Are cd's made,,or born??

[Vanesa M]

Not entirely sure this is the proper place for this, but, as I am constantly trying to disect myself, (wondering why I do what i do), I will ask for your gals opinions. Are cd's made,, or born??

[Sarah Ann]

I believe that we are primarily born this way. I know that I was, as I cannot remember a time when I was not transgendered. I always wanted to dress, act, and play more like a little girl than like a little boy. The farther one gets from transsexualism toward the purely crossdressing side of things, the less sure I am, but, given my own experiences and the publications I have seen of where attempts at forced mental gender modification have failed, one's core gender orientation is probably inborn. I would suggest that the answer lies in the "physical layer" of the brain, and that persistently transgendered people possess hardwired circuitry there that is more commonly found in the other genetic gender.

[DonnaT]

Both, it seems, as in either/or, even if we find it really hard to tell the difference.

[KimberlyS]

Are cd's made,, or born??

My basic answer is Yes.

Ok let me explain quickly. I believe we are born with a default set of physical and mental traits. It is our environment, family, friends, and community that teach us and attach labels to our traits such as feminine/girl or masculine/boy. As we grow and learn our alignment of our traits, the labels other attach to them, the labels we want to attach to them, and how we react and deal is a living and growing thing we call part of life.

kimberlys-cd
joe in a skirt

[DonnaT]

Yet there are some who live in, for example, a femdom relationship, and their SO prefers they crossdress, even if they have no personal desire to do so.

[Rony]

I would have to vote with born, but for everyone the trigger that sets the desire in motion is different. There are those who never experience the trigger or don't give in to it thinking it is something best ignored.

Ronnie

[Davita]

We are made to be born. Nature/Nurture.... so far has anyone proved that both are not involved with 99.44% of humans?

To me, it's a dead horse beat long past it's time to have been beaten. The most important thing is that we just be happy that we are a result of them.

[Anthony Simon]

I'm pretty sure it's some sort of a mix of inheritance and environment in my case, but I'd really like to know just exactly what. Like none of us can remember the very earliest years of our life (My first memory is from when I'm three), so whatever happened then is unrecoverable. Given that, no-one can ever be sure, because there's always a blank spot in the record. It's a guesstimate what happened to us and no more.

I had what I think the psychoanalysts call a "screen memory" of me being dressed in a nightdress for a long time - that is while the memory has an intense quality, it is also somehow dreamlike - so then I was never quite sure what that meant. I knew that, in my mind, this was the basis of my CDing - like it all came from there - and eventually I really applied myself and dug out this other memory. It was kind of downbeat and unglossy, like it might be true, and had me in bed with a much older woman. I felt this might be my mother's mother and I asked my mother if this might be true.

She said it was possible as I had been over there when I was 4. So I went to see my grandmother and eventually extracted from her that she had put me in a nightgown when I was with her because I had wet the bed.

In that sense my CDing was made by my grandmother. But, on the other hand, why did I respond so strongly to it. It can only be that there was something waiting to come out. I think that was a wish that I was a girl. So, when my grandmother put me in the nightgown, I felt I was a girl and I loved it.

But as to why I wished I was a girl. I dunno. That much is lost in the mists. I can guess (and I have, here) but the bits I have available are my analyst's view that I never wanted to be a man (which is probably true), the fact that there is a fair amount of woman in me (that much is obvious) and the quite alternative fact that, in some respects I'm not that bad a man. Oh, and there's also the fact that both my parents have clear elements of the "wrong" gender in them - so there has to be some genetics in there.

Personally I find it unlikely that there's a "wearing the clothes of the wrong gender gene" - which is what the nature position boils down to. I think there might be a constellation of genetic stuff which leads individuals to identify to a lesser or greater degree with the "wrong" sex. At some point, and for really intense cases, that's going to create a situation where the people feel they're in the wrong body. Whether this is in the womb or somewhat later, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that if it hasn't happened either in the womb or in the blank period (and maybe been forgotten) people aren't going to be TS.

Maybe with CDs it's more like a twin spirit thing that happens in the womb or the early years (unless they transition, that is).

[Ralitsa]

well I won't help you any Anthony, probably I will make it worse

There very well may be a "wearing the clothes of the wrong gender" gene. Probably you remember the story we were talking about last year about the birds that were "crossdressers". So I wouldn't entirely rule out that idea.

Anyway, as Davita said, this is a horse which has been beaten for centuries and is pretty well dead. But my own take on it is that there is some fraction which is genetic, some fraction which is environmental, and the actual numbers are: 1) impossible to accurately measure; 2) different for each person; and 3) doesn't change the net result. The net result is that I like to wear cute dresses.

In my own case I would tend more toward the "made" then the "born" side. So maybe for me it is 70:30 made vs born. But I have the sort of personality that I want to believe that almost every aspect of my personality is within my control. I do not like the excuse "I can't help it, I was just born this way." But that's my own opinion on the subject.

[Leeza]

Ralitsa said

But I have the sort of personality that I want to believe that almost every aspect of my personality is within my control.

My own feeling is that we are all born with certain strengths and weaknesses and sometimes life throws us things that could be called a weakness or handicap It is our choice whether we build on the strengths or use the weaknesses or handicaps as excuses.

Leeza

[Anna]

This debate is fascinating.

When I was about 5-7 yrs old, I had female cousins who thought it was a great idea to play dressup, including me! I think that started me off on this road, and because of that I generally think the condition is nurtured. Feeling how good the clothes felt compared to my own boy clothes. I loved the feeling, and the free and open feeling of wearing a dress compared to boy shorts/trousers of the early 50's. Loving the feeling has never left me and I indulge whenever I can.

HOWEVER, if it was just because I liked the feel and freedom of the clothes, it should have worn off by now. But it hasn't! So maybe there's something else...

[Absaroka]

I don't think preferences in clothing are genetic, given that there is so much variety in clothing. Are we really to believe that a preference for female bluejeans to male bluejeans could be genetic?

However that is a very simplisitic answer to a question that probably needs to be restated. The first problem with the question is that the category of CD is hopelessly broad. There are folks who are strongly transgender, the folks who wind up having SRS. There are times when this is clearly genetic, they've found the gene. There are times when it seems to have something to do with something happening in the womb, biological but not genetic. There may be a learning component to it, but I think it's likely that the learning component is more about how people respond to the biological situation. Why does one person commit suicide and another endure, and a third have SRS?

At the other end of the spectrum are the folks who like to masturbate while wearing a bra and panties. This would seem to be some sort of learned sexual response. Is there a genetic component to what aids one likes while self stimulating? Probably not, but there might be some genetics involved. There is a lot of evidence that many of our interpersonal traits, (how we relate to other people) may have genetic components. It may be that some people have a genetic predisposition to be sexually stimulated in an atypical fashion, and that learning leads to particular modes of expression of that gene. And sexual response is a hopelessly complicated subject anyway. It's one that is as basic to us as the need for food, but with all the societal stuff that was originally put in place to prevent aimless procreation among 13 year olds. We can see now that there is finally enough to eat just how much can go wrong with our desire for food, by way of comparison.

And then there is all the inbetween stuff. The human capacity for learned behavior is enormous. Researchers have for example found very few examples of inate fears. Almost of our fears except for a fear of falling seem to be learned, which of course one of the reasons kids have to be watched so carefully when they first learn to crawl and then walk. Experiments with monkeys show that even maternal instinct seems to be something monkeys learn from their mother. Which of course leads to the question: why do girl monkeys learn this and boy monkeys do not?

I know for myself that I seem to have a biological/perceptual system that renders me vulnerable to learning certain responses very quickly. And then they get hardwired. I suspect that we may often be born with ambiguous feelings about gender, or that our biology may lead us to act more like one gender or another. But when it comes to taste in clothes, as opposed to overall gender expression, I think that's mostly learned, not surprising when we consider how much cultural weight is attached to them. After all there are men who feel comfortable in a necktie (as opposed to the rest of male clothing) You can't convince me that that particular preference isn't a product of socialization. But then, many men with thyroid disease absolutely hate neckties simply because a tie is often more uncomfortable than usually when you have a diseased organ in your neck, especially if it's Graves disease and everything feels 5 degrees warmer to you than it does to everyone else.


Absaroka

[Gillian]

Ivan Pavlov, may have gone to the dogs, but it does beg to ask the question of learned responses. So, can this "conditioned reflex" be also found to work in humans. Well, if you look at the early simple approaches of brain washing the answer would have to be yes. Absaroka's comments,"At the other end of the spectrum are the folks who like to masturbate while wearing a bra and panties. This would seem to be some sort of learned sexual response. Is there a genetic component to what aids one likes while self stimulating?". I would render thought of, if you masturbate while wearing a bra and panties, then you must be enjoying it. Then the enjoyment of one activity crosses over to another activity. You would end up enjoying the bra and panties as much as the actual act of self stimulation! Or maybe you were enjoying the bras and panties which lead to the self stimulation! The bell did nothing more than to serve as a catalyst, but which is the catalyst? There are sounds, smells, words, that can stimulate towards a "response", so what started the person wearing the bra and panties for self stimulation to begin with? That is the whole, "which came first, the chicken, or the egg?", which is the basic question of are we made, or born. I think that this is a never to be clearly answered question. It will depend on the person and the environment from which they came.

The only thing that we can do is look at each person on a case by case basis. In my case, I was wearing bras and panties long before the self stimulation. But, maybe this was my earliest form of self stimulation in which I was unaware of the outcome. After several months this behavior reached its natural outcome, whether ignorance played into it or not. Once lead to twice, and so on, until the two co-activities were so intermingled as make it seem as just one thing. Years of learned behavior is not something easily changed. As one gets older the clothes can take on an enjoyment all of there own. Humans are sexual creatures, how do we separate it from us, as well as the behaviors and stuff that goes along with it? Maybe some one needs to become a modern day "Pavlov" and see whether these "responses" are learned, and then unlearned if they are causing harm. By way of example pedophilia, rape,etc. Yet, hasn't this already been tryed? Maybe the human brain is to complex, and some behaviors can not be unlearned. Pavlov didn't try to reverse the process with the dogs, or maybe he did and it didn't work, so that part got left out! Funny one question leads to others, and I am not sure we are any closer to answering the first question.

[Paulette]

When I first got involved in psychology classes, imprinting (as in baby ducks following the first large thing they see) was a big thing. Now, not so much, though I haven't been paying much attention to the field.

It seems that people do imprint. I've met or read of people who imprinted on people in wheelchairs, and as an adult "presented" in one all the time even though not needing one in the least. I've met people who did complete body-mods to present as a lizard, as the devil, as a black (though born white), and as a white (though born of a darker skin color, hair type, ear shape, nose shape, etc.). And we all know of, or are, people who have seriously considered SRS. And there are the two women who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars surgically making themselves into human Barbie Dolls.

About 15 years back there was a fascinating (to me, at least) article on body dysphoria in The Atlantic magazine, about those among us who insist that their body will remain alien to them and not be "whole" until a particular limb or body part is amputated. They seem to long for this with as much passion as some of us long to be of a sex other than the one we were born with. I met one such who had lost a leg in a trolly-car accident. He also had a stack of amputee porn stashed not very secretively under the bed in his guest room. I didn't have the guts to ask him which came first, the loss of the leg or the porn mags.

I believe that we are open to impressions that we then wish to emulate. The driving force may have a sexual or aesthetic element, or something else entirely. Why do some people want so desperately to become doctors, soldiers, mothers, movie or rock stars, musicians, periodontists, poets, Mary Kay salespeople? Surely there can't be genes for each of those things. But might there be a predisposition to emulate or be just like . . . something that made a very strong impression on us at a very early age?

I don't know why these things happen, but they do. We find some are repulsive and others attractive, regardless of our own variety of imprinting. I'm sure they think we're weird, too.

We are complex creatures, not baby ducks, but at some point we share the genetic pool with baby ducks, and I believe we've shared some aspect of it for a very long time. We are also conscious, and aware that we are aware, and that others are aware of us. We think that those of us without any feelings of empathy are monstrous. But now we are finding that some of us feel so much empathy that we want to become, and think of ourselves as, someone that we are physically not really like.

I know that I do, sometimes.

But the question was about CDs. As Dan Savage and others point out, CDs have no natural allies. Even those in the trans community often think of CDs as incompletely realized transitioners. And most everyone thinks that people similar to themselves are similar for similar reasons. We are pattern recognizers, but it's all too easy to attribute organizing principles of the patterns we see, incorrectly. Attributing our reasons for someone else's seemingly similar behavior denies the other person's authenticity, I feel. As a children's book once pointed out, "There are no sames."

I believe the reason for some of this is that we are creatures of impulse whose consciousness follows after our actions, rationalizing what we do into a cohesive story that we call "me." The more completely socialized we are, the easier the story of our lives fits into a pattern. The less we fit into the expected social mold, the weirder and wilder our pattern of behavior is likely to be - but perhaps these are the same things.

cheers, hugs, love, and don't take this too seriously, even if I seem to do so.

[Paulette]

Absaroka's comments,"At the other end of the spectrum are the folks who like to masturbate while wearing a bra and panties. This would seem to be some sort of learned sexual response. Is there a genetic component to what aids one likes while self stimulating?". I would render thought of, if you masturbate while wearing a bra and panties, then you must be enjoying it. Then the enjoyment of one activity crosses over to another activity. [[Exactly]] You would end up enjoying the bra and panties as much as the actual act of self stimulation! Or maybe you were enjoying the bras and panties which lead to the self stimulation!

No. The bell is the 'condition' to which the response is now tied, hence "conditioned response." It is not merely a catalyst. With not too much imagination this replaces "imprinting," which I've mentioned above, except that in imprinting there is no rehearsal, no learning curve. The response is immediate upon the first instance of the stimulus.

I've seen this in working with disturbed and disabled kids, where a single powerful enforcement, or Zen-ish stimulus, establishes a meaningful and unforgettable condition for a response not usually associated with that condition. (Quatz! - the word uttered by the master when beheading the student who achieves enlightenment as his head bounces on the ground)