Believable theories on Cross-dressing

I hope this is allowed on this forum section. If not, I apologize in advance.

I mentioned in one of my other posts that I would find this and post it when I found it. It is two of the more believable theories on why we have a deep desire to cross-dress. This would also explain why children, very young ones, have the female tendencies we did when we were 4,5,6, and so on.

How many have read this before and how many think it is viable? I am thinking that they are as probable as any so far. I can buy these theories over some of the others out there. I just wish there could be a definitive reason.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.geocities.com/senorita_cd/theories.htm


A :doll:

Ashley, I have taken the time to scan the articles. I would like to go back and read them again but more slowly. I find all these theories interesting. The scientific community would just love to come up with an answer that they could easily put under a "microscope" and say, aha, here it is. I am sure that there are valid points in all these studies.

I tend to more closely explore the environmental factors. In today's society where divorce is rampant, and there are so many one parent households, the woman has become the role model for both the boys as well as for the girls. Even in families with both parents, there are so many instances where fathers total abdicate their responsibilities to be acceptable role models for their sons.

I remember my mother talking to one of her lady friends who happened to be divorced and she admitted to allowing her 10 year old son to sleep with her from time to time. I knew I grew up in a matriarchal society. I was much more in the company of women than men all my life. I was adopted when I was 2 and I am sure that my mother wanted a girl.

It is so easy to to admire our mothers and desire to be like them in many ways. I am enclosing a pic Would love to talk to you more about this subject.


Regards

Rita

Hi Rita,

I have had a belief that children at age 4,5,6 do not, at least when I was a child of that age, have sexual drives anything like a 12 year old on up. In fact, that is the last thing they want to deal with. When I was 5, I wasn't dressing to satisfy a sexual thing. It felt wonderful and right. I can't explain it even to this day. I has a two parent home, both parents highly educated and stable in the community. No one in my family has a criminal record at all. My home life was a (at that time) typical one. I have no sisters, only brothers. When I was very young, I remember being teased by my father mostly as well as my brothers about liking girl things. They have no idea about my dressing.

I just need to know.

A :doll:

i read both of these and both sound like good theories. I'm not sure about the DNA one but i do agree that it is a need and not a hobby as most who once start it can only stop for a certain amount of time......perhaps crossdressing is more addictive and hard to quit then nicotine and most drugs?

Ashley,

I apologize. I have been trying to get my pic withing the 97kB allowed with some difficulty.

The picture tells a story about what a mother thought of her little boy


Rita

Rita. Mothers dressed their son's up all the time between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I have a pic of my great uncle in a dress about age three. He was born about 1890.
I don't think it's is a cause in all cases. If it was then allot of men would have been cross dressers fifty years ago.

The two theories notwithstanding, it would seem we have the ability to go above and beyond the so called "normal" binary gender classification system. We have a distinct advantage if we view it as a gift and blessing rather than a curse and something that controls us. This puts us in a position to be an improved human being in many ways. Like any gift, however, how it is used depends a lot on the person who has it. It depends on us.:happy:

I put it down to Aliens transporting my mother to a panty ship, why because that's as good a guess as to why I do it as this kinda scientific guess coz that's all it is to be honest not even a good one. when they say its wired in but hey in some not until 40 or so you know its hogwash

I gave up trying to answer the question of WHY many years ago. Does it matter? Not to me.

I have said again and again, trying to figure out why is a very masculine trait. Just relax and enjoy it, dear. It's not going to go away no matter how much you analize it.

Lovies,
Stephenie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy Carter

Rita Mothers dressed their son's up all the time between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I have a pic of my great uncle in a dress about age three. He was born about 1890.
I don't think it's is a cause in all cases. If it was then allot of men would have been cross dressers fifty years ago.

---

Joy, there were a lot of crossdressers then, I don't remember who the royal figure was who tried to escape from the mobs by dressing as a woman. It might have been of the czars. Heck the men dressed more frilly in satins and lace than the women.

Rita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salandra

The two theories notwithstanding, it would seem we have the ability to go above and beyond the so called "normal" binary gender classification system. We have a distinct advantage if we view it as a gift and blessing rather than a curse and something that controls us. This puts us in a position to be an improved human being in many ways. Like any gift, however, how it is used depends a lot on the person who has it. It depends on us.:happy:

---

Salandra, you are the guru of crossdressers. Must confess, there have been times in my life when I considered it a terrible curse with severe consequences which I do not wish to discuss here in the forum. As Frank Sinatra used to sing, " I have been up and down and round and round and I know a thing" You know my situation but I am being positive about it and it's about time. Yes, we are darn special people. How many non crossdressers do you know that could pull off what we do? I know that I would have enjoyed living my life as a woman. It just was meant to be. So we make the most of it. You are a dear person:love:

Rita

Ashley,

There will come a day when the why is not going to be as important to you as what you choose to do about it. I am old enough to tell you this. It will not go away. . The earlier in your life that you accept this and if you are in a relationship come to a compromise with a partner, the happier I think you will be. Put yourself in a position where you control it rather than have it control you. You pick the when, where, and how. You just cannot deny this energy that is within you, believe me. Enjoy who you are. It can be a gift!

Rita

My mother tells me she was on birth control when I was concieved - surprise!
I often wondered if this had anything to do with it.
Kim

I'm at a loss as to why we need a theory at all.

A theory implies that transgenderism in any form is unnatural.

After all, and unless I'm greatly mistaken, we all, each and everyone of us, without exception, are the product of a male and female set of parents.

Which means we are all part male and part female whether we like it or not.

Just because a lot of politicians, sociologists, scientists, and theologians work hard to pretend that transgenderisn is abnormal, and force society to accept their flawed views, its just not true.

Transgenderism is a natural part of nature and does need any theories to explain nor does it need fixing.

There is no explanation of the "stuttering gene" theory, so I guess we are just to assume that genetics has something to do with crossdressing.


A bigger problem is the writers "the creator wants this to happen" theory. If that is true - God messing around with the dice - then there's no point to considering causes. If God wants males to be a little female, then surely God can decide that thisparticular male should be a lot female. End of story.

Cute pic!

A:doll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rita B

Ashley,

I apologize. I have been trying to get my pic withing the 97kB allowed with some difficulty.

The picture tells a story about what a mother thought of her little boy


Rita

---

Don't get me wrong. I am just an analytical person who needs to know the why's of everything. I don't just take things on face value or because someone said something. I agree with you and the others who suggest to accept it, which I have - totally. I love it in fact. It would just be nice to know what is behind it. I do not deny the "energy" (good word for it) or that it is a special thing. The one thing I do like is my sensitivity. My wife said she was attracted to it when she first met me many many moons ago.

The people in my community are fairly hard - even the females. It is a weakness in their minds to show emotion. Heck, at the risk of destroying myself here on this forum, I have a hard time getting through movies like Mr. Holland's Opus, Seabisquit, and those like them. They are well written masterpieces. They are sensitive movies and I tear up. Heck, when I was young my father took me to see Lobo, and to this day I can't watch it without tearing up. He made merciless fun of me back then and would do so now. I like my softer feminine side. I consider it a strength. What makes me sick are those guys who go around saying "hit in the gut as hard as you can"... and spitting, and....

In fact, I put females on such a high pedestal, that I know we guys could never reach their level. In my humble opinion, they are superior to us in so many ways and I have said so.

So, yes, we have a "gift" as it was called, that I would think that real females would love. Too bad all too many don't.

I appreciate all of your inputs.

A:doll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rita B

Ashley,

There will come a day when the why is not going to be as important to you as what you choose to do about it. I am old enough to tell you this. It will not go away. . The earlier in your life that you accept this and if you are in a relationship come to a compromise with a partner, the happier I think you will be. Put yourself in a position where you control it rather than have it control you. You pick the when, where, and how. You just cannot deny this energy that is within you, believe me. Enjoy who you are. It can be a gift!

Rita

---

I guess that theories are OK for some that really have a need to explain what we do in some kind of scientific way, but I don't think that any have been proven one way or another.
This subject comes up every once in a while, and from what I've read, there are as many theories as there are crossdressers. Who knows for sure why.
I used to try to figure it out... Doing the "paper chase" thing, looking for answers.
I wore my sisters baby cloths for about the first 6 months of my life. Was I old enough to realize that I was male and the clothes weren't? Probably not.
How do you know that the color "red" isn't "blue"? Because we were taught that it was.

Answers? I don't need them any more. I searched for them long enough. I accept myself for who I am, who I have always been, even when I tried to deny it.
:hugs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernadina

I'm at a loss as to why we need a theory at all.

A theory implies that transgenderism in any form is unnatural.

After all, and unless I'm greatly mistaken, we all, each and everyone of us, without exception, are the product of a male and female set of parents.

Which means we are all part male and part female whether we like it or not.

Just because a lot of politicians, sociologists, scientists, and theologians work hard to pretend that transgenderisn is abnormal, and force society to accept their flawed views, its just not true.

Transgenderism is a natural part of nature and does need any theories to explain nor does it need fixing.

---

Exactly:hugs:

Just because we differ from SOCIAL norms does not mean we need a theory to explain ourselves. If tomorrow society accepted crossdressing then nobody would need to develop extravagent theories to explain a normal behaviour, would they? Shouldn't we instead be developing theories to explain why society has made crossdressing taboo?

Crossdressers are completely normal people. We don't do anything which differs from others' behavior. Just because we are borrowing from women does not suddenly transform the behavior from normal to abnormal.

Everyone is transgendered, that is the normal state of human existance. It is society which conditions us to believe in a binary system so we are artificially adhering to an arrangement which does not reflect the normal spread of human personality and behavior.

Do left handers spend all their time developing theories about why they differ from the majority. Do they think to themselves "GOSH WHAT WENT WRONG? IS IT MY DNA?, HORMONES?, DRUGS MY MOTHER TOOK WHILE PREGNANT?".

The fact is nothing went wrong. Life is about diversity, it does not follow strict rules, each animal is an individual and behaves correspondingly. Are we so scared to think of ourselves as a separate, distinct individuals that we have to believe in SOMETHING WENT WRONG theories?:(

Diversity is normal, get used to it!:tongueout

Theories, schmeories!!! I hope no one ever figures it out. I don't want to be "cured", I like it like it is.

Much of the social-sciences are replete with theories that are simply a variation of the nature/nurture debate, and few of them have much general application to any specific individual case. In other words, what makes me a cross-dresser is unlikely to have much relevance, if any, to what makes you one, therefore extrapolating my perceived grounds for doing so as an explanation or theory why others cross-dress is simply a meaningless exercise in futility. (It is also important to note the word 'perceived' in the previous sentence, since what appears to be the case may not, in fact, be so.)

Neither do either of these two theories put forward address the issue that the original poster claimed, viz:

<blockquote>This would also explain why children, very young ones, have the female tendencies we did when we were 4,5,6, and so on.</blockquote>

In the first place, neither theory defines what is meant by a 'female tendency', far less do they explain how these develop - the corollary is also true regarding 'male tendencies'. Secondly, for a theory to be a valid scientific theory rather than just an untested hypothesis, the research should not just concern itself with proving its case, but with disproving it, as it is the failure to disprove it - by the original researchers, peer-reviewers, and subsequent researchers - which give true credibility to the conclusions, yet neither of these theories appears to concern itself with this important aspect. The ineluctable conclusion, therefore, is that the claims are little more than unsubstantiated hypotheses; one might as well say that all male-to-female crossdressers are such because they hate their fathers and want to differentiate themselves from him - in fact, I'm sure one could readily knock up some so-called 'research' to substantiate that claim too.

I appreciate that the original poster wishes to understand why they cross-dress, but the reasons are more likely to be found in one's own unique background - genetically and socially - than in the experiences of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashleigh

Don't get me wrong. I am just an analytical person who needs to know the why's of everything. I don't just take things on face value or because someone said something. I agree with . . . others who suggest to accept it, which I have - totally. I love it in fact. It would just be nice to know what is behind it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashleigh

I have had a belief that children at age 4,5,6 do not, at least when I was a child of that age, have sexual drives anything like a 12 year old on up . . . (w)hen I was 5, I wasn't dressing to satisfy a sexual thing. It felt wonderful and right. I can't explain it even to this day. I has a two parent home, both parents highly educated and stable in the community. No one in my family has a criminal record at all. My home life was a (at that time) typical one. I have no sisters, only brothers.

---

Ashleigh,

I'm much the same as you -- an analytical person. I also agree that "self-acceptance" of being a CD is a good thing. I have accepted it, and, in fact, I love who and what I am! This wasn't always the case, but today I am firmly established in this belief!!!

The research I conduct on causation, and my participation in discussions on this site regarding causation and terminology, is NOT aimed at someday being able to "cure" it. I am -- purely, plainly, and simply -- (a.) a person with an intense curiosity as to what might cause something (and my curiosity and research are not exclusive to crossdressing), and (b.) I hold that it is not "labeling" to have a consistent agreement regarding terms and definitions so that we can all "be on the same page," so to speak, when discussing things. Those that get so upset when we, for example, attempt to clarify the term "transgender" often reject such b/c, so they say, they dislike or reject being "labeled." There is another thread right now -- and which seems to be on-going -- that discusses TG definition. I am of the opinion that, to be able to discuss things with clarity, there must exist basic, standard definitions.

((( BTW: current medical thought, theory, and opinions regarding anybody with gender identity issues, inclusive of CDing -- note: I am carefully avoiding use of the TG term here, since it is being debated so heatedly elsewhere -- is not aimed at "curing," but is aimed at promoting self-acceptance and adaptation! The most recent medical experts state that it is far better to help people accept and adapt than to dissuade them from their identity! )))

In response to your inquiry, the "hormone bath" is not a theory -- it actually happens. That being the case, it is not a far reach to believe that, given human biology/physiology, there could be "malfunctions," and that these, in turn, could effect one's developing brain, and thus effect gender identity -- from transsexualism on one end of the spectrum, to mtf heterosexual CDing on the other end.

You have brought up (without calling it such) another theory that has been discussed a great deal, and that very simply is "nurture." Your own childhood experiences seem to point out that this isn't viable -- there are too many of us who came from typical homes (and no sisters that dressed us up, etc.). You have also pointed out that many of us started dressing (or wanted to dress) long before we could attach a sexual component to the dressing. That's why I dislike it when some in the mental health field call CDing a fetish. I understand that some CD's dress for fetishtic reasons, but not all of us!!!

The Hormone Bath makes perfect sense to me b/c of the possible effects of an abnormal hormone bath on the developing brain!!! In a few recent, albeit small, studies, it has been found that TGs had a certain part of their brain -- the BST or "bed nucleus of stria terminalis" -- that was the size of a GG's!!! As one text puts it, a GG's BST is smaller than that of a GM, and in the few studies to-date, the BST of those identified as TG has been the same size of a GG's.

Well, that's my input. I'll end by stating that I am glad that current medical approaches are not aimed at curation, but rather at acceptance and adaptation. To me, that says that science is beginning to say maybe we aren't abnormal at all!!!

Barbara

Barbara 4242 said:

"In response to your inquiry, the "hormone bath" is not a theory -- it actually happens. That being the case, it is not a far reach to believe that, given human biology/physiology, there could be "malfunctions," and that these, in turn, could effect one's developing brain, and thus effect gender identity -- from transsexualism on one end of the spectrum, to mtf heterosexual CDing on the other end."

It is true that the hormone bath is not a theory but a fact, however, the remainder of that statement is, as yet, an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caroline

Barbara 4242 said:
"In response to your inquiry, the "hormone bath" is not a theory -- it actually happens. That being the case, it is not a far reach to believe that, given human biology/physiology, there could be "malfunctions," and that these, in turn, could effect one's developing brain, and thus effect gender identity -- from transsexualism on one end of the spectrum, to mtf heterosexual CDing on the other end."

It is true that the hormone bath is not a theory but a fact, however, the remainder of that statement is, as yet, an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

---

I thought I made it very clear that this is theory -- that since we know there is a hormone bath, that it wasn't a far reach to believe that, given how the body has malfunctions, it is entirely possible that a malfunction during the hormone bath "could effect one's developing brain." I didn't state this potential effect on the developing brain was fact, but rather a plausible hypothesis. I happen to personally believe it is more than likely, but I never stated it as anything but reasonably hypothetical.

[SIZE="3"]I think it was something they put in the water:happy: Nature - hormonal bath , female tendencies - then Nurture - something in ones up bringing that kicks it off.:2c:

Jennifer[/SIZE]

Scientific theories are just that. Take a thousand people who call themselves scientist and you will get a thousand differant answers. And no doubt they will get paid alot of money for there answers, so why wouldn't they want to sell there theories. Now take those same thousand people and put a pair of panties on them. Then they will really know the answer. Mens clothes suck and womens clothes feel GREAT.

Now you can send the check to

Scientist Raychel
1234 Dresser Way
Girdleville Ma, 01505

I have always suscribed to the wash theory. I do believe that there is a personality component as well. I was at a lawn party Saturday and Sunday.
When the party occasionally split up into gender groups guess what? I am just so much more comfortable with the women. I can go on auto pilot with them. It's just a click-zing! It's been this way sense I was five.

I yam what I yam! Why? He's pitching! (A&C)

Here's some more food for thought.......

http://www.jenellerose.com/htmlposti...emperament.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndiGirl

Theories, schmeories!!! I hope no one ever figures it out. I don't want to be "cured", I like it like it is.

---

You took the words out of my mouth, Andi. Once they find the cause, they'll start working on the "cure". None for me, thanks, I'm driving. I'm sure there's a sound medical and/or scientific reason why I'm "different", but I don't want to know what it is. I just want people to leave me alone and allow me to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raychel

Now take those same thousand people and put a pair of panties on them. Then they will really know the answer. Mens clothes suck and womens clothes feel GREAT.

---

Well . . . maybe 999 "people" will come to that conclusion, but the one FtM in that thousand will have a whole different opinion. :p

I appreciate the fact that Ashleigh found interest in the page on my web site about theories concerning the cause(s) of someone being a crossdresser. This thread seems to have generated some disagreements among those who have been following it and have seen the page on my web site. This is actually a healthy discussion since it has prompted input from those who are following it.

I would like to make one thing very clear concerning the page, and it’s something that is stated at the beginning of the explanation of the two theories discussed. That statement is:

Quote:

---

“Most of these are just what the name implies – THEORIES – with little or no scientific or medical information to back them up.”

---

We LIVE with theories every day. As an example, we are all familiar with electricity and what it is capable of doing. At the same time, no one has never been successful in DEFINING what electricity is. The basic theory (there’s that word again) is that it’s a movement of electrons from one point to another. This ‘theory’ has been in place since electricity was discovered and rules governing it’s behavior have been established and used with success to harness it for our use. So even though we haven’t been able to explain exactly what it is with any degree of success, we HAVE put it to use for our convenience and benefit by utilizing the theories that have been developed concerning it.

With all that being said, the two theories discussed are the ones that I have found to be the most believable over the years I have been researching crossdressing. It doesn’t mean that I subscribe wholeheartedly to them – just that they seem to be the most convincing of all the ones I’ve come across.

Dixie -- http://www.geocities.com/senorita_cd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dixie Darling

I appreciate the fact that Ashleigh found interest in the page on my web site about theories concerning the cause(s) of someone being a crossdresser. This thread seems to have generated some disagreements among those who have been following it and have seen the page on my web site. This is actually a healthy discussion since it has prompted input from those who are following it.

We LIVE with theories every day.

With all that being said, the two theories discussed are the ones that I have found to be the most believable over the years I have been researching crossdressing. It doesn’t mean that I subscribe wholeheartedly to them – just that they seem to be the most convincing of all the ones I’ve come across.

---

Thank you, Dixie. I appreciate your input (here and previously) as much as I appreciate Ashleigh having started this thread.

What has impressed me the most is that many medical and mental health professionals are, according to much of the current literature, starting to take an approach that it isn't something to be cured -- that we are what we are, and that the best thing that can be done is support, helping us to learn to adapt and/or accept.

Those theories only address Crossdressing resulting from an identification with the opposite sex---That is degress of "transsexualisim"

As Crossdressing has several DIFFERENT root causes---that may induce a person to dress as the opposite sex, no one or two theories can cover all cases. Not only do people crossdress because they identify with the opposite sex, some CD for sexual fetish reasons, to escape their normal identity, or to simply trigger a "thrill" reaction, to name a few.

The main difficulties with understanding CD are are two fold, first of all Actually dressing is NOT the "disease" or issue. CD ing is a SYMPTOM of something else going on in the psyche. And secondly, we may not be personally aware of ALL the different things that may going on that induce one to CDing. If one thinks only homosexuals and transsexuals CD, for example, and you KNOW that you are not either of them, being unaware of other root causes can be very confusing indeed.---One needs to study and consider ALL the possible roots, and sometimes this is not enough.

Both theories are interesting however there is little to validate either one. Sadly there is a lack of research in any topic related to human sexuality.

As best as I can determine I am a crossdresser because I wear womens clothing. I wear womens clothing because I'm a crossdresser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trannie T

Both theories are interesting however there is little to validate either one.

---

There IS a hormone wash (or bath) near the end of the first trimester -- that is scientific fact!!! That this prenatal wash might, at times, short circuit is biologically (or medically, if you prefer) likely. The effects of such short circuiting (with regard to CDing) is pure speculation at this point in time, and, in fact, may remain so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marina Twelve

Those theories only address Crossdressing resulting from an identification with the opposite sex---That is degress of "transsexualisim"

As Crossdressing has several DIFFERENT root causes---that may induce a person to dress as the opposite sex, no one or two theories can cover all cases. ((( ETC. - Please read Marina's entire post, above. )))

---

Sorry, Marina, but we'll have to agree to disagree -- hopefully without being disagreeable. Your first sentence labeled a vast majority of mtf heterosexual CDers as being, to some degree, transsexual. The hormone bath/wash does not solely apply to transsexualism at all. It applies to both core gender identity and gender role identity, which are absolutely different. I think you'll agree that we could literally write volumes on this subject and still not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

From things you have posted, I get the sense that you don't accept that someone can be anatomically male AND male in core gender identity, yet have a subjective dichotomy that presents a feminine aspect of their root psyche as it relates to gender role identity. A clear distinction must, therefore, be made between core gender identity and gender role indentity, just as we must distinguish between the subjective and the objective, and that whch is congruus from the incongruous.

A prenatal hormonal milieu DOES occur and determines, to some degree, gender identity. What is unknown is the formation of an unconflicted gender identity and gender role. There is ambiguity within the controlled scientific data . . . for example, most children with gender identity conflicts do not develop into transsexual adults.

Something that I haven't seen noted here is that diagnosis requires the presence of BOTH cross-gender identification (the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, the other sex) AND a concurrent demonstrated, substantial sense of discomfort about one's sex or gender role. This is where the various disciplines come into conflict -- for example, read the DSM-IV-TR, versus the latest edition of The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. There is some agreement, yet we are still dealing with the differences between medical professionals and mental health professionals, the latter including some medical professionals.

In the main, usually, those who have a greater imbalance in core gender identity tend to be crossdressers; those who have a greater imbalance in gender role identity tend to be transsexual. Same spectrum, albeit completely different ends of that spectrum.

All good thoughts and theories. One thing tends to "stick in my crawl" however. That is the idea that we are "victims" of some physical, psychological or physiological condition and there is very little we can do about it and it leads us around and controls us. Once we accept who we are and realize we are able to take ownership of ourselves and our own actions, we realize that we are indeed a real person with real needs and desires. We control who we are and are much happier for it and become an individual who can make a real contribution to life.:happy:

I'm rather fond of the Hormonal Wash theory, and I expect that there's a genetic component, too. However, just because we got a different hormone mix than usual, doesn't mean that we are flawed or faulty in any way. Just different.

It's pointless to debate nature vs nurture, IMHO. Certainly, nurture influence how & when one's gender diversity will manifest, but you can't make a girl out of a boy. The sad case of David Reimer shows us that. And remember, the major proponent of the theory that gender identity is learned was Dr John Money, David Reimer's specialist. And David was the main evidence he used to "prove" how correct his theory was.

Occasionally, people start threads here claiming that they are a crossdresser because of their upbringing. But the curious thing is that these four possible reasons for becoming a CDer are given by various people: excessive female influence, insufficient female influence, excessive male influence, or insufficient male influence. This indicates to me that none of these are actually causative of CDing, although they may influence a CDers actions, thoughts & feelings.

:hugs:

Robin

I am skeptical of the idea of a genetic influence. There are many identical twin boys born--identical genetics--and only one of the pair becomes a crossdresser. Same problem in studies of gay men and their twins--although (if I recall the discussion) there is a slight tendency for gay men to have gay twin brothers. And there is a second problem with the theory. Gay men seldom have children--there is a slim chance the gene would be passed on.

If it is genetic then shouldn't crossdressers have more crossdressing children?

Likewise the "hormone wash theory" has the same problem. When twins are born--fraternal or identical--then they must have been exposed to the same womb and same mother's hormones. Yet you seldom find two crossdressers resulting from such births. Or two gay boys. Remember the developing baby does not share his blood supply with the mother. The blood cannot cross over to the baby. Crossover of blood would be fatal if the mother and baby had different blood types. Rh factor disease results from a partial mixing of Rh negative mother and Rh positive bably.

Baffled--still waiting for a really sound theory.

I recently saw a report on 'epigenetics' (spelling?) where genes can be turned on or off by things like diet or other external factors and then the switched dna can then be passed to the next generation. I wonder if this could have something to do with our nature?

Also lets remember that in science the term 'theory' has a different meaning to the general use of the word. In any case, for those scared of being 'cured' perhaps sociology is the field you could support, I'm sure it could be influential in raising acceptance.

Like most of you, I am interested in the causes of crossdressing. But, as far as I can see, no theory espoused to date comes close to covering the wide variety of CDing. I know all about the "hormone wash" idea. It has merit to the extent that it has been thoroughly substantiated as a determinant of certain aspects of male/female sexual activity. What is striking about CDers is the apparent absence of any female traits that would also exist were the hormone wash causal to our behavior.

More important (to me, at least), is the question of how, during development (whether washed or unwashed), I personally came to love the texture of sheer, smooth nylon such as one finds in slips and panties. Now that just boggles my mind! Evolution could not act to promote love of nylon given that the material was not invented until the 1900's. I don't think I would be a CDer without the invention of nylon. Panties, per se, are no more interesting to me than are men's cotton underwear. But, given the opportunity to put on panties, skirt with a nylon slip, nylon bra---well, you have my attention.

So, one question for the rest of you is whether you were drawn in to CDing because of the fabric from which the clothes were made? Or, do you/did you not care about the fabric, but only the female style of clothing?
Regards,
Mary

But evolution could have given us a love of silk.. or sensuous textures.. or just feeling/acting feminine. Also in evolution many things are a trade off... evidence suggests that the genes that can cause schizophrenia are linked to extra creativity.. you get a family that is extra creative but risk members of that family having schiophrenia. I have heard that a genetic illness is caused by a gene that causes resistence to maleria.

So perhaps crossdressing is a side effect of a genetic trait that gives some other advantage.

Quote:

---

Occasionally, people start threads here claiming that they are a crossdresser because of their upbringing. But the curious thing is that these four possible reasons for becoming a CDer are given by various people: excessive female influence, insufficient female influence, excessive male influence, or insufficient male influence. This indicates to me that none of these are actually causative of CDing, although they may influence a CDers actions, thoughts & feelings.

---

Actually, the most common description I've seen of "first time dressing" is "my older sister dressed me up", or something similar. Some of those posters state that they were secretly happy to take part. In those cases, we are left with no help in understanding the originof their crossdressing. In the other cases, however, it is possible that they are describing an experience that caused them to develop the inclination to crossdress. Under that theory, the experience of dressing up as a girl would somehow "imprint" them with some kind of cross-gender identification that would need to be satisfied again and again later in life.
Whether that theory is correct is another matter. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernadina

I'm at a loss as to why we need a theory at all.

A theory implies that transgenderism in any form is unnatural.

---

That statement couldn't be further from the truth. Science is the study of the natural world. All scientific theories are developed to explain natural phenomena.


I know there's a point to be made here, but you're going about it in the wrong way.

Quote:

---

I am skeptical of the idea of a genetic influence. There are many identical twin boys born--identical genetics--and only one of the pair becomes a crossdresser.

---

There are twin studies done looking at crossdressing? Could you share with us?

Quote:

---

Same problem in studies of gay men and their twins--although (if I recall the discussion) there is a slight tendency for gay men to have gay twin brothers.

---

In fact, there is a relatively strong tendency for gay identical twin men to have gay twin brothers. The genetic correlation doesn't have to be 100% to be considered very important to geneticist.

Quote:

---

And there is a second problem with the theory. Gay men seldom have children--there is a slim chance the gene would be passed on.

---

Actually, many gay men have had children. Gay dads are quite common, though perhaps less so now that so many gay men are "out" at an early age. As far as I know, there have been no studies of them, but it would be interesting to see one.

Quote:

---

If it is genetic then shouldn't crossdressers have more crossdressing children?

---

Yup! But the studies have not been done. Since crossdressing is still such a closeted thing, it's not likely to happen any time soon either.

Quote:

---

Likewise the "hormone wash theory" has the same problem. When twins are born--fraternal or identical--then they must have been exposed to the same womb and same mother's hormones. Yet you seldom find two crossdressers resulting from such births.

---

Again, I don't know where you're getting you information.

Quote:

---

Or two gay boys.

---

The Bailey and Pillar study showed an elevated level of gay siblings in both identical and fraternal twins. In both cases, the genetics and intra-uterine environment are confounded, so we can't sort out the effects. You would need to do an experiment separating the embryos at fertilization and putting them in different women's wombs to sort the two factors out. Not likely to happen any time soon. :D

Quote:

---

Remember the developing baby does not share his blood supply with the mother. The blood cannot cross over to the baby. Crossover of blood would be fatal if the mother and baby had different blood types. Rh factor disease results from a partial mixing of Rh negative mother and Rh positive babyl

---

The two fetuses can interact with each other within the uterus. Cells can be passed from one to the other, causing responses that would not be there otherwise. It's just another confounding effect to deal with.

Quote:

---

Baffled--still waiting for a really sound theory.

---

Me too! :D

There is evidence that fraternal twins affect each others' hormones. They certainly do in other mammals, like cows & mice. (I have a great PDF of a Scientific American article discussing this topic, but unfortunately it's no longer freely available.)

As to why we don't have other feminine characteristics, well some of us do. (Not me, though). I expect that the embryo is sensitive to the mother's hormones at various times, and this affects development of various systems. So we can get variations in the hormones affecting how our brains connections grow, and variations in the hormone systems themselves, as well as variations in the primary & secondary sexual organs.

Robin

I crossdress because the benefits outweigh the costs according to my heart and mind. Anyone else might be of the opinion that I am trashing my life, or even getting greater value than even I think I am getting.

:D Cost/Benefit explains it.

That is, until even I think I am getting negative value from it.:eek:Then I will look for or found CD Anonymous.

Just for today..... where is that pink mist aerosol can? :devil:

:rose: Roberta :rose:

As for the theories I'm not sure. However, I do know in my case I was interested in feminine things from as far back as I can remember. As a young boy (5 or 6) I enjoyed dressing. The desire has only grown over the years.

For me dressing makes me feel complete.

Love to all...Faye Lynn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy Carter

Rita. Mothers dressed their son's up all the time between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I have a pic of my great uncle in a dress about age three. He was born about 1890.
I don't think it's is a cause in all cases. If it was then allot of men would have been cross dressers fifty years ago.

---

There is no data to prove that there were not. Billie Jean

Who was it that ask the question, "Why as why" ?...

I really don't care how or why I am like I am, call me one that believes in predestination of sorts...I'm like I am because it was meant to be...Just like I was meant to be born in November, 1954 and have a particular year, month, day, hour, minute, and second I will pass from this world...

All we really need to worry about is we gave life our all, we are happy, true, and honest with ourselves and love ones...

It is amazing how little hard information there is on causes of human behavior, especially anything relating to human sexuality. The two therories presented in this thread give a physical explanation for crossdressing. I am sure there are many therories on a behavioral basis for crossdressing.
The therories are interesting but I'd really like to see some genuine scientific research.