"Hard Wired"... what if?

[Alexandra]

I've not been following this thread too closely however I thought I'd butt in with 2 cents after reading this last page . . .

there are people who believe that "exposure" to something (lets say a homosexual act forced on them) causes one to become what they've been exposed to (in this case, gay). Scientists generally agree that is not possible.

However, if one IS gay (perhaps even unaware of it), and exposed to a homosexual act, they may find themselves liking it. That act only triggered something they already were.

This would apply to CDrs too. A sister that dressed up a younger brother would not cause him to become a CDr unless he was already hardwired to become one in the first place.

hmm?

a quote from earlier: "Nobody has to CD to survive"

I would have to disagree with this. I'm sure there are some who need to do this to keep from going cuckoo, and perhaps as far as considering suicide.

[Jamie Ann]

As far as studies go, there are plenty of significant studies around that can validate any and all sides of this issue. In the end, like much else that is deep within us, it becomes accessible mostly through intuition. Even should science prove us wrong (or right), I'm pretty sure we'll all go on clinging to our own personal views about this. It's only human to do so.

Love,
CJ

There are plenty of studies that can be criticized. Their authors may be biased for one reason or another. Still, research has great value. It can be scrutinized by critics, who can point out its flaws, leading to further research to resolve the disagreements. Intuition may suggest hypotheses, but those hypotheses have to be confronted with reality. That is what research is all about: confronting plausible hypotheses with reality. Clinging to our own personal views may be understandable, but it is a barrier to understanding.

[Alexandra]

research has great value. It can be scrutinized by critics, who can point out its flaws, leading to further research to resolve the disagreements.

correct. many people fail to understand how properly done research is conducted. the goal is to be able to have your research replicated by other scientists and have them get the same results. Biased researchers will eventually get "caught" if nobody else can replicate their study!

(Just ask Drs Pons and Flieshmann (sp) who came up with "Cold Fusion" . . . a study that virtually nobody else on Earth was able to replicate and now their reputations are trashed as well as Utah St University.)

[CJ]

Hi all,

Jamie Ann, Alexandra,

As a fellow humanist, I agree with both of you... about the value of properly done research, anyway. But I've found the human mind to be a strange beast, indeed. Just as there are no locks that cannot be picked, there is no research with which we cannot find flaws if and when we set our mind to it. Our natural inclinations are often to set our minds to do just that whenever we don't agree with the results of a particular study. Our seeking to discredit research is something we do when we cannot, deep down inside, "stomach" what it seeks to prove. We're like that, we humans. And this, too, in a way, is a form of confrontation with reality.

In an ideal world, these conditions would obtain:

1. The validity of scientific research would be unassailable and its methods bias-free;
2. People would be convinced of something merely on the basis of the evidence for (or against) it;
3. There would exist the possibility that the evidence for (or against) something is all the evidence we're likely to find.

However, none of these conditions obtain. This is why, in my own case, for example, I consider myself an "agnostic" regarding the reasons for which I am the way I am. Falling back on my own personal experience, I've discovered a hell of a lot more evidence that I came to crossdress for "nurture" reasons more than for "nature" reasons. But, because of the factors stated above, I withhold my full commitment to the idea.

I think that Gaby's original point (and she may correct me if I'm wrong) was that knowing the causes of GID--something we may not be able to do for quite a while yet--may not be as salutary to us as is our learning to cope with the fact that we are crossdressers. I know there is a strong desire in our community for GID to eventually being found to have biological roots because such a discovery would give us the social leverage we now lack. It's much harder to justify discrimination against the body than it is discrimination against the mind (this is why we speak of "visible" minorities). Yet, such a desire, however strong, will never sway reality one way or the other.

Finally, I'm not entirely sure what, exactly, would be the point of attempting to disabuse anyone else of any notion that provides them with emotional comfort and serves to inject meaning into their lives, however much we may disagree with those notions... as long as those notions don't lead to the infliction of harm on anyone else (and, "aye, there's the rub," more often than not) and regardless of the evidence for or against such notions. We may value objectivity--and, to be fair, it does have its good points--but, in the end, reality is an intensely personal place; the world doesn't look, sound, taste, feel, and mean the same to any two of us.

Anyway, I'm ranting again. Sorry.

This is a good thread.

Love,
CJ

[Beauty]

Hi,

Pretty please stay on topic with the thread or start another one about Research. I'm only stepping in now because this thread did go off of what Gaby wrote it for once and she got it under control. I really don't want to see that happen again. If it does I'll go ahead and split it, if another thread isn't started. I would have right now, but it's walking the fine line right now.

Jamie responded to part of CJs post that was on topic, which I think was fair, but Alexandra, your response was to Jamie Ann's response that was kind of not related to Gaby's thread. Still, it wasn't anything but a comment so it doesn't warrant splitting the thread. However if a debate about research starts then I'll split the thread where that topic took of and Jamie Ann would be the thread started and it would include the quote from part of CJ's post.

I'm really sensitive about this thread because it's a good topic and like I said it's been close to becoming a debate once, this time I'll probably take action.

Thanks!!!

Beauty

[Virginia]

CJ, I think I have some grasp of some of what you are saying, in that granted it is important to perhaps understand, if possible in the future, why we are crossdresser, but it is more important in what we do with our situation as it currently exists (what a sentenance - test is to diagram it ) Also the term cuckoo??? is that a medical definition that Alexandra uses? (come on only joking.)
Seriously, we all understand why we are treated as the "red-headed step-child" in the GLBT community. Since we are (not all but most) unable to support their causes they feel no need to reciprocate so we are left pretty much to our own demise, if you will??!! NO doubt there is some research being done on "us." but it is not a priority as we are not as "militant" as our "brethren in arms." We don't get out and march and get in the politicians faces (even thought many, uh most, some?? of them are crossdressers). Proof that we have a biological history would, as was stated, lend a great deal more credence to our "plight." Is it going to happen, that is for "science" to determine why we are crossdressers? Yes! When? not in our life times. So this girl is back to CJ"S doctrine, it is nice to look back and see where we individually came from and what we experienced when we were younger, but the facts are that we who admit to being crossdressers and meet the definition, are who we are and it is what we do with that knowledge on a day to day basis that will determine how we live.
Finally, I just love reading these treatys, it further confirms what we already you know that this community is fantastic!!!
Virginia

[Loretta Ann]

Hi all,

Here is something I just ran across that I think is on topic but comes from a little bit of a different perspective if you will. I enter it here as food for thought.

Love Darlene.

Be undisturbed by the movements in the flesh
Marcus Aurelius (born 121 AD) was a Roman Emperor and philosopher. Paul of Tarsus (died 67 AD), a near contemporary, is known to us as St. Paul the Apostle. What do the writings of these two men have in common, and what does that possibly have to do with crossdressing?
Their writings have more in common than you might think. Both men were strongly influenced by the philosophical movement, Stoicism, which began in ancient Greece and continued through Roman times. The relevance to crossdressing is that both men grappled with the subject of passions and desires, and their proper place.

Crossdressing is a desire of the flesh--there is no disagreement about that. The desire wells up as if from our bones. We crave deeply and in a way different from any other craving. It is like a hunger.

Denying the desire seems a poor strategy. How can you deny what you truly feel? Even if one stops dressing, the desire is still there. Resistance seems to strengthen the desire.

Further, psychologists tell us that repression is bad. Repression takes energy from other mental and physical activities. It reduces spontaneity and contributes to depression and anxiety.

It might seem we have just two options: (1) to resist the desires (leading to the problems above); or (2) to indulge them fully, following wherever they lead. You probably know people who exemplify both extremes: repressed, miserable, closet crossdressers one the one hand, and, on the other, people who are completely obsessed with crossdressing.

While not specifically mentioning crossdressing (although he was aware of it) Marcus Aurelius offered sound advice concerning such desires:


"Let the part of thy soul which leads and governs be undisturbed by the movements in the flesh...and let it not unite with them, but let it circumscribe itself and limit those affects to their parts.
But when these affects rise up to the mind because of other tendencies of the body...then thou must not strive to resist the sensation, for it is natural: but let not the ruling part of itself add to the sensation the opinion that it is either good or bad."

The Meditations

Aurelius is saying several things here:

He distinguishes between the part of us that "leads and governs"--our higher self--from our bodily cravings.

He acknowledges that desires will occur and says not to "strive" to resist them.

What is important is that we remain identified with our higher selves. We should not mistake our desires for who we are. And we should not make inferences from our desire (e.g., "I enjoy dressing like a woman--therefore I really am a woman.")
Now consider the following similar advice of St. Paul.


"Make no provision for the lusts of the flesh"
Romans 13:14

When you think about it, we spend more time making plans for crossdressing than actually crossdressing. We begin to orient our lives around it. What starts as a desire turns quickly into a habit--something we may even do without much enjoyment--and from a habit to an identity.

It is this aspect, Paul seems to suggest, that is the real problem.

It is noteworthy that Paul does not say "Suppress and resist the desires with all your might!" As a human being, he doubtless experienced lusts, and understood how that strategy doesn't work. Instead he says not to make provision for them.

Marcus Aurelius and St. Paul seem to be saying basically the same thing here. They do not say to artificially suppress desires. They are far more concerned that we do not make them central in our lives.

We can't walk down two roads at the same time. You have a more important road to walk--the journey of spiritual development. When we die, this body and its desires will be history. But other things will endure. Focus on those other, higher things.

Let the lusts come if they will. But don't go looking for them. If they well up, sometimes maybe the simplest response is to indulge or "gratify" (as psychologists say) them in a reasonable and responsible way.

I believe we can do this and still remain true to our spiritual journey. If you gratify the urge with the conscious purpose of making it go away and stop bothering you, then you are in effect subordinating the desire to your higher aims.

[Virginia]

Wow! Sis, that is awesome! The only problem is that those who would oppose us don't have a clue! As I have stated, one of my favorite Bible verses from Proverbs" Wisdom is the principle thing therefore get wisdom, but with all thy getting, get understanding." Your treaty above certainly adds credence to that. Unfortunately those in opposition not only don't have the wisdom they can not even (or want) to understand.
For those of us who will take this, as you have given us , and seek understanding simply continue to "grow in the gift!"
Although some of my sisters take exception to my preception that "we" may be the next step in human evolution, they would have to accept that we are much better informed as to the "why we are who we are!"
Thanks again Sis, I am so thankful to even be able to be a compatriot of yours and the rest of my sisters here!
Virginia

[Absaroka]

Interesting readings and I suppose we could go jsut about anywhere with them. To me the idea is balance-to have our passions but not to be ruled by them and to remember that the basis of morality ( for me anyway) is to treat others the way we would want to be treated, not letting our passions and lusts make us ignore that.

Thanks

Andrea

[Elandra]

I think if we have the feelings inside and the want to do, then you are born with it, the same as spiritual conection in what ever form one choses to believe in, there is no real proff, just knowing inside what is right and your conection to it, the stronger one can feel that, the more u see miricals <forgive my spelling> *blushes* and the more doubt is wiped from your mind <Hugs>