Evolving new species Is Virginia right?

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:36 am

Hi girls,

I wanted to take what Virginia said and expand on it. This is the second time she has brought it up, and both times I found the question intriging.

Virginia wrote:

Are we the 3rd sex or the next phase in human evolution?? The debate continues! Who or what part or parts of us control our desires

Virginia wrote:

My response is:" evolution." If history is any indication as we evolve, do we not become a more complex organism? I

Fossel records show that mankind does indeed evolve, however, it seems it does so radically, not gradually. It seems thoughout the history of mankind, new humans have emerged that displaced the last. Modern man displaced Neanderthol man, but both existed at the same time for about 50,000 years until Modern man took over and Neanderthol seemed to diminish until they were no more.

This sudden appearance of a new kind of man can be explained in terms of a bifucation. A function of chaotic systems where initial conditions have a very minor change that does not seem to appear until a drastic and sudden change many generations of evolution later.

Here is a paper on this.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... Chaos.html

I know in many species the number of homosexuals will increase when populations rise above food supply. When the food supply increases or the numbers of the species decrease from the larger homosexual population, the number of homosexuals decreases.

Perhaps the rising numbers of crossdressers and transexuals is nothing more than the evolution of society which allows such individuals to exist, wheras previous generations have not been as tolerant.

Or maybe we are a genetic answer to a society that no longer needs the stereotypical physical strength of men, and does have a need for a kinder, gentler person. A feminised man. Perhaps Virginia is correct and we are a bifucation of mankind, to displace the current Alpha male who's strength and protection are no longer needed by a society that has institutionalized such needs in the form of police, military, fire dept, etc. All of which employ large numbers of women within thier ranks.

On the evolutionary scale 100. 200, 300, 500, 1000 and even 5,000 years is not that long of a period. If crossdressing first appeared in mankind 5,000 years ago, indeed this would be a recent event in terms of evolution. Perhaps Virginia is right, we are a new evolution of man.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Cathy L. Anderson · Post by **Cathy L. Anderson** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:08 am

I think the human species is evolving, and much faster than conventional scientific doctrine suggests. The evolution seems especially fast for the biological systems that underlie our mental structure.

For instance, some suggest that abstract thought is a very recent innovation--no more than 3000 years old.

Though it might take 100,000 years for a separate species to evolve, a detectable change to an existing species can occur much faster.

I think evolution is happening in the interaction between our rational minds and our "feeling" minds. Currently these two parts conflict terribly. That's why we've had thousands of years of religions based on laws and commandments--which hold our feelings and emotions (especially those concerning sex) in check. We are now alienated from our bodies (observe how many medical problems are psychosomatic in nature). The ruin of the enivornment is another symptom of this.

I think the human evolution is responding. The mere fact that we can come together here as intelligent organisms, communicate, and try to make sense of our experience is an example of this.

I also suspect that the entire human species is becoming more psychologically androgynous.

Cathy

CJ · Post by CJ » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:44 am

Hi all,

Are we evolving as a species? No.

Are men evolving evolving? No.

Is our own Western culture evolving? No.

Are certain individuals less "uninformed" than others? Perhaps.

There have been more deaths resulting from torture, killing, war, starvation, and institutionalized mayhem in the past one hundred years than there have been in all of the previous history of humanity (barring the influence of plagues and epidemics). Not the sign of the arrival of a kinder, gentler man. In the last several decades, humanity has come face to face with the possibility of its own extinction. By its own hand, I might add. This is evolution? Hardly.

Even if by evolution we're referring to some variety of social darwinism or other, whereby certain cultural mindsets prevail over others (such as, for example, transgender ascendancy) for whatever reasons, it's never something that becomes clear in our own (or even in our children and grandchildren's) lifetime.

I know what my being a crossdresser does for me, personally, but I'm hard-pressed to see what the advantages of being a feminine man can be to the human race as a whole. On the other hand, I know that having the opportunity to fully be who I am (to self-actualize) is a boon to the culture I'm a part of, in that I can become a more productive member of society. But this is hardly on a par with the massive, slow-moving forces that shape entire species.

Having said this, I can certainly understand that Virginia's viewpoint may have a beneficial impact on her own personal evolution. We all seek meaning in our lives in a manner that best suits our psychological makeup. And that's the beauty of we symbol-making creatures.

Love,
CJ

Virginia · Post by **Virginia** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:19 am

OK, CJ your on!!!! I bow to your superior intellect on human development and your educational background - however, I take acceptance to several of your points: first, granted (we) have become much more efficient at slaughtering each other, BUT, take for example the nuclear generation. How many people did it take to come up with that idea? One - two - three. Oppenheimer, Einstein brilliant folks, but that is only an insignificent % of the human race. Second, if a CD'er is dressed and put in a situation where he has "passed" then makes some mistake and is read and then is placed in a position where physical confrontation is the only out. Does a "passing" CD'er respond the same way to a "bully" dressed as "she" would en drab? I know a couple of our sisters have been in that position and have been assaulted. I guess a lot of it depends on where you are on the spectrum, all things being equal. Are we evolving as a species, you say "no" I say "yes!" Look at sports. Milestones like the four minute mile - is far less nowadays, the 100 yard dash - speed keeps improving,; golf - distance (yes equipment is much better), but it is the old saying in golf "you drive for show, but you putt for dough! In my sport, strength (assuming no drugs) twenty - thirty years ago -fourty even, who would have even guess that a 60 year old could even lift weights, yet alone, bench press over 400 pounds at a body weight of less than 200 pounds or squat over 600 pounds or dead lift almost 600 pounds? My training partner, a totally drug free female, squats over 450 pounds; bench presses over 300 and at a body weight of 132 pounds - evolution OH yeah!!
No one back then in the 50's and 60' would have believed that were possible.
Granted that we in the "West" have a distinct advantage over other parts of the world, but look at our life expectency and the way it continues to expand - drugs -yes, but improved style of living, exercise and diet all contribute. I won't go into how we mistreat our "wealth of experience" = our elderly, that is another discussion!
Are men evolving? you say 'No" I say you have to define "men?" Are you lumping CD'ers into that group? If you are - you are wrong. I think that a "true" CD'er, one who truly experiences the transition to some aspect of feminity, i.e., the loving, caring, empathic attitude, that comes with the female species is a step above our "knuckle dragging brethren" out there, (no offense intended to the knuckle draggers, it is just who you are!)
As for our culture evolving? Yes it is evolving! Certain aspects neither of us care for! Other aspects we pray for! Look at women's rights!!! Granted they had to fight and claw for every bit of it but they are getting there: Equal pay for equal work; the right to vote; dress codes; elected office; did you know that in the states - hell, we even allow them to drive cars (sorry was that to flippant?) But as the old adage says "You've come a long way, baby!" Our treatment of African-Americans, for that matter acceptance of diversity within our Anglo-Saxon culture! All the colors of the rainbow and its is beautiful! There are exceptions: definition "A zealot is simply a heretic who, having lost sight of his original goal - redoubles his efforts!"
As has been previously stated, this evolution does not happen over a fortnight, it takes centuries and comes in "fits and starts." Yes I still believe that there is quite a bit more to this crossdressing than just self-expression and "just because it feels good!" It is a gradual merging of two distinct approaches to our fellow travelers on this veil of tears and we all will be the better for it!
Because I love you we can agree to disagree - you are such a pillar of this forum, maybe we have given our sisters something to ponder!
Love ya, CJ,
Virginia

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:33 am

OK, I'll take a chance and jump in here. I must admit that I fall somewhere in between CJ and Virginia here. Are we evolving as a species? Perhaps but not enough to really point out true evolutionary changes. Most of what Virginia points to can be attributed to medical science more than evolution.

Are we evolving as a society? I have to say yes to this one. Though not always for the better as CJ points out. But there are some good things happening out there as well.

But, more to the point of this thread, are we, as crossdressers, some new entity on the evolutionary scale? I really don't believe so. Are we, as crossdressers, a third gender? I don't believe that either.

What I believe is that the notion of two genders, male & female, was incorrect to begin with. I believe that male and female are simply the opposite extremes of a sliding scale with nearly infinite points in between. Anyone, of either sex, falls somewhere on the scale between the extremes.

Now, as more and more of us make ourselves known to society. We are forcing society to re-examine it's notion of gender. And, this long, slow process contributes to societal evolution.

Love,
Kathy

Virginia · Post by **Virginia** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:19 am

Hi Kathy,
Thanks, hon for replying. ( I really do have a life outside this forum - at least I think I do

). I don't think you are implying that CJ and I are "extreamist."

But I do have to take some exception to a couple of things. First, the use of the term "medical science" just science would define us would it not! Unless we are (Sorry Sis/Darlene) "manufactured" then only science would apply?
A "new entity" no! One in evolution - yes! As has been pointed out CD'ers have been around for what since we learn to walk up right?? Uh, depending on your religious perspective

. Anyway, does not evolution involve understanding the whys and then making alterations that best suit the situation?
A third gender? No, but I also have trouble accepting that male and female are on the same continum, but at opposite ends! Was it Shakespear that used the analogy:"If we hurt do we not cry, if you tickle us do we not laugh, it you prick us do we not bleed?" but where does this "sameness" end. Science has proven that there is indeed a physical difference, and mentally wow! The methods used mentally to get from A to B are very different and what about emotionally, love , empathy, caring, sharing, etc. World's apart. Yet here we come CD's, CD's that are able to express the feminine emotional aspects and still be a genetic male. I now seem to cry at the very slightest thing, and it actually feels good. I have become much more (no offense) but "touchy-feely." When talking with people I seem to have more of a tendency to want to gently touch them on the hand. arm (not sexually) but just for the human contact. How many of us are out there! Some say 10% some say more. Has it been a constant % or not? As a percentage that means our numbers are growing as is the general population of this veil of tears.
What if, WHAT IF all males are blessed with this gift but most like a lot of us for a while at least were/are able to supress the anima even until death?
I got questions? Wish I had answers!
Love ya,
Virginia

Cathy L. Anderson · Post by **Cathy L. Anderson** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:40 am

Hi CJ,

CJ wrote: There have been more deaths resulting from torture, killing, war, starvation, and institutionalized mayhem in the past one hundred years than there have been in all of the previous history of humanity (barring the influence of plagues and epidemics). Not the sign of the arrival of a kinder, gentler man. In the last several decades, humanity has come face to face with the possibility of its own extinction. By its own hand, I might add. This is evolution? Hardly.

I think it helps to consider that "evolution" has various definitions. Genetic evolution per se is merely changing frequencies of genes within a population in response to environmental pressure. It is amoral amoral Devolution is still evolution.

But "evolution" is also used in a sense broader than merely genetic, by people like Henri Bergson, i.e., something more directional and consistently positive. In that sense, I agree with you that there is a real issue. My fear is that, for example, in the US, we're evolving a species of "homo intitutionalis" -- people who are manipulated by the media and government institutions to the point that they are no longer capable of or interested in thinking for themselves.

In any case, your comments fit with my observation that we are dissociated from our bodies. The problems of this century might be seen as symptomatic of an evolution in human rational intelligence without a corresponding increase in emotional intelligence. And CDs might be part of Nature's attempt to correct this.

Cathy

Post by **Celia** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Anyone here ever read Galapagos?

-Celia

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:31 pm

Hi all,

When I first read the post at the beginning of this thread (last night) I thought to myself I am not getting involved as it will likely end up in an argument and at the end of the day there will be no progress made. I still think at the end of the day no one here will come away with their opinion changed. In spite of what anyone has printed or as a result of what I am about to print.

IMO most of the things that have been printed above that are meant to support evolution are describing individual movement, personal growth, achievement etc. At the same time that the above have happened we also have a higher crime rate more people in jail, more murderers, and on and on. For example not that long ago home invasion was unheard of. Do we then say that criminals are also the next generation of evolution? (Sorry Sis Virginia) but I can’t get my head around that one.

I see what has been said here to support evolution nothing more than describing some of the steps man kind has made towards improvement. No different than mans progression from Horses as means of transportation to cars, The progression from the Model T to the Jag that Virginia drives today, Jets, and on and on. It simply describes what is happening to society. It can not stand still, but some of the improvements man has been able to accomplish have not been healthy.

Some are able to move towards more freedom while others move towards more repression.

Love ya all,
Darlene

Post by **DonnaT** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:54 pm

Evolution is based on genetic changes. Some of the things mentioned above, such as strength, are based not on genes, but on training techniques, nutrition and possibly the environment we live in.

I know from my family history that some of the men in my family were quite strong, particularly the blacksmiths and at well over 60 yrs of age. They just didn't have any powerlifting competitions to prove how strong they were.

It has been noted in the science journals that even though kids are taller and bigger now, and that the average height of men is about 5'10" compared to about 5'4" 200 years ago, that the differences are not due to genetic changes but instead are due to better health and better food and all around better environment.

Evolution is ongoining, because the human gene pool is subject to change with every generation.

However, the pressures on the human race to evolve have reduced significantly, pressures such "survival of the fittest" for example, due to improved medicines, food, housing, no longer a need to hunt, no longer a need adapt to the environment, etc.

Accordingly, human evolution hasn't stopped, but instead has slowed considerably.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:20 pm

Hi,

I have to say I was more in agreement with CJ, but after Kathy posted I think she takes enough from both sides so I can say I agree with her.

Am I chicken or what?

I'm just amazed by the brain power here that I just don't get.

Is it wrong to like being simple? Somebody has to be, right?

Darlene you have really inspired an incredible week of threads.

Beauty

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:50 pm

In part Beauty wrote: Am I chicken or what? Is it wrong to like being simple? Somebody has to be, right?

Hey Beauty I ain't touching that with a ten foot poll LOL.

Thanks,
Darlene.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:42 pm

Hey girls,

There have been some really nice reply's here. As I weas expecting, the intelligence of my sisters has not let me down. I really don't have much to add except perhaps to also thank Darlene for a week of thought provoking threads that have inspired others to create thought provoking threads as well.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Virginia · Post by **Virginia** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:28 pm

I am right!! I am right!! I knew it, I am right!!!

Well some? A little? none?

( wonder if I can write and entire reply with just emoticons?) Sorry, I digress:
Donna, I am sure that some of your ancestors were real bull men, however, just recently someone (no not me!) bench pressed 1000 pounds, now that is evolution!!! thiry years ago a 400 -500 bench press was almost unbelieveable.
Heredity, genetics, socio-economic, environmental, whatever Past: yes there were crossdressers, they did not have a clue. Today: Yes we have crossdressers, we may agrue about the whys and wherefores but we are getting shimmers of glimpses of who we are and why and that we have a gift to share. If I take one of our "new" sisters and show her how this gift can benefit not only her, but all those that she comes into contact with and sometime later she gets into a "pissing contest" with someone, but instead of bashng his brains out she talks to him until his ears bleed, that is progress and this sceneiro repeats itself over and over then Tomorrow: some well meaning "social scientist" says you know these crossdresser really have something going for them lets really study this, what with all our modern new methods and equipment we can find out what really makes them tick. that to me is evolution!
Darlene.Sis: your analogy of the criminal is interesting however, down here our jails are full of their evolution, they appear to be going backward.
What kind of an idiot writes a bank hold-up note on the back of his own deposit slip? Or chains his truck to and ATM machine rips off his own bumper with license tag attached and drives off!!!?? Or dresses as a woman, goes out at 10pm at night to see fireworks, goes 32 in a 25 mph zone, gets stopped.....................uh!! sorry 'bout that , that is another story!
Love ya all,
Virginia

CJ · Post by CJ » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:46 am

Hi all,

Heh. No extremist, me!

I guess I'm just a tad too cynical for my own good, sometimes.

Who knows? Maybe there's survival value in that?

If we're talking about evolution in the physical and physiological senses, of course we're still evolving as a species. But the changes are not possible for any one generation (or even any one score of generations) to notice. Just to put things into perspective, if the entire history of the universe were shrunk down into one single day, human beings as we currently know them (the past 40,000 years or so) emerged in the last four seconds of that day. Four seconds out of 24 hours. Think about it.

What complicates things (and the reason the subject of this here thread is so interesting with its various ideas and opinions) is that homo sapiens is the first species in the history of this planet whose culture stands to directly influence its physical makeup. For example, genetic manipulation is a branch of science; science is a huge part of human culture (well, at least here, in Western societies); and genetic manipulation may very well one day soon introduce variations into the human genome (our genetic map) that, left to themselves, the natural processes of evolution might never have come up with. In a sense, we're on the road to acquiring the ability to "create" ourselves. Another good example of this is how the rise of medical knowledge about our own bodies has led to a lengthening of the human life span over the past few centuries.

And this is where "Virginia's evolution" comes in, I think. This ability we're slowly acquiring to not let ourselves be "shackled" by our own biology is also leading us to wonder what else that we formerly thought was set in stone may be possible. Not just, what direction will the human species take, but what direction can it take? There are now more than merely physiological forces at work, here; cultural factors are more and more coming into play (such as, for instance, the questioning of an arbitrarily binary gender scheme--again, gender scheme, not sexual scheme). In essence (and to my mind), Virginia is not necessarily saying, "we (TG'd folks) are, plainly, the new step in evolution" so much as she's saying, "we can be a new step in evolution, if we want to be." That I can agree with. But there's a proviso, a condition: the human species, in order to evolve in just this way (that is, toward a cultural "end-point" where gender will be seen for the social fiction it is), the majority half of the human species (women) will need to fight by our side. And, here, when I say "our," I'm specifically referring to men everywhere, not just to men who live on the transgender spectrum.

Virginia, I understand what you're getting at. I really do. But I've met and known too many men in my lifetime who exhibit the very characteristics you listed here, in this thread, as being feminine (or female) and yet who were not transgendered in the slightest degree to believe that the expression of such characteristics necessarily requires a "female vehicle" (whether it be a genetic female or a feminized male). Conversely, I know many women who, though to all appearances female, exhibit stereotypically masculine traits--fierce independence, pugnacity, emotional distance, and rule-based thinking, amongst others.

For me, the question then becomes: "Are we fooling ourselves by believing that we're doing what we do--and being who we are--for purely social reasons (for the greater good of all) rather than for purely psychological and emotional reasons?" The evolution of the human species would fall under the terms of the former (society) and the evolution of our own self would fall under the latter (psychology). I think that the former is a possible effect of the latter, no?

Anyway, Virginia, I don't think you and I are disagreeing in any fundamental way, here. I, too, believe that we're going somewhere with this (or, rather, that this is taking us somewhere). I'm just not as certain as you are that it's a good place, given the state of the world today. But those are my own demons, I guess, and I'll own up to them. I'm just glad to count you among my friends.

Celia,

No, I haven't read Galapagos. What's it about? Who wrote it?

Love,
CJ