Hmmm, go off for a couple of months and find web discussions everywhere about innate qualities. Yet, none of the discussions are about height, weight, hair color, eye color, bone structure or even neural patterning.
And, lo, there are all kinds of discussions that give someone a chance to say how natural this all comes to her or him. And I don't doubt that.
I think that some of the conditioning vs innate debate is a matter of misunderstanding each other.
Ummm, female-brained infant in male body. Early childhood education, still, for the most part handled by women. Child sees certain similarities, until she is informed later that she is not who she imagined. In the meantime has tried to emulate who she thinks is like her. Gets "female" conditioning and then often discovers that those patterns are not acceptable,
She makes adjustments. Builds another conditioning layer over the first. But, still manages to gom up that second layer as some things are just too strongly identified with to discontinue. The pressure on her is, maybe, less strong than certain perks for behaving how she behaves.
Voila, discovers TS and transitions and finds it rather facile to "drop the layers." Returns to earlier model and adds software to that to be in an adult mode.
Another girl might have a different experience if she has different parents, teachers, mentors, etc.
Social behavior is about as close to entirely learned as anything we do. We have a built in necessity to relate to one another and to be social. Our weaning time is much too long for us to be anything but social creatures if the species is to survive.
Babies and adults thrive in relationship and often babies die simply from a lack of relationship: "failure to thrive." And adults develop all sorts of nasty personality and mood disorders from lack of relationship and connection.
Innate? Well, that we are social is innate. The forms that takes are basically acculturated.
One woman's opinion.
