represents human nature.
I tend to believe that Katie B. is in the ball park regarding the best answer to this question. I have no idea but can tell you that in my case at least, my mother expected a girl and wanted a girl. She had only selected girl names and she was so dissappointed when I was born a male. She had not chosen a male name nor given it any thought. The nurse told her she would not be allowed to take me home from the hospital until she had named me ( Jokingly, I'm sure).
In my earliest memories, my mother had dressed me in girl clothes on many occasions, but as I got older and began maturing she stopped and I grew up as a young man, joined the military and when I got out took on a tough manly job and fought the urges to dress for many years before I succumbed.
Today, retired, I feel that I am a male with a unique feminine side and I enjoy both sides, although, I favor the female side more and more as I get up in my years.:hugs:
Yet that is often a problem for palentologists. What were thought to be seperate species have turned out to be juveniles and adults of the same species or males and females of the same species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satrana
I expect future archaeologist species might well consider there to be two species of humans because of the long big toe and short big toe variations.
I myself remember wanting to dress up and be one of the girls as early as kindergarten, and I have always been heterosexual, but whenever I see a woman attractively dressed, I look at her with desire, and I wish I could wear her clothes as well as she does!!:love::hugs:
Indeed.. When writing with one's left hand, what you have just written is immediately then obscured by that hand. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
Much of the world is built favouring those with a master right-hand - tools, weapons, computer keyboards, the controls in a car, doors, watches, even knives and forks.. Left-handed people just have to learn to adapt, which is where the term 'cack-handed' comes from. The suggestion that they choose to stay that way is, frankly, offensive?
It is, literally (as my previous links showed), down to the way their brains are hard-wired. Satrana is suggesting that the 'hard-wiring' has no genetic basis, which is unproven and, IMHO unlikely, at least.
Any of that sound familiar to anyone else? :idontknow:
It's worth considering that there are different ways something can be 'genetic'.
It can be an hereditary trait that runs in families, like eye colour, skin colour, hair colour, height, body shape and a variety of things where depending on which genes you get from which parent and whether those are dominant genes, recessive or some of the more complex ones will determine the trait you possess.
These traits are often found in much greater numbers in certain populations.
Everyone has the gene that causes eye colour. The mutated varient that causes blue eyes or other variations is not evenly spread accross the planet (though increased travel and immigration is changing that fast).
As handedness is not found in hereditary lines or geographical groupings but instead in roughly even proportions everywhere that does not make it not genetic, but certainly not a bloodline trait.
Instead it may be caused by a common variation of the activity of a ubiquitous or nearly so gene. A frequent error in the copying of a fragile gene protein, a regular variation in some cycle or function or a gene that only activates a certain percentage of the time... there are quite a few possibilities. Genes are almost always involved somewhere somehow but not always hereditary genes.
Heck, maybe left handedness (or CDing) is caused by a certain degree of Toxoplasmosis Gondii infection in pregnant mothers! Thats a beahviour-influencing mind-control parasite that reproduces in cats guts but that influences rats at least to make them like cats so they can get into the cats guts to breed. A large number of people have Toxoplasmosis Gondii and some claim that their behaviour and personality and reaction time and mental health are all effected. Dont be afraid of cats because of it either, unless you eat cat poo if you get it its likely from poorly cooked meat.
In which case the cause would ultimately still be genetic, the consequences of the genes of the parasite though.
Regarding cures for homosexuality and/or crossdressing. Taken via http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/11/...nksgiving.html
Quote:
Next, he noted the advantages of “electrical aversion” in offering greater “control” over timing. He described the treatment of a patient.
“The conditioning stimuli were pictures of women wearing panties which were followed by the unconditioned stimulus, electric shock. The shock level was set so the patient found it so uncomfortable, he wanted it stopped. In addition to seeing pictures, he was instructed to handle panties and to imagine himself wearing them. After 41 sessions, he said he was no longer troubled by the “fetish” but a month later, it spontaneously recovered.”
You see... it didn't work. They knew it didn't work. So they upped the currents, almost to the point of charring the flesh. This wasn't "ECT", electro-convulsive therapy under anaesthetic, the idea was to intentionally inflict pain. To Torture into compliance. Not in one session, or two, or three, but in dozens of torture sessions, 41 in the case mentioned. And it still didn't work.
Quote:
Finally, Dr. Langevin introduced a newer form of “shame aversion therapy” used on a “transvestite:”
“the patient was required to crossdress before a disinterested group of men and women who watched him without reaction or comment. … In this case, shame replaces electric shock … the patient was evidently experiencing shame. He was in tears as he crossdressed and had a look of anguish on his face. He attempted suicide the following day according to the investigator.”
From the rules of medical ethics - 'First, do no harm'.... :(
Recently my SO and I have found out I have low Testostrone due a undecended testicle. Because I have low Test, I have more estrogene in my body. I truely believe because I have low Test I like to CD. This is ok with me because I love to dress and that is who I am.
Shawna
P.S. Sorry my spelling sucks!! :)
It is the way I am, the amount of times have attempted to give it up which is impossible and expensive, I have now accepted who I am and much happier for it
dear emmi,i also believe i was born with whatever gene that gave me and mad me what i am today a crossdresser.from day one the first time i tried on my mothers stockings i knew i was different and whatever you try to do to make it go away doesnt work so we all should enjoy the wonderfull ride:love:phylisanne
It has to be genetic. I have been doing it since 5.
I do not beleive it is a behavior at that age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiegalore
It has to be genetic! My mom, my sisters, and I all love wearing dresses!
Robyn P.
"Genetics" is an overused term. Just because something is more of a drive than a personal choice doesn't necessarily mean it's ingrained in your DNA.
A lot of gay people want to find a magical "gay gene," and a lot of transsexuals like to argue that they are intersexed (but refuse to get genetic testing done because they're afraid of the results). I think it's silly.
Just be yourself. Don't act all guilty about who you are. You shouldn't have to justify your life by saying, "It's not my fault! I was born this way!"
genetic.. with our 'ability to resist' fading as our tosterone levels decrease when we hit our late 30's/40's..
Speaking for my own experience, I'd have to say my upbringing has had a huge impact.
I'm sensitive and reasonably creative, but mostly the female/ male roles and role models in my early life were a mess.
I agree with EMMI!Quote:
Originally Posted by emmicd
genetic