Crossdressers-Haven.com

Hi all,

I'm currently reading The God Delusion by biologist and author Richard Dawkins. Well into the book, Dawkins sets out to explain what memes and memeplexes are.

In a nutshell, a meme is the cultural equivalent of a gene. It's an idea, if you will, that gets transmitted from generation to generation. A memeplex is the cultural equivalent of a gene pool. Some memes (which a few have called "viruses of the mind") fare better if other specific memes are present in the cultural neighbourhood. He uses meme theory as the backdrop for his explication (and eventual dismissal) of religion.

I mention all this because I've been wondering if the notion of a fluid gender identity may not be a new meme. Or, if an old one (viz. the Berdache, et al.), if it may not be thriving more recently because it's now part of a new memeplex.

In order to have us understand this better, Dawkins compares genes and memes by using biological and cultural examples. He says, for example, that a carnassian gene (coding for carnivorous behaviour) may not survive very long in the gene pool of herbivores. In the same way, a Christian meme (say, belief in transsubstantiation) may not long survive in the memeplex of Islam. He also has us note that one (carnivore/herbivore or Christianity/Islam) isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, merely different and incompatible.

Now, this is what I'm wondering: is there a new social shift (the cultural equivalent of genetic drift) that has given rise to changes in the memeplex of human sexuality making it easier for the transgender meme to both survive and replicate itself more forcefully? I wonder about this because all of the reading I've done on the subject of transgenderedness suggests that the idea itself has both evolved and is more commonplace today than it was in previous eras.

It used to be (and, in more traditional cultures, it still is) the case that two-spirited people were couched in a spiritual or religious aura. As such, they were "divorced" or removed from lay society. But, now, we have transgender entertainers, transgender politicians, and transgender artists and scientists. Transgenderedness has become a legitimate subject of social, psychological, and artistic and literary enquiry. It's going mainstream. And it's finding evermore fertile ground daily.

Why? What has changed in the human sexuality memeplex to allow for the blossoming of the transgender meme? It's certainly not a given that this meme could survive; the idea that a man can feel he's a woman or vice versa is counter-intuitive to most people. So, what happened in our culture that made it, if not respectable, then at least acceptable for an individual to aver that he or she is unable to embrace fully the psychological qualities associated with his or her own sex (and to express that gender identity swap socially)?

Of course, I have a theory. I think it's not so much the sexuality memeplex that has "drifted" as it is the Western political memeplex. We live in a culture born of the Enlightenment, one that is proud of its stance on human rights and freedoms; as the emphasis on rights and freedoms spread throughout the culture, and as the subject of sexuality became less taboo and more open to scientific scrutiny, the variety of human sexual experience (including transgenderedness) was gradually incorporated in the set of behaviours, attitudes, and ways of being that fall under the purview of individual rights and freedoms. In other words, we become more "visible" as transgendered individuals, not because it makes a whole lot of (evolutionary) sense for a man to behave like a woman, but because we're finally starting to pay more than mere lip service to our ideals of tolerance for diversity and to the respect of that diversity.

Yes, transgenderedness is a meme whose time has come. Arm in arm with my sister, Virginia, I say we are the vanguard of something new. Or, if not new, at least newly possible.

Love,
CJ

It's all mememe with you, isn't it? (kidding)

Seriously, I haven't read the latest Dawkins yet, but I'm a big fan of the man and his ideas and I intend to start on it ASAP. I'll need to think and read more about crossdressing in terms of 'meme.' It's a very seductive idea.

I have very close friends in Academia who speak of gender as a "construct" or "performative" -- which fits in well with what I've come to believe: that gender is not an either-or issue, but a spectrum. I do hope that this view is gradually becoming the norm. The challenge for all of us, I think, is to help it along by coming out (carefully) and/or going out en-femme (even more carefully) if we have the nerve and the legs for it.

How nice to find a forum with intelligent and well-read members! I enjoyed your post CJ.

It's an interesting idea. I like the idea of gender as a social construct with only some basis in biology. Similar to the social construct of race in America which is also becoming far more reexamined.

Absaroka

Hi CJ,

I have a major problem with Dawkin’s “memes”. To begin with, his concept of the “gene” is almost a generation behind the times. We used to think of individual genes controlling characteristics and arranged on the chromosomes like beads on a string. A unitary gene, as such, does not exist, and the molecules of DNA are in a constant state of dynamic flux - interacting with each other and with the immediate cellular environment. Any structural or functional part of an organism is the result of a process in which DNA materials influence the development of that part within the current environmental context.

The development of any cultural characteristic is even more complicated since the influence of the environment, i.e., the context, is itself dynamic. The notion of a unitary “meme” is undefinable. Would a particular hand gesture or voiced syllable, be a “meme”, or would a broader behavior, say, table manners of a European, be a “meme”?

The comparison of memes with genes is a gross oversimplification. What is worse, it can lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of cultural phenomena. Unfortunately, the heuristic power of Dawkin’s prose can make it seem like his ideas are gospel. His books should be treated with a good dose of skepticism.

Hugs.

Lydia

Lydia wrote: To begin with, his concept of the “gene” is almost a generation behind the times. We used to think of individual genes controlling characteristics and arranged on the chromosomes like beads on a string. A unitary gene, as such, does not exist, and the molecules of DNA are in a constant state of dynamic flux - interacting with each other and with the immediate cellular environment. Any structural or functional part of an organism is the result of a process in which DNA materials influence the development of that part within the current environmental context.

Oh dear, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you most strenuously, Lydia, on a number of points, but this is hardly the place to discuss the solecisms in the above. Suffice to say that (IMHO) you have thrown out a whole slew of babies with the bath water. Whatever Dr. Dawkins is, he's not behind the times scientifically.

Can you reassure me that your skepticism of this brilliant and enlightened man is not based more on his Atheism than on his science?

I got a convert, I got a convert!!!!!!

I hope I am not "piling on" Lydia, but what I see is you're disagreeing with the method that Dawkins chose for his comparison, ie. genes vs. meme. I disagree with .............. well, a lot of folks, but I digress.

First, I have not read the book, but here is what I see from what CJ posts. From the very beginning when homo-sapiens "became complex" every once in a while there was a "weird" DNA (let's address the sexual aspect only, not mental acuity or physical misnomers, disease, etc.). In other words, one cave person was "attracted" to a cave person of the same gender. As humans have progressed this "malfunction" has followed us, has it not? As CJ pointed out, had this been an "unfounded" meme it would have eventually faded out or lead to its own demise - BUT it did not become endangered nor has it ceased to exist. For all we know it has actually grown. SSSSOOOOOOO based on that ?fact? and assuming that things influenced "its" growth let us see what may have influenced it. Does the term "television" have any input. Remember early tv, married couples could not even be shown sleeping in the same bed. Skip forward about 60 years, gays and lesbians run rampant and are now even an accepted part = meme of society, partly because of how we are communicating with each other right this very instant!! Ah, the internet! Most of our sisters here would not - on their best day - dress up and walk outside, god forbid, interact with a neighbor, go to the store, or OR go to work dressed!!!!!!!

But as I expressed yesterday in answering a thread about how many of us are there? Well ------------ there are a lot!!!!! and we are finding that there is strength in numbers and we have lots of numbers, several states and now even our national government is at the very least acknowledging that TG people exist. Whether or not we "deserve" equal protection under the (federal) law has yet to be seen. BUT WE ARE SEEN!!!

Yes, I believe the meme is strong and growing and will change homo-sapiens ---------------I believe for the better. Isn't it survival of the fittest? Isn't that how nature works, it adapts, it overcomes, it improves on itself?

Not in our lifetime will we see the "final product" but it's being formulated right now, right before our very eyes - well actually in our eyes - we are it, we are the first of, well maybe not the first, but we are the new and improved brand of us. It may well be another fork in the evolutionary tree, and the branch that we are on will simply continue and grow and maybe drop some seeds that will take root and us'ens will become our own breed - ain't it great!!!!!!!

To the non-believers: "HERE STANDS VIRGINIA AND CJ AND ELIZABETH AND LYDIA AND JEANNE AND THE REST OF US - WHAT DO YOU THINK!!!!??

Love,
Virginia

Hi all,

Lydia,

You raise valid objections. But the gross oversimplification may be my fault; Dawkins himself takes pains to explain that genes and memes are functionally analogous, not identical. From page 191 of The God Delusion:

The central question for meme theory is whether there are units of cultural imitation which behave as true replicators, like genes. I'm not saying that memes necesserily are [author's emphasis] close analogues of genes, only that the more like genes they are, the better will meme theory work...

And, later, on pages 192-193:

Some people have objected to memetic explanations, on various grounds that usually stem from the fact that memes are not entirely like genes. The exact physical nature of a gene is now known (it is a sequence of DNA) whereas that of memes is not, and different memeticists confuse one another by switching from one physical medium to another. Do memes exist only in brains? Or is every paper copy or electronic copy of, say, a particular limerick also entitled to be called a meme? Then again, genes replicate with very high fidelity, whereas, if memes replicate at all, don't they do so with low accuracy?
These alleged problems of memes are exaggerated. The most important objection is the allegation that memes are copied with insufficiently high fidelity to function as Darwinian replicators. The suspicion is that if the 'mutation rate' in every generation is high, the meme will mutate itself out of existence before Darwinian selection can have an impact on its frequency in the meme pool. But the problem is illusory. Think of a master carpenter, or a prehistoric flint-knapper, demonstrating a particular skill to a young apprentice. If the apprentice faithfully reproduced every hand movement of the master, you would indeed expect to see the meme mutate out of all recognition in a few 'generations' of master/apprentice transmission. But of course the apprentice does not faithfully reproduce every hand movement. It would be ridiculous to do so. Instead, he notes the goal that the master is trying to achieve, and imitates that. Drive in the nail until the head is flush, using as many hammer blows as it takes, which may not be the same number as the master used. It is such rules that can pass unmutated down an indefinite number of imitation 'generations'; no matter that the details of their execution may vary from individual to individual, and from case to case. Stitches in knitting, knots in ropes or fishing nets, origami folding patterns, useful tricks in carpentry or pottery: all can be reduced to discrete elements that really do have the opportunity to pass down an indefinite number of imitation generations without alteration. The details may wander idiosyncratically, but the essence passes down unmutated, and that is all that is needed for the analogy of memes with genes to work.

In other words, Dawkins isn't looking for "digital" similarities between memes and genes but for functional ones. Not: "Are memes and genes the same kinds of things?" but: "Do memes and genes do the same kinds of things?" The distinction isn't fatuous. And I think Dawkins defends the basic principle of memetics with some success.

As for his grasp of genetics on a molecular level, well, Lydia, I'll have to defer to your own expertise in the matter. I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly not a biologist or geneticist. However, as far as this particular case is concerned, I think it's a moot point; even if Dawkins' understanding of genes is flawed (or outdated), his argument remains sound (i.e., if this is what genes do, then it's pertinent and possibly enlightening to ask whether there are any cultural processes that are functionally similar, ones that are perhaps Darwinian in nature).

As for treating his books (and, here, I assume you meant his ideas) with a good dose of skepticism, I'm sure Richard Dawkins himself would demand no less of an intelligent readership. He may be aggressively atheistic; he may be crass; he may offend some; but he certainly wouldn't want anyone to abdicate their own power to reason and think for themselves. In fact, the call to rationality is a leitmotif in his writing. And skepticism--not reading the National Enquirer--is a hallmark of enquiring minds.

As I said above, though, it may be that your objections aren't necessarily aimed at Dawkins but, rather, at my oversimplification of his thought. If so, I certainly apologize, Lydia. I just didn't want this thread to be about anything other than the possibility that transgenderedness may be a meme. And, as I mentioned, it may also be the case that such a transgender meme has no evolutionary merit on its own but it manages to survive because other, perhaps more interesting, things are going on in its "current environmental context"... its memeplex, in Dawkins' parlance.

Jeanne,

Thanks for the compliment. About gender as performance or as a performative act, I can go one step further: being human is, in itself, a performative act. We "act" human, in the same way we "act" as men or women. I believe that, in much the same way we espouse (or not) our social roles as men and women, we also espouse (or not) our roles as human beings, period. Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage and we are but players on't." Entire religious edifices have been built upon this premise. But, hell, these are just memes, right?

Virginia,

I'm hoping we'll never see that "final product" because the day we do we can kiss our hairy ape butts goodbye... human evolution will have come to an end. I don't think that's possible. Except, of course, if we deliberately remove ourselves from the picture (which I believe we are well on the road to achieving); nature itself will go on regardless of whether or not we're there to witness it. And you know what? In the long view, there's no sadness in the fact. Just, well, a priori disappointment.

Love,
CJ

Back to you, CJ,

I must say that this thread is developing into a most stimulating and interesting discussion - for me at least. Thanks CJ.

Now, back to the point that we ought to emphasize here: transgenderness or “the expression of femininity through crossdressing”. I exclude homosexuality and transexualism there for the following reasons.

1. Male homosexual behavior is now known to be genetically based. See, especially, an article in a special issue of Discover, where evidence is presented that specific areas on the X-chromosome may be responsible.

2. The transexual, based on my reading posts here and various other materials, is not necessarily a compulsive crossdresser. The male transexual typically describes feeling “like a woman trapped in a man’s body.” Those who can afford it or are brave enough will opt for SRS. There are some who believe that prenatal hormone effects may be involved, and also some genetic influences may exist.

The crossdresser, however, is usually quite satisfied with being male, but needs to express himself in clothing. The spectrum or continuum of crossdressing is variable and broad, ranging from occasional pantie wearers to full-time dressup. The “norms” of society are such that crossdressing is kept mostly secretive and closeted. Thus, unfortunately, we know much less about the biological basis of crossdressing, than about TS and gayness (is that a word?). No evidence for any hereditary influence on crossdressing exists.

I hasten to add that in dealing with individuals, there are those who fall into the cracks between these three categories.

What does Dawkin’s meme or memplex have to do with this? He says:

the more like genes they are, the better will meme theory work...

In his polemic, in spite of denials and weasel words, he still considers genes as units of heredity, and keeps redefining the “meme” to fit his theory. In my opinion, this is sophistry at its highest level. Not only is it useless as an explanation, but can lead to erroneous conclusions.

Let's assume, for the moment, that crossdressing is a meme or maybe a memeplex. Does that concept help us understand the behavior? Does it give us any information as to origins or causes? Does it make dealing with crossdressing any easier? Is it a useful idea at all?

I love rhetorical questions, since I don’t have to worry about the answers.

Hugs,

Lydia

Hi all,

Lydia,

Yes, this is an interesting discussion.

I don't think your questions are rhetorical at all. And I would answer all of them in the negative. Postulating a transgender meme will not reveal the etiology of transgender behaviour, nor will it help anyone deal with gender variance on an emotional level.

In examining the possibility that a transgender meme may or may not exist, I was more interested in discovering something about the culture in which I live than I was in individual behaviour. As you well know, Lydia, individual behaviour definitely interests me--it's both my passion and my bread and butter. But it doesn't interest me here.

For the record, I have to admit that I'm not conversant enough with the current thinking on the science of transgendered behaviour to argue its etiology one way or the other but (and it's a huge "but"), I'm highly skeptical of research findings "elaborated" in strictly medical contexts as these studies and this type of research are often funded by corporations that stand much to gain commercially in the event that it turns out the causes of our behaviours are strictly biologically determined. The current public-private partnership between the medical-industrial complex and research facilities and agents makes me suspicious. In the same way that it may be useless to speculate about a transgender meme (if we have psychological coping techniques on our mind), it's also useless to bank all our money on the discovery of a "gay gene" (or on a "fat gene" or a "transgender gene" or a "what-have-you gene") in all but the strictest legal sense. Knowing that "we're born this way" will not diminish the intolerance we face one single iota--even were we to be protected by law. But all this is another debate entirely. I merely want to see whether the idea of transgenderism or the concept of transgenderedness have, themselves, made any inroads in the public mind and, if so, why.

I'm supposing here that cultural factors come into play and I really wonder what those factors are. Memetics, I thought, might provide a clue. Then again, maybe not. I'm not equipped to be the final arbiter in these types of questions... even though I have a certain propensity to engage in armchair anthropology.

But, please, keep the ideas rolling, eh!

Love,
CJ

CJ Says:

current thinking on the science of transgendered behaviour

There's the problem right there. There is no "science of transgendered behaviour". Most of our information is anecdotal, fragmentary, and probably inaccurate. Not scientific at all. There is even a great deal of resistance to accumulating data, since a significant part of the population rejects this behavior as sinful: "an abomination unto the Lord".

This makes defending ourselves difficult to say the least. Not that we should stop trying. We need more aggressive attitudes like exemplified by Virginia and Jeannie and others on this forum. But we do need more data - a Kinsey report on crossdressing ! The "Crossdressing Day" July 27 sounds like a good idea.

Hugs,

Lydia

Ladies, first thanks for sending this poor blond running to the dictionary - I are expandin me vocabulary.

CJ: I hope you did not understand me to say the we "crossdressers" were the ultimate in human evolution! I tried to clarify that in that we may be another branch in the tree of human evolution and we may seed an "improved" manner of human. What my dream of evolution for us would be is the combination of male and female, not so much genetics but the attitude, thought processes, empathy, gentleness, kindness, what most females "seem to" possess.

Lydia, I agree with you that we do not have a chapter in DSM IV given to much if any scientific studies that we are what we are. However, looking at the big picture, if you will and no bias toward any one group or discrimination towards another. We have to start with the very basic principle: WE EXIST!! (we crossdressers and yes we do have a very, pardon the pun - broad spectrum, i,e, continuum). Nature says and written evidence proves that "we" have been around for quite a while. Next - it is generally accepted that nature will, adapt, change, alter and in some - a lot - most cases attempt to improve on itself. Hopefully we are all in agreement on these two points. We exist and we are an improvement on those that came before us (Well, again, some, a few of us have a much better mental outlook on (sic) our gift!

Is not survival before, food, clothing and shelter a natural inborn instinct in most humans?? Now again I am not casting dispersions on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters but where is the survival meme/gene? Just asking?

Granted some of our sisters here are and have admitted they are "in it" only for the sexual thrill and we all agree - again - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but others of us sense to varying degrees that this "desire" to crossdress or be crossdressers, "marches to a different drummer." These "girls" along with those who have taken the "ultimate" step in SRS are the "shakers and movers" in this but as the evolution takes place will science learn ways to allow those who have transitioned to procreate even if it is the "turkey baster" and the frozen sperm? Are they the same as we are - we NOTS = non-operative transsexuals, those of us who feel that woman inside us, who think or think we think like women and Lydia, that is a scientific fact - Women think different from men - and MY OPINION - they are definitely stronger and a whole hellofa lot smarter!!!

Well I have said my piece and stated a few undeniable facts, however unscientifically founded! WE have, do and will exist! The majority of us are heterosexual, we will continue to procreate, we know more about "us" today than we did yesterday, more and more of us like what we know about ourselves and I continue to believe in my theory - that we are indeed the next phase in human evolution that melding of male and female, dare I say mental acuity.

Keep the faith ladies, and give 'em hell!

Love ya,

Virginia

Hi all,

Lydia,

You wrote: There is no "science of transgendered behaviour". Most of our information is anecdotal, fragmentary, and probably inaccurate. Not scientific at all.

I have to say I'm inclined to agree with you. I should've said, "I'm not conversant enough with the current study of transgendered behaviour." One of the reasons I don't think such things as keeping oneself aware at all times of the very latest genetic/endocrinological/neurological studies matter (and at the risk of betraying my own bias) is that these studies seek to highlight differences between human beings rather than similarities. What will we have gained by "proving" that male and female brains (or the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals or the genes of transgendered and "monogendered" individuals) are different? In my opinion, nothing, if not a new reason for segregation or special treatment.

In the past, much scientific effort has been expended on "proving" that this or that ethnic/social/sexual sub-group was less intelligent or well adapted than the other (usually male, heterosexual, and Caucasian). Think, here, of The Bell Curve for a recent example of this. Marking what separates us rather than what unites us as human beings is a step on the road to social control. And I don't like it. Once you're tagged as different, you may as well wear the appropriate logo on your lapel. While doing so (say, out of pride) may serve you well in liberal times, the same may not be true in a more conservative or repressive social atmosphere.

Having said this, I do understand, of course, the social and legal ramifications of discovering that this or that behaviour (including crossdressing) is biologically determined. If something in the genetic or endocrinological or even neurological development of an individual leads that individual to espouse and/or express a socially inappropriate sexual behaviour, then he or she cannot legally come under fire for doing so. Unfortunately, the same argument can be applied to pedophiles. And that's something I'm not willing to do. The trump card that crossdressers usually pull out at this point is the "fact" that their behviour, as opposed to that of, say, a pedophile, harms nobody. But is that true? Gather a dozen SO's in a room and ask them if their DH's behaviour has harmed nobody. Ask them if their family has not suffered as a result of their spouse's transgender behaviour. Ask them if they think they would be better off without having this in their lives. I'd like to see the answers.

Rather than focusing on the deterministic aspect gender identity, I'd say we have a better chance of surviving (and even thriving) as transgendered individuals by focusing on changing the belief, usually born of simple ignorance, that crossdressing is a "socially inappropriate sexual behaviour." Much of the harmfulness many SO's feel goes hand in hand with crossdressing stems from the fact they, too, perceive the behaviour as inappropriate. In a world where each individual had a greater freedom to express his or her true gender identity, that alleged harmfulness would soon evaporate. How do we achieve that kind of emancipation? By emancipating ourselves as individuals first. By letting go of the fear and the shame that paralyzes us. By being who we are, unafraid. People around us will admire our "courage to be" and they will see that our pride, our strength, our resilience, and our compassion for ourselves (yes, I said "our compassion for ourselves") are our greatest assets, not as crossdressers but as human beings, and that those assets are "transferable" and capable of being assimilated by others.

So, I say: do all the science you will... I'll be too busy tending to my blossoming, and to the blossoming of those around me, to notice the results.

Virginia,

No, I didn't think you meant that we were the end product of human evolution. How could I? The very idea of "an end product" is incompatible with the notion of evolution. We, who have grown up in a culture greatly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, often tend to think of time as having a beginning and an end, rather than it being continuous, as nature itself is forever showing us.

I have to say, though, that I wonder in what way the characteristics you identify as female (empathy, gentleness, kindness, and the like) are not culturally transmissible. Really, as you infer, who needs genetics? And, if genetics aren't in the picture, then neither is evolution. Unless, of course, we're talking about memes.

Love,
CJ

Hi CJ,

This discussion is becoming almost Talmudic. But so be it.

Your statement ...

One of the reasons I don't think such things as keeping oneself aware at all times of the very latest genetic/endocrinological/neurological studies matter (and at the risk of betraying my own bias) is that these studies seek to highlight differences between human beings rather than similarities.

..begs for comment. Such studies, let’s say the genetic ones, in most cases do not have a “goal” of highlighting similarities or differences. The research projects are looking to answer questions. A research scientist is simply responding to a typical human trait: curiosity. Usually the answers to the questions lead to more questions, but that is the nature of science. The people who are trying to unravel the genetics of homosexuality (see article in Discover), are not seeking to improve or even change the behavior. They are looking for explanations, for origins. Admittedly, much human biological research today is supported by pharmaceutical companies with quarterly profit reports to worry about. However, that kind of research, which I call “boiler-plate study”, is largely done by technicians. Over the years, our major scientific advances came from research whose goal was to satisfy curiosity. As examples, I think of the discovery of penicillin and antibiotics, of the transistor, of nuclear energy. Einstein was not thinking of solving the world’s energy needs when he came up with his now famous e=mc2. Margaret Mead was not trying to revolutionize anthropology when she went to Samoa.

Back to our basis here: transgenderism. By investigating its characteristics, its roots, its biological bases, and all there is to know about this, to us, fascinating behavior (behaviour, to you, CJ), we may be able to find better ways of living with it. We should continue to ask questions, and gather data. A forum like this one is a treasure trove of information.

Perhaps, this is only indirectly related to your last post, CJ, but I was moved to comment. All this is among friends.

Hugs,

Lydia

Hi ladies!
Lydia, "......we may be able to find better ways of living with it...l" Just curious as to who the "we" is that you speak of? Society, family, friends or us'ens? I think for society to be able to "live with it" we (crossdressers) will have to reach the realm of the Gays and Lesbians who are not totally accepted but a lot more so than they use to be. What I hear is that society hears " well, THEY were born that way!" (excluding the Religious Right but we know how to handle them). Now if we (crossdressers) can be "categorized" as being born with this gift because science says we were, well we know that based on the crossdresser continuum it opens a whole new "can of worms" (sorry, best analogy I could come up with on the spur of the moment! ).

As I see it if you are Gay or Lesbian it means you are attracted to someone of your own sex - pretty cut and dried (another metaphor - sorry)

But.............. crossdressers, assuming the majority are heterosexual we move to the actual wearing of clothing of the opposite sex. How do you categorize someone who only wears panties a couple of time a week, month, year to someone who dresses 24/7 and does not know why to those who actually feel and exhibit female tendencies (whatever you may define as tendencies with no sexual overtones)? The mind boggles.

Again, there is no doubt that we exist in a very (sorry) broad spectrum of participation. We, individually know how we feel, what we enjoy, how we express these motives, what we nor anyone else knows is the WHY we have this "gift!"

If we look down or up the future say 2000 or 3000 years or so and assuming we have not killed each other off, we will have evolved. I believe that integration of female and male genetics will improve the human species, that is unless "society" is not ready for that and cultural/genetic engineering puts a stop to "our" evolution. That raises yet another question, what about Gays and Lesbians will they be subjugated out of existence or do they have a strong enough "foothold" to remain an accepted minority of society. If having a foothold is paramount to existence we best get our butts in gear, cause, sisters we ain't there yet!

As for us = crossdressers say in 10 -15 years science discovers that indeed we "are born this way" and science/medicine can alter that/those genes that contribute to our "gift" what then???? Are we written into the "Now Extinct" book of Could Have Beens??? Do or will we have a strong enough "foothold" to protect ourselves??? OK OK someone said it, I heard them ---------------- are we worth it????

Keep the faith, ladies

Virginia

Virginia says:

Just curious as to who the "we" is that you speak of? Society, family, friends or us'ens?

I really meant "we" in the broadest sense - all of the above.

Whatever we learn about ourselves, as long as it is truth and not truthiness, should be useful and not to be ignored.

Hugs,

Lydia