Crossdressing a lifestyle choice or genetic?

[ElaineB]

Overwhelmingly identical twins do not share behaviors like being transgendered or being gay.

That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please.

There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance. Even in these enlightened times probably most people still expect men to be dominant and women to be submissive, on some subconscious level if not consciously.

[Emily Anderson]

I don't believe it's a question of choice, because we like what we like, and as far as genetics are concerned, I don't believe modern science is able to tell what motivates us to do certain things or behave a certain way.

So, basically put, we need to enjoy what we can, do our best to fit in with the rest of society, and get on with life.

[Nicki B]

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.

Point me to a link where 'science' says that.. All I've ever read says the way the brain is built differs between left and right-handed people. It was only once that was realised that right-handers stopped trying to beat it out of us?

And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said?

[edit]A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10?[/edit]

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.

No... Actually, they became damaged, by being forced to think in a sub-optimal way? Like many left-handers, I can easily mirror-write. That's not practised, it just comes naturally - we just have to become accustomed to writing the way the right-handed population do..

But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous..

This is impossible since the definitions of gender except for the sexual roles are created by society.

I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true?

Satrana, what are your qualifications for making such absolute statements? I don't think many genetic researchers would be so definite as you seem to be?

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.

Absolutely. How can it be otherwise? But we didn't all turn out this way just because we laid on one side of our heads..

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.

I'm really glad that works for you. Can you choose to stop?

[Ema1234 GG]

Just a thought from me..

For those of you who believe CDing is only about wearing clothes and material aspects of being a woman (i.e. I just like to dress up in women's clothes and don't want to be a woman - and don't get me wrong I'm not saying this applies to all CDs just some of them!) and also firmly believe that CDing is genetic, how do you explain your attraction to what can be considered modern items?

To explain a little more, it's unlikely that there have been any real changes to our genetic codes in terms of behaviour for thousands of years (or atleast changes that have spread throughout the population - afterall CDing is pretty much spread throughout all cultures in the world) yet many of the items you are attracted to can be considered modern when taken in this context? Surely this would indicate that while there may well be some genetic basis for the behaviour (such as an attraction to feminity) this cannot explain an attraction to specific modern items so would suggest that there must be some element of learnt behaviour in choosing what items you are attracted to?

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I guess I'm just interested in this very topic as I studied the relationship between genetics and behaviour at university and wondered your views on it from that angle?

[txrobinm]

Before I discovered CDing, I liked to be wrapped up tightly in my sheet/blanket. I thought it would be the neatest thing to be an astronaut, not because of weightlessness, but because of the total (and imagined tight) coverage of the spacesuit.

During puberty, I learned about sex from dad's magazines, one of which featured some bondage and forced CDing. The models in their corsets were just stunning, and from then on I knew that I would one day be wearing such things.

So, for me coming to crossdressing came from a predisposition to seek out interesting tactile sensations, such as tight clothing and a variety of fabrics, coupled with the environmental influence of my dad's literature. With the "pornification" of America, I may have wound this way eventually, whether my dad had those mags or not (I'm thinking of music video girls, especially).

If men's clothes were more varied in style and fabric, I might be able to live without CDing (men's skirts appeared on the runways of NY a few years ago- what happened to them?). We have already seen this change in one area: undergarments for men now are quite diverse, and this wasn't the case 20 years ago.

Anyone know where I can get a nice kilt in forest green?

CDing from other cultures, especially ones where the men's and women's clothing differs little (such as the robes of North Africa), would shed more light on the subject. The U.S., with it's freedoms and great emphasis placed on the individual, may not be a valid sample of CDing in terms of the sum total of the human population.

[TrekGirl1701]

I'm really glad that works for you. Can you choose to stop?

Yes I can, actually. I've gone months without dressing or even wanting to dress. And I've never felt an overwhelming urge to dress during those times. That's just me, though.

I think it all has to do with taste. Certain types of clothes I used to like, but now would never wear. To me it's just clothes. Maybe if I wanted to make a full transition to look and act feminine 24/7 I might see it as genetic. But even then I don't think it's that easy.

I guess I'm siding with the camp that thinks it's too complicated to figure out whether it's a choice or genetics.

[battybattybats]

Well I've provided links to Zoe Brain's blog which cites specific studies etc.

The critics of these studies could do us a favour by providing links to study-citing counter arguments. as i'm just not that good at googling.

Regarding brain development.

It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it?

And please lets not be ablist regarding Autism and Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a disadvantage side-effect of an advantageous gene, that results in increased creativity. Humanity owes much of it's art and science and progress to that gene with schizophrenia the result. Hence why it is a widespread gene, the gene is an advantage ven at the risk of getting schizophrenia!

The same can be said of Autism, especially Aspergers. Aspergers-brained people appear to have been amongst the great scientists and engineers upon whose work the modern world is based.

These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society.

According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are dissproportionatly found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?

Also as for handedness, I've met plenty of people forced to use their right hand when they were naturally left-handed (in Catholic schools the practice continued longer) and they all either reverted later or had wretchedly bad handwrinting despite using their right hand all their lives.

Yet, I was born ambidextrous. I only came to favour one hand in year 2 when because of seating arrangement at school could not keep switching between hands while writing when one grew tired because I'd bump elboys with the kids on either side on out tiny desks.

Since then I have grown slowly increasingly more right-handed noting a distinct difference in unconcious fine motor control between either hand, I do calligraphy right-handed and can barely make legible words lefthanded.

However when doing martial arts I was bale to swap hands with ease with swords of a variety of types (Japanese, Chinese and European swordfighting) taking only a very short time to be equally proficient with either hand.

And back in the days of commadore 64 computers with their then ubiquitous joysticks I found that often my left hand was better for manouvering while using my right for fast trigger action.

So the more I use my right hand for things the more it predominates and yet the swifter ease I can learn to do things lefthanded when I put some effort and attention to it shows that I retain an advantage over born right-handers and born left-handers! I can more quickly gain skill in my off-hand than thy even after decades of being mostly right-handed.

As my ability to beat both right and left handers in fencing showed well.

So then this suggests to me that both some nature and nurture is involved.

Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use.

[Satrana]

That is interesting ... I only know one gay man who is a twin, and I do believe his brother is also gay. That one case proves nothing of course ... a reference for your statistic above would be nice if you have one, please.

I don't have the statistics to hand but this was looked into with some depth by a doctor who sought to discredit the infamous Dr Money and the David Reimer case. This is because David had an identical twin brother so the contention was examining identical twins would show that either both twins were TG or neither were and you would not have instances of one being TG and the other not. Unfortunately the data he collected show that the latter was the normal result. Similar studies on homosexuality have produced the same results. This is one reason why theories about the existence of the gay gene are not taken seriously in scientific circles. Genetic clones disprove the numerous claims that certain behaviors are genetically based.

There is another issue with twins that complicates this. One twin is usually dominant over the other one and while that would be irrelevant in studying some things (like handedness for example) ... it could very well be relevant here since customary sexual roles are very much tied up with submissiveness and dominance.

The nature of twins often means that the submissive twin routinely copies the behavior of the dominant one. This means if the dominant twin becomes TG or gay then this may result in the other following suit.

The result of this is although identical twins normally do not share TG/gay tendencies, the number that do are a higher number than you would expect from statistical chance alone. This is excellent data which indicates that neither gender nor sexual orientation are fixed at birth but rather we are all born essentially bi-gendered and bi-sexual and still need to learn behaviors.

[Satrana]

Point me to a link where 'science' says that..

Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

And the way the brain is formed is due to our genes. That's what I said?

All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.

[edit]A further thought - if handedness is determined by the side on which the foetus lies, surely the population would be closer to a 50/50 split - rather than the actual 90/10?[/edit]

No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.

But handed-ness is variable in the population - just like gender? Some are very left or right-handed, some much more ambidextrous, some very ambidextrous..

Yes we all possess different levels of skills but genetically you were born with equally developed hands

I'd say we're all pretty good evidence that that's not completely true?

So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

[vivianann]

I feel as though I don't have a choice. Depression and anxiety are the door prizes of resistance.

Same here for me, I suffer depression and anxiety also when I have suppressed my crossdressing. when I dress up as a woman I am relaxed and calm.

[Theresa9]

I think it is definitely genetic. I remember putting on my mom's high heels when I was 7 yrs old. I was a macho kid playing tackle football with no helmets etc. Played baseball, basketball at that age.

I did not decide at 7 to be a CD'er, besides it would be easier to not be a CD'er as far as GF's go and society.

Every time I throw away my fem stuff and try the "normal" male route I always end up buying new fem stuff.

Theresa9

[Satrana]

It's not a big amorphous blob. It has specific sub-parts that do specific things. It does have some plasticity but it is not utterly plastic. This suggests that the brain is always a combination of nature AND nurture doesn't it?

In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.

These aren't genetic defects, they are differences that often our society is not set up to handle but which often benefit society.

Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better. Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results. Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.

According to things I've read on Zoe Brains blog both Aspergers and different handedness are disproportionately found amongst Intersex and Transexual people. Does that not back a biological causation?

Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.

Yet, I was born ambidextrous.

If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.

Nature: prewiring for ambidexterity that remains to this day.
Nurture: being much more skilled with my right hand at unthinking and fine motor skills because of repeated use.

To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

[battybattybats]

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

And asymetrical favouratism has been spotted in other species. Elephants (preferred tusk and using the trunk assymetrically) and octopi (preferring some tentacles over others for specific tasks) and Bats (curling one wing over the other more often, similar to the way most handed people fold their amrs in a regular way).

All brains are built in the same way hence if you claim that certain brains are different from other then this can only be because of genetic abnormality. This means you believe all TG brains are built differently from the rest of the population.

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation. Variation is not neccessarily abnormality. Unless we are going to call female brains (or more rather male brains) abnormal because the average female brain has differences from the average male brain. As shown in FMRI scans and autopsies. In both proportions of white-to-grey matter, cell counts in parts of the brain (especially the Lymbic Nuncleus) and size of various sub-parts of the brain.

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones, the same result was found with Lesbian brains in some brain anatomy being closer to males. And the same thing has been found with transexuals, particularly in MtF transexuals the Lymbic Nucleus is more like an average womans than an average mans.

No answer to that but I would speculate it may be down to which side mothers prefer to lie on. It would make sense for a fetus to work with gravity rather than against it.

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than umlikely. And don't elephants slep standing up?

So you believe gender roles beyond the sexual roles are based in genetics? How come then as society changes what gender means then there does not appear to be any problem in people adapting. If gender had a genetic basis then we would not see female soldiers, female politicians, female boxers, female CEOs, female adventurers, female career orientated women who don't want babies etc All of these directly contradict the role that women have always occupied as home-based wives and mothers- roles which remained unaltered throughout human history until the 20th century. Where is the genetic influence on how modern women live?

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

So then no matter what is relegated to 'womens' or 'mens' these will be what the TG person desires because of this inner gender identity.

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

Or, and here's the kicker, as many male brains are closer to standard female deviations and vice versa mightn't all those women joyfully taking on male roles be simply finally getting to express the masculine aspects of their individual mixture of male/female brain traits?

All humans possess the same human traits irregardless of physical gender.

How are we sure on that? How do we determine what are the minimum required traits for a homonid ape to be considered a human? Which traits are common to humans but not universlly found in all humans?

Thats a question with some big consequences to the answer! Was Homo Floresiensis a human? Australopithicus? Gigantopithicus? Is a Chimpanzee Orangutan or Silverback Gorilla a human? Or is your nextdoor neighbour missing one of the 'vital' components to be calssed as human?

In that all brains are unique, yss that is the nature part. But that in itself does not mean that we are in any manner fated to a certain behavior later in life.

Of course not, as a limited degree of rewiring and plasticity has been observed. And the degree of plasticity appears to be variable, partially on use, excercise, diet and other environmental factors and it's also possible that some people have greater brain plasticity than others because of genetic and/or inheritable epigenetic advantage.

A good analogy would be a building contractor who constructed 100 houses all of the same design. To all extent and purposes these buildings are the same since they were built to the same blueprint but if we looked close up we could spot minor differences between each one. Now come back to these houses 20 years later and there would be obvious differences as the occupants of each had made alterations or cared for differently.

Actually a study into why elite sports athletes occassionally mess up easy shots has found that the brain regularly induces errors into signals to muscles to create additional variation that may lead to improvement. An unconcious evolutionary error-generator inbuilt into basic muscle and skill function in order to increase evolution in learned skills even if that often causes mistakes, which if one were throwing a spear at a leaping Smilodon might have been a fatal one.

It may well be that the same forced-error/variation procces may work in all our skill sets, even language and even thinking.

The point here is that the minor differences in the houses were not relevant to how the houses eventually ended up.

There is far more variation in each individual human being as detailed examinations of identical twins shows. No two identical twins are in fact identical. There are many subtle differences from placements of hair whorls on the crown to length of fingers to the finer details of the iris. Studies into how animals develop from spherical stem-cell masses into complex anatomical forms shows that there are many forces and variations in play.

Normal healthy brains are built in the same way and perform the same tasks in the same manner. The minor differences produce different personalities which develop and become entrenched. But the type of people who you could meet 20 years later are almost wholly dependent upon their life experiences and environment.

Almost wholly? I'd like to see the methodology used to test that hypothesis!

Defect may be the wrong word, abnormality is better.

Try normal variations. As these variations are common even if they are not the average they are part of the standard variations of normal brains. So they are a less common form of normal.

Most people do not have these genes switched on which produce these results.

Most people are not white. Most people have black hair. Yet white skin and blonde hair are not abnormalities but common variations.

Yes abnormalities should not be thought of as bad things since sometimes they can be beneficial.

The term abnormal has been used for a long time to oppress people. I suggest it may be too far demonised to be resurrected without easilly offending people.

Whereas describing them as normal variations within the range of brain development offends none and accurately describes these less common differences. After all white skin is very uncommon amongst humans. Red hair is more so. Yet it is just one of the standard variations.

We need to move away from false notions of 'standard normal' and 'abnormal' because there is far too much variation in any individual species for 'normal' to be anything but an approximate estimate of 'average'.

Firstly nobody is saying intersexed people do not have a biological basis, it goes without saying that is incorrect. The problem I have with people claiming that there is a slight increase in incidence is that if there is a genetic cause to these behaviors then we would see a clear undeniable connection between the two. When the claim is only slight then how can you discount that the genetic abnormality which caused Aspergers did not interfere with the baby's gender identification process? This seems the more likely reason? This is still quite different from saying TS is directly caused by genetics.

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds. The Breast Cancer gene doesn't guarantee Breast Cancer, only about a 10% increase in it's risk iirc. Most people with the schizophrenia gene/s are fine, and only some in their family, a minority at that, will develop the condition. If they are pot smokers the chance goes up dramatically, yet not all schizophrenics were exposed to maijuana.

If true then this indicates that handedness is not genetic as if a handedness gene existed then it can only be switched on or off to favor either the left or right. Genes do not have a middle option. What this tells me is that as a fetus you never learned to favor one hand over the other in the womb.

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function. A person may then have RR (two strong right handed genes) RL (an equal strong right and left) Rl (strong right weak left) etc. And thats just with double-expression of a gene. Genetics gets way more complicated than that! Imagine if 6 genes are involved in being right or left handed?

And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that!

To me all middle positions like ambidexterity which also include transgenderism and bisexuality indicates something quite the opposite. That the middle position is where we all start from - the base starting line. We then learn to move off in one direction favoring one position over another. This would make the most sense in an evolutionary process since it gives the species the maximum potential to adjust to new environments.

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently. That handedness and TG are less common by far suggests otherwise. Bisexuality I don't know the figures but it seems far more common than either handedness and TG and if Kinsey was right is indeed the default sexuality, but his methodology while good for its time is far from reliable.

So I would suggest your birth ambidexterity is not a case of special wiring rather you never moved away from the base position and never specialized like other babies did.

But I did speciakise. From year 2 onwards I have ben using my right hand ever more frequently, finding it ever easier to use the right than the left, a clear indication of brain plasicity and adaption! If i try an unfamiliar task with my right hand i succeed easier than doing so with my left.

And yet if I were to try and do something left handed compared to someone who has always been right handed I will do far better. This suggests that I retain a from-birth advantage in my left hand.

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity but that as I have been using almost entirely my right all the new neural netowrks are dedicated there, but as the hardwired paths remain it is easier for me to grow new paths in my left than someone without the hardwired advantage.

Imagine an asphalt road with set juctures and a series of dirt-roads that require regulat dozing to keep in driving condition. Instead of one asphalt road i have two but the the dirt-roads on one side are in much better condition because it's the only one being used daily while the other asphalt road has branches in poor condition and is used only weekly rather than daily. But because the asphalt remains it is easier for new dirtroads to be dozed leading off from it compared to a single-road one with just a big load of scrub on the other side.

[Nicki B]

Hopkins, B., Lems, W., Janssen, B. & Butterworth, G. Postural and motor asymmetries in newlyborns.

When a fetus turns its head to the right it suckles with its right hand and vice versa when turned to the left. Hence before birth the baby has already learned to favor one arm over the other.

That doesn't explain why the foetus turns it head one way or the other preferentially in the first place? Surely you're confusing effect and cause..

From just a short google..

http://www.springerlink.com/index/G6R6G56758T63274.pdf
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_...10_cr_lan.html
http://www.hcc.bcu.ac.uk/craig_jacks...gy%202.ppt
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...53811901908572
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5813,00.html
and many, many more..

The right and left hemispheres
As you may (or may not) remember from high school biology, the brain is made up of two distinct sides, or hemispheres, like the two sides of a sandwich cookie. The right hemisphere is almost completely separate from the left, with only a small band of nerve fibers connecting the two. The right hemisphere controls the muscles on the left side of the body, while the left hemisphere controls the muscles on the right.

This switch-over is hard-wired in the developing brain. As the brain and spinal cord are forming, nerves originating on one side of the body send out long extensions, called axons, toward the midline of the body. Most of the axons proceed to cross over the midline and so end up connecting with the other side of the body. For right-handed people, the hand control center is much better developed on the left side of the brain than on the right. For those who are left-handed, the better-developed nerves live in the right hemisphere.

Differences are physical, too
But left-handed brains are not simply mirror images of right-handed ones. Functions such as verbal language are usually located in the left hemisphere regardless of handedness. However, among left-handers, there is a greater likelihood that the language centers turn out to be located on the right side or on both sides of the brain. In other words, the brains of left-handed people tend to be different, and to have a greater variety of configurations, than those of right-handed people. These differences have many implications for the different ways some left- and right-handers think.

So - not all our houses are the same?

[Amy Hepker]

Both, I believe I was born with it but I dress as a matter of choice too. I dress 24/7 now and have for almost 2 months now. I am having a great time. I really wish I would have come out sooner in my life not that I did not try because I did, I was to afraid of what others think, but I really do not care what others think as long as I am happy within myself. I can say that I have always been sissy or prissy, but I will tell you as a male I have had some of the hardest ruffest jobs out there and I did them and most of the time I did better or faster than so-called real men. So to them I laugh and say, hey I am a sissy and I beat you at the male game.

[izzfan]

I don't think that it is entirely genetic or entirely a choice either. I mean if someone had asked me , when I was 13, "Do you want to be a crossdresser ?" I'd have probably said no in the strongest terms possible. I'm sure there are probably a lot of psychological reasons why I am a CD but I really don't understand them and I've given up trying.

However, to claim that it is completely a "Choice" is utter nonsense in my opinion, it is just a side of me which I randomly discovered and not something I would have chosen (nevertheless, it is a part of me that I have grown to accept and like).

[battybattybats]

So - not all our houses are the same?

It's a basic kit-plan house, but sometimes they build them from a mirror flipped plan and for a bit extra they can move the bathroom, add an ensuite and even a double garage playroom and den.

Lol.

[Satrana]

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation.

Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones....

Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than unlikely.

Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles. Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes. As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.

How are we sure on that?

If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds.

Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function.

That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color. Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender. Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.

And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that!

If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently.

I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity

Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

[Nadia-Maria]

WOW!

All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure.

Yes, Katie, I share your surprize, and even indignation !!

It's a reality already known from quite some time, that brains are no products manufactured in series....
At odds with manufactured cars, every brain are different, like a prototype !

And it's very interesting to study how they differ, and for instance if CDers have brain structures more like those of gay people, or more like those of TS, or even more specific.

Future resarch will be very enlighting about all that !!
I'm looking forward reading such hot scientific news.

[Satrana]

[QUOTE=Katie B;1510301]

All brains are not built in the same way, and there are many studies to show that (for instance) man and women have different brain structures and some gay men have a typically female structure. See "Brain Sex" by Ann Moir and David Jessel.

Wrong! the structures are the same, it is the linkages which are different. Please provide one example where men or women have a brain structure that is absent or built differently in the other gender.

Just as men and women have the same structures for every other part of the body (except the sexual parts obviously). Are all our hands built differently or are they all built the same but just differ in sizes? All normal brains are built in exactly the same way with the same number of folds arranged in the same pattern in the same places. All brains contain the same component parts which undertake the same tasks and contain the same neuron-transmitters etc. Variations such as size are irrelevant to the function of the brain. That is what I meant. As we age and learn then the wiring inside our brains become increasingly unique. That is a separate matter from what is being discussed.

This thread is about linking TG with the genetics we were born with. It is will known that women and men have different wiring due to hormones.

Why do you speak of genetic abnormality? What's wrong with genetic difference? Which is abnormal, to be born with blond hair or to be born with black hair? Neither, they're just part of the wide range of human normality.

I was referring specifically to the genetic conditions raised by Batty which are abnormal because they are not present in the population in general. I use the word for its technical meaning not to infer any diminutive aspect about the conditions that result.

Even if it's not upbringing, it doesn't have to be genetic. There are hormonal factors that influence development in the womb that are neither inherited nor learnt.

Well that is the point I am trying to make. It is hard to justify a genetic cause to transgenderism based on our current understanding. Hormones do affect our development but again evidence that this specifically causes TG is also lacking. It is not so much the lack of scientific data that troubles me personally but the lack of clear logical explanations of A+B=C. The very nature of gender does not lend itself to these types of explanations.

[Satrana]

Babies are not all clones. They have variations in all dimensions and variations of brain weight and brain size. So no, those brains are all built on rough guidelines with individual variation.

Indeed I was not saying they were clones but rather all brains are built to the same design. If we all compared our hands they are all essentially the same shape and size and are capable of performing the same functions. Brains are no different. The guidelines are not rough but actually quite concise. And remember we are talking about fetuses here when the bodies are only a few months old so there is no epigenetic modifications to take into account.

And the FMRI and autopsy studies found that often some parts of gay brains are closer to female brains than male ones....

Observing spatial differences between brains and claiming they mean something is a tricky and questionable analysis. Size and function in the brain are not directly correlated with each other otherwise we would observe noticeable differences between small people and large people. The Victorians were found of measuring the skull circumference because the bigger the brain the greater the intelligence. Makes sense but it turns out to be completely wrong.

Leaving aside the questionable nature of measuring the size of brain components, even if it were true this does not shine any light on the cause because all studies were done on adults, and in the case of the transsexuals they were all already on female hormones for years. The brain is like any body part, the more you exercise it the more it grows. So was the brain part already large due to genetics which caused a behavior or was the person's personality exercising that part of the brain to cause it to grow larger?

Quaint notion but rather special pleading to support your hypothesis. The likelihood that 90% of women all lay down on the same side is more than unlikely.

Not if 90% of women were right-handed themselves. Once a behavior becomes prevalent it can create conditions to allow the prevalence state to continue.

What if whether a person sees themselves as male or female or needs to temporarily do so comes from a gender-identity of biological basis but that the roles of male and female being culturally determined.

But what would be the biological basis for a person to view themselves as male or female? From a biological viewpoint we would stick to our physical gender and act accordingly to in order to procreate. In a natural setting this is the goal of life.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

After all we have a host of unconcious biological mechanisms for keeping time, for identifying faces and voices.

Do we have a biological clock? The time we know - hours and minutes - is purely artificial. Our biological clock responds only to daily and monthly cycles. Yet we all learn to instinctively measure time by the artificial construct of hours and minutes. As for identifying faces, we have a brain program to search out patterns which we use to analyze all visual objects. It is not specific to faces but simply the way our brains analyze and segregate visual signals.

How are we sure on that?

If this statement were not true then we would have different strains of humans. I am not aware anyone believes this. Indeed our genetics show we are all related cousins of each other to no more than the seventh order and we all stem from a single female who survived the supervolcano event 75,000 years ago.

Why would there be a clear undeniable connection? Plenty of things in nature just increase the odds.

Agreed but I am countering the argument that "I was born a CD" whereas if there is any biological variation involved it is only as a side effect of altering your thought processes which may then in turn lead you to become transgendered.

Ah, I see your error. Firstly individual genes rarely encode for a function alone. It often involves several genes to each function.

That depends on what the functions are. They are plenty of single function genes which do determine particular aspects of our bodies such as eye color. Then more complicated body functions require more gene instructions. The question is how does this impact on gender. Since gender is a mix of personality traits that exist in different parts of the brain then in order for genetic variations to be a cause of transgenderness this would require wholesale changes which would create many other observable behavioral changes rather than just a desire to live as the opposite gender.

[quote]And then genes are not just 'on' or 'off', they also switch due to environmental factors and the switched on or off gene can then be inherited in that state! so with 4 genes you could have on-off-on-on and then during childhood diet or stress switches one gene so it becomes on-off-on-off and then the children of that person inherit the genes like that! [/quotes] If this were true then there would be enormous genetic changes in the human genome in every generation. I have never heard of people being able to change their dna due to stress or diet. Your body functions may change due to changes in your biological balance, signals can be blocked etc but these events cannot be passed onto your offspring. The copy of your DNA code inside your sperm remains unaltered due to stress or diet. DNA variations in the human genome happen in the womb.

That would match the evidence better if it was the case more frequently.

I fail to see the logic. The frequency of an event has got nothing to do with the original state. Coins lying on their edges roll off a table. 99.99% of the time they will come to rest on their sides, very rarely one may come to rest upright. What does this prove?

This suggests an interaction between nature AND nurture. That my brain is hardwired for ambidexterity

Or your brain was not wired for either hand. There is a difference.

[Satrana]

That doesn't explain why the foetus turns it head one way or the other preferentially in the first place? Surely you're confusing effect and cause..

I don't know nor does science but are you suggesting there is a gene which when switched on and off makes a fetus prefer to turn its head to the left or right? Why would such a gene exist?

So - not all our houses are the same?

The fact that the right and left hemispheres undertake different tasks and therefore left and right handed people develop subtly different skill sets is not being questioned. The brain structure is the same in everyone, the wiring on the other hand is unique and is developed on the behavior of learning.

[ElaineB]

All normal brains are built in exactly the same way with the same number of folds arranged in the same pattern in the same places.

I think you are carrying your argument too far. It has been proven beyond doubt that brain structure is partly determined by heredity and not everyone has the same basic brain. Twins separated at birth tend to have the same personality traits. Those traits can also run in families even in clear cases where they could not have been taught ... my own case is one such. My father and I (and most of the men in that side of my family) have very similar personalities but he did not raise me. Then there are the many studies tracing conditions like schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolarity through families ... which show that some of those clearly are linked to genes.

So it is quite conceivable that there are such inborn differences between male and female brains, even though it is hard to separate those differences from the ones that develop from the influence of sex hormones.

I was referring specifically to the genetic conditions raised by Batty which are abnormal because they are not present in the population in general. I use the word for its technical meaning not to infer any diminutive aspect about the conditions that result.

It is not that simple, though. Abnormal is only meaningful if there is a norm. While any one person might not carry the genes that predispose us to schizophrenia or addiction or whatever, it is very likely that all of us have some genes for some rare trait. So how can it be abnormal to have any of these? That would make everybody abnormal.

Because of that phrasing, I will venture to guess that you and some others may also be making a couple errors common in discussion of evolution. Evolution is not progress. It is just an extension of adaptation. It is also not monolithic. People can evolve to develop one trait while simultaneously remaining neutral in others or even devolving. So it really is just not true that all genes are still in our coding because they were advantageous, and it does not follow that a TG gene (if such exists) would have to provide some advantage somewhere. What biological or social advantage does it provide anybody to have earlobes? None that I can see, yet they exist anyway in some people and not others.

It is hard to justify a genetic cause to transgenderism based on our current understanding.

I do agree with this, but be careful not to go too far in the opposite direction.

What biological process creates men who want to behave as women and women who want to behave as men? And considering how men and women are supposed to behave is determined by ever-changing social values, how can this be accounted for by biological means?

I think that is the really meaty question in your argument and probably the point we should stick to.

[Nicki B]

I don't know nor does science but are you suggesting there is a gene which when switched on and off makes a fetus prefer to turn its head to the left or right? Why would such a gene exist?

I'm suggesting the way the brain has formed might - which is determined genetically..

The fact that the right and left hemispheres undertake different tasks and therefore left and right handed people develop subtly different skill sets is not being questioned. The brain structure is the same in everyone, the wiring on the other hand is unique and is developed on the behavior of learning.

Did you read my previous post? Brain structures, and the way the neurons are linked, are demonstrably NOT the same - and this has been known for a very long time?

With the above, you do now seem to be contradicting yourself?

[finacarina]

soy milk is responsible