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
my sister's reply when I told her how I prefer to dress
"Everyone has there thing, all that matters is that you are happy, love what you do and who you do it with"
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)
Comfortable in my own skin.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity, and never cease to be amazed by it!" Lazarus Long
Here's some more food for thought.......
http://www.jenellerose.com/htmlposti...emperament.htm
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Peggy
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.Originally Posted by AndiGirl
Well . . . maybe 999 "people" will come to that conclusion, but the one FtM in that thousand will have a whole different opinion.
But why is the rum gone?! - Capt. Jack Sparrow[SIZE="1"]Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl[/SIZE]
Why is the rum always gone? - Capt. Jack Sparrow[SIZE="1"]Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest[/SIZE]
Why is all but the rum gone? No, the rum's gone too . . .- [SIZE="1"]Pirates of the Caribbean: At World End[/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]Lex on the Beach[/SIZE]. . . [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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:
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.“Most of these are just what the name implies – THEORIES – with little or no scientific or medical information to back them up.”
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
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.
It takes a real man to wear a dress.
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!
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.
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.
Robin
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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
Baffled--still waiting for a really sound theory.
Me too!
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
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
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.
That is, until even I think I am getting negative value from it.Then I will look for or found CD Anonymous.
Just for today..... where is that pink mist aerosol can?
Roberta
[COLOR=Red]Open your Heart :
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
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.
It takes a real man to wear a dress.
Posting Permissions
