Crossdressing a lifestyle choice or genetic?

[Satrana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satrana]

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

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

[curse within]

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

[ElaineB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That means homosexuality is a form of transgender!

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

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

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

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

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

[Joni Beauman]

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

[curse within]

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

[ElaineB]

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

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

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

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

[curse within]

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



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

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

[Cari]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Cari
Ohio

[curse within]

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

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

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

[geri-tg.]

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

[SusanMarie]

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

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

[cddenn]

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

[sallyjones]

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

[Nicki B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satrana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[battybattybats]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behaviors are not linked to genetic code.

Schizophrnia et al says otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and there should be more on that blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satrana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schizophrnia et al says otherwise.

Only for genetic defects.

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

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

When in the closet it is hard to trace.

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

There have been genes found related to TS

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

[Nadia-Maria]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

[Aurora27]

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

[Nadia-Maria]

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

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

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

[Aurora27]

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

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

[TrekGirl1701]

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

[ElaineB]

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

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

[ElaineB]

When in the closet it is hard to trace.

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

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

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

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

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

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