Crossdressed and/or transgendered?

[CharleneT]

"CDs are part of the whole pool". That's where the trouble starts, in my opinion. I am a MTF crossdresser and at 45, I still do it for the sexual thrill and don't feel any more femine when I'm dress. If my crossdressing somehow makes me 'transgendered' then all the women wearing pants in the world are too!

Try this: Next time you see a woman wearing a (say) pinstripe pants suit and loafers, tell her she's transgendered and she what she says...

All the Best,
Skirt Suit, CD not TG

depends on the suit really, if it is clearly cut as a woman's then I do not see the point. If it were a man's, then yes she would fit into the definition to a degree. Please note that one definition says "noticeably consistently crosses prevailing social sex-role boundaries" and the other "regularly acts inconsistent...". These are not referring to an occasional outfit. As well, for me at least, I believe that "intent" is very important in determining how a person might fit into the group "transgender" etc... There are many women wearing male cut clothing that have no intent of "looking" or "being" male. Hence they are not TG.

Anyhow, I've put these out there for discussion sake really, no hard and fast rules here. I'm not really sure why people are bothered by the term TG including them. It doesn't say that a CD is transsexual or the like, rather that there are many flavors of what people call transgender.

[Nicki B]

I believe that these types of numbers are typical of non-cds as well. I think a male who is 75%M, 25%F is a normal healthy man. Some CD, most do not. That is the crux of my argument.

Normal? Healthy? How do you tell?

In other words, every male is a potential CD (because CDing is in fact the norm to reflect the whole personality) but the strength of gender conditioning robs men of the ability to access this side of their personality.

For a start, 'male' is defined by physical anatomy.. Masculinity and femininity are mixed in every one - the difference comes in that some of us feel comfortable appearing (either to ourselves, or others, or both) as the opposite sex/gender. I'd call that symptomatic of at least some degree of gender dysphoria, whether conscious or not.

I'm not really sure why people are bothered by the term TG including them. It doesn't say that a CD is transsexual or the like, rather that there are many flavors of what people call transgender.

Neither am I. It feels similar to the way some here stress so very hard that they are 'straight'..

Does it indicate some form of social conditioning?

[Satrana]

For a start, 'male' is defined by physical anatomy.. Masculinity and femininity are mixed in every one - the difference comes in that some of us feel comfortable appearing (either to ourselves, or others, or both) as the opposite sex/gender. I'd call that symptomatic of at least some degree of gender dysphoria, whether conscious or not.

Indeed the best evidence we have about this whole question is to look at what happened to women's interpretation of gender once the feminist movement had social engineered greater gender freedom and masculine looks and interests were declared unisex.

Most women today mix some masculine clothes, habits, interests etc into their everyday life. It is not that they are trying to CD or pass as males rather they are reflecting how they feel. But an important question arises - where are all the GG CDs? Only a few claim to be, almost all FTMs are full time TGs or TS.

Which leads me to the conclusion that the common behavior seen in MTF CDs, the closeted lifestyle and desire to fully transform into the opposite gender is symptomatic of the social taboo against MTFs based on the "inherent feeling of wrongness and perversion of human nature". This leads CDs to look inward and access their femininity through fantasies which involve full emulation. Over time these thoughts become normalized in our heads so anything less than full emulation is deemed unsatisfactory.

Those whose personalities are approx 50/50 or greater no doubt do suffer from genuine gender dysphoria. However I believe the average CD does not even though he may only feel comfortable emulating a female - this being the result of the process of imposed closeted fantasies.

[Jaclyn NM]

I really am not too concerned with labels, since everyone interprets them differently. The fact is that I thoroughly enjoy wearing female clothing, but I have no desire to be female. I guess that makes me a crossdresser, and I'm okay with that.

[Stephanie Heplby]

[SIZE="3"]As Satrana said:[/SIZE]

Most women today mix some masculine clothes, habits, interests etc into their everyday life. It is not that they are trying to CD or pass as males rather they are reflecting how they feel. But an important question arises - where are all the GG CDs? Only a few claim to be, almost all FTMs are full time TGs or TS.

[SIZE="3"]This is a line of thinking that resonates with me. Basically, it leads me to the notion that MTF CDers are basically a social construct. We are the creations of a patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic culture. As this culture changes (assuming it does), then the need to engage in MTF CD behavior will reduce to come more into line with FTM crossdressing.

In other words, if I felt free to wear a skirt, put on make up, etc, in the same way that women are free to play with clothes and gender stereotypes (within cultural limits, of course), then I would probably have less culturally-driven need to identify as a crossdresser and go to the 'extremes' that implies.
[/SIZE]

[Jessica Who]

There are tons of labels out there for us and I don't think that there will ever be a consensus of what to use for whom.

[Nicki B]

Which leads me to the conclusion that the common behavior seen in MTF CDs, the closeted lifestyle and desire to fully transform into the opposite gender is symptomatic of the social taboo against MTFs based on the "inherent feeling of wrongness and perversion of human nature". This leads CDs to look inward and access their femininity through fantasies which involve full emulation. Over time these thoughts become normalized in our heads so anything less than full emulation is deemed unsatisfactory.

So, societies where wearing makeup and wearing feminine clothing is acceptable would not have CDs? Why would Thailand have become a major centre for GRS surgery, then, do you think? How do you explain Two Spirit people?

The Ladyboys of Bangkok.

That theory may fit you, but I'm decidedly uncomfortable with how it fits with me - but then, I'm aware of my dysphoria..

[Satrana]

So, societies where wearing makeup and wearing feminine clothing is acceptable would not have CDs? Why would Thailand have become a major centre for GRS surgery

Firstly there is no country in the world where CDs are accepted. Even in Thailand, CDs are still prejudiced against and can only get jobs in certain industries like beauty parlors and show business. There are no CDs in mainstream industry or politics nor are boys allowed to go to school wearing a skirt etc. Men who CD are not championed as trend setters and heroes unlike women when they enter traditional masculine fields. So although Thai's tolerance goes miles beyond what you find in the West, it is still not accepted that males have the right to gender freedom.

Secondly GRS is about transsexuality which I believe derives from a different source - gender dsyphoria - than what drives the majority of CDs - "normal" men who are self aware of their femininity and enjoy exploring it but which becomes distorted through the effects of the fear-induced, closeted lifestyle.

[Nicki B]

Even in Thailand, CDs are still prejudiced against

Partly true - although Buddhism teaches acceptance and equality, there are always bigots..

There are no CDs in mainstream industry or politics

No?

nor are boys allowed to go to school wearing a skirt etc.

No??

The headteacher, Sitisak Sumontha, estimates that in any year between 10% and 20% of his boys consider themselves to be transgender - boys who would rather be girls.

Men who CD are not championed as trend setters and heroes unlike women when they enter traditional masculine fields. So although Thai's tolerance goes miles beyond what you find in the West, it is still not accepted that males have the right to gender freedom.

Your point is surely that crossdressing is only a reaction to 'forbidden fruit'. Why is it only so for a minority of males?

It may describe your motives, but it doesn't fit so many people I know - dysphoria comes in many levels (and can vary over time).

Secondly GRS is about transsexuality which I believe derives from a different source - gender dsyphoria - than what drives the majority of CDs - "normal" men who are self aware of their femininity and enjoy exploring it but which becomes distorted through the effects of the fear-induced, closeted lifestyle.

Again you use the 'normal' word..

[madison lee]

What we really need to ask ourselves and give an honest truthful answer to is this. WHY DO WE NEED A LABEL? labels cause more harm than good if you think about it. Gay, straight, lesbian, bi-sexual, white skin, black skin, red skin, brown skin, short, tall, skinny, fat, your religion, my religion, their religion, cross dresser, transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, she-male, he-she, MALE or FEMALE. If you think about this, we ALL start off as female in the womb. Its not until later on in the process that the fetus develops male genitalia. I for one follow Eddie Izzards creedo " I'm not wearing womens clothes, I'm wearing MY clothes". The point I am making is everyone of us is a special, beautiful person, regardless of our clothing preferences or wether we want to transition with srs to a woman. Be the wonderful person that you are, and to hell with the labels.

[RobynP]

What we really need to ask ourselves and give an honest truthful answer to is this. WHY DO WE NEED A LABEL? labels cause more harm than good if you think about it.

We NEED labels because next year in the US we are going to have our census. If we do not have labels, then how are we to be counted accurately? And if we are not counted accurately, then we will not be able to get federal funds or support for the things we want and need.

We NEED labels because if we go to a doctor for any reason, they have to fill out all kinds of forms for reimbursement (unless you pay 100% for all of your medical costs)...

Robyn P.

[Satrana]

Partly true - although Buddhism teaches acceptance and equality, there are always bigots

No it is not bigots that prevents real acceptance but rather basic human nature to stereotype people who are different from the norm and this effect is society wide. That is why Thailand's large TG community is concentrated into the sex industry, show business and beauty parlors.

Not sure what your links are meant to show since they back up what I was saying. The school article is the story I myself have been refering to but it states that the boys are forbidden to wear skirts or even wear make-up, and this is in the school that installed TG toilets.

The boxer article demonstrates the employment angle. Parinya Charoenphol is very famous in Thailand due to her amazing story and the movie that was made about her. Despite her fame she is now broke and scraps a living selling beauty products.

I recently spent a week in Bangkok fully enfemme the whole time so I can personally attest to the amazing tolerance they showed towards me, but I can also attest to how ladyboys are marginalized in society through stereotyping.

Your point is surely that crossdressing is only a reaction to 'forbidden fruit'. Why is it only so for a minority of males?

Because it is not forbidden fruit but poisonous fruit. Male gender is primarily based upon being the opposite of femininity. It is the fear instilled in men of their own femininity that prevents them from ever considering accessing that part of their personality. Until the stigma and prejudice are removed, mainstream men will never crossdress even by small degrees.

It may describe your motives, but it doesn't fit so many people I know - dysphoria comes in many levels (and can vary over time).

It is a generalization, naturally you may feel it does not describe you personally.

I see no good evidence though that the majority of CDs do so primarily because of gender dysphoria. Which gets me back to me central point, is the average CD any more TG than the average non-CD. The difference may be nothing more than self-awareness and the willingness to explore despite the taboo.

Again you use the 'normal' word..

which is why I used quotes since we all know it is an abused term used by people in mainstream society to justify their belief in a fixed and standardized behavior which marginalizes everyone else.

If you think about this, we ALL start off as female in the womb. Its not until later on in the process that the fetus develops male genitalia.

That is incorrect. The fetus starts off as gender neutral, this state is closer to female than male though because male genitals have to be inverted outside the body whilst female genitals develop internally as normal. The young fetus only superficially appears to be female.

[Carin]

What we really need to ask ourselves and give an honest truthful answer to is this. WHY DO WE NEED A LABEL?...

There is nothing wrong with introspection. Labels help us to navigate those waters. Labels are targets. It is up to us to decide how well we fit or match those targets. Such introspection has important value for our own journeys and it have value for those we interact with. Time and time again, those in relationships are implored to communicate. Much as I wish for "thought telepathy", we still use words. If you have tried communicating with a spouse without using labels and descriptives words, I can only assume that you are now single.

People will use labels whether you like it or not. Labels are a component of our methods of communication. If we do not determine the appropriate terminology, the public will come up with their own, and you will get labels like weirdo, and pervert. To those who object to labels - please - you may choose to not use one for yourself, but don't deny the validity or value of the descriptive words we call LABELS.

I have a couple of new friends that are friends because they read in my online profile that I am transgendered - yes, I put a label out there, along with a few other labels - male, straight, etc. Now I suppose I could have just said that "I am me", but I think that would not tell them anything. And I might even meet a lot of women - once - who would then run away screaming "weirdo" when I showed up in a skirt and makeup.

We are all people. But we are NOT all the same. Labels provide valid descriptors that begin to identify our own individuality in the world. We use labels to identify people or things that we are interested in.

I am transgender - and proud. It is IMPORTANT TO ME to be able to communicate this in this world where 90% (or some other arbitrary but very high number) of us hide in closets in FEAR that someone might associate us with one of these CD/TG/TS labels.

It has often been said that labels do more harm than good. This is a BS way to state that we are afraid of being seen as different. Hiding behind "no label" allows us to pretend that there is no bias. Lack of labels will not eliminate existing bias. It is our existence, standing tall, that will eventually eliminate the bias. We can be different and proud. Gay and proud. Black and proud. Transgender and proud.

Be the wonderful person that you are, and to hell with the labels

I am a wonderful person, with honorable character, and proud to be transgender.

[Julogden]

I believe that in general use TG is an umbrella term that includes many different folks/beliefs/problems/habits... CD's are part of the whole pool. I am not sure why so many people seem unsure or against having the term transgender applied to them. It is a very generalized term. Here are two definitions from a pamphlet on the subject. They are a decent start at a def:

Anyone who regularly acts and/or appears inconsistent with the social sex-role requirements of males and females is transgender.

OR

Transgender (adj) An umbrella term for any person who noticeably consistently crosses prevailing social sex-role boundaries, through any combination of:

1. personal appearance (clothing and adornment)
2. behavior (personality and mannerisms), or
3. anatomy (body features)

copyright 2009 Claire Ruth Winter

Exactly. The term "transgender" has been clearly defined in the community for quite some time. I don't get why there's so much controversy here over the meaning of it.

I too am totally puzzled as to why some CD's take offense at being included under the transgender umbrella.

"CDs are part of the whole pool". That's where the trouble starts, in my opinion. I am a MTF crossdresser and at 45, I still do it for the sexual thrill and don't feel any more femine when I'm dress. If my crossdressing somehow makes me 'transgendered' then all the women wearing pants in the world are too!

Try this: Next time you see a woman wearing a (say) pinstripe pants suit and loafers, tell her she's transgendered and she what she says...

All the Best,
Skirt Suit, CD not TG

You're missing the point. When you wear women's clothing, your clothing choice is to wear clothing intended for the gender opposite your sex, and that is transgender behavior. When a female wears women's clothing, that is cisgender behavior because the clothes were intended to be worn by a female. So, crossdressing, regardless of motivation, is transgender behavior. A female wearing women's clothing patterned after men's clothing is not transgender behavior. A female wearing men's clothing is a gray area, as in American culture, it is acceptable for females to wear some articles of men's clothing, so a female wearing a men's shirt is within the boundaries of accepted fashion here, except for possibly the most extremist Judeo-Christian communities and also Islamic communities, same for most of the Americas, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc., but probably would be a problem in most of the countries with Islamic governments.


Carol

[madison lee]

Is a label such a good thing if it harms the person so labeled? I am talking about labels that hurt people. Not regular labels such as man, woman, child etc. Labels used in the wrong way hurt people. The word Gay was originally intended to mean: having or showing a merry, lively mood...bright or showy. Now it is used by some in a derogatory and physical manner against homosexuals.

Case in point. A friend of mine that was an officer in the Navy was seen by some of his men coming out of a gay bar one night. The next night they shot him 5 times then set him on fire. All because they said he was Gay. The thing is, he wasn't gay. His brother is a drag performer who was on stage that night. He was only there to support his brother. The list of things done to people all because of the label that society put on them goes on and on. All through out history people have been persecuted because of what they were labeled. The inquisition- you were labeled a heretic and tortured if you didnt believe what they said to believe.

I could fill up a few books with all the acts of violence committed all because of a label. I wrote what I wrote because thats what I believe and so does my wife. It was not an attack or an attempt to make any one else believe what we believe. We dont label people. Pure and simple. So before you attack what someone else has said, remember that you are now labeling that person in some shape or form because they have a different way of looking at things. And if everything I say on this forum is going to be torn apart and attacked, I think I might see if there is another forum out there that doesnt do that.
Wether you label yourself or not, you are a beautifull person.
Keep smiling,

Madison

[Carin]

.... So before you attack what someone else has said, remember that you are now labeling that person in some shape or form because they have a different way of looking at things. And if everything I say on this forum is going to be torn apart and attacked, I think I might see if there is another forum out there that doesnt do that.
...

Sorry Madison. My response was not meant as a personal attack on you, just a different, contrary opinion to those that object to the Crossdresser vs Transgender label question. I believe that judgemental people will be judgemental regardless of labels. Hate crimes will not go away just because we stop using labels.

The original post is an issue of someone examining the appropriateness of the term crossdresser vs the term transgender in how they see their self. This is certainly use of labels in a non-hurtful way. The CD vs TG vs TS label question arises frequently. My point is that labels are an integral part of this introspection.

[Satrana]

Exactly. The term "transgender" has been clearly defined in the community for quite some time. I don't get why there's so much controversy here over the meaning of it.

However the definition of being inconsistent with the social/sexual roles of your physical gender leaves many loopholes. Being gay is inconsistent but does not mean you are TG. And then there is the problem that women no longer abide by these rules. A female soldier is being inconsistent, as is a female body builder but neither would be labeled TG.
And when you see a woman dressed in male clothes walking down the street, it could just be fashion, or it could be because she wants to seen as a male, but neither will be labeled as TG because there is an automatic assertion that male clothing is unisex so available to all women.

Which means that there are 2 different definitions of TG to be applied to men and women differently.

Also since gender definitions rely on social acceptance of freedom of expression, this is constantly shifting.

I too am totally puzzled as to why some CD's take offense at being included under the transgender umbrella.

For the same reason why some get annoyed with the belief that all CDs are gay. Some CDs feel like regular guys and have no affinity with womanhood. So to include these groups under the TG banner is like including CDs under the gay banner.

[Fab Karen]

The point is that (say) trousers are typically male attire. Not because women don't wear them, but because men virtually never wear anything else. The day we all start going out in dresses and Barack Obama tosses a coin to decide whether to put on a trouser-suit or a skirt-suit will be the day that trousers start being really unisex.

So logically, women wearing trousers are cross-dressing, but nobody minds. They're not fetishists/transvestites/drag kings/male impersonators because their motive is fashion and not sexual pleasure/identity statement/satire/showbiz. But they are crossdressers. To say otherwise is illogical.

In modern society both men & women wear pants ( trousers ), therefore they're unisex. Pants are clothes that men typically wear, but they are not now specifically MALE attire.Your example about skirts would then change skirts to being unisex, pants already are.

[Julogden]

Carol, I'm not comfortable with the logic of your statement here. Let's suppose I buy a blouse and skirt from Transformation. They're clearly 'female clothing' in my view and that of pretty well everyone else. But they've been re-tailored to fit a man's figure. So does that mean I'm not cross-dressing any more? "A female wearing women's clothing patterned after [wo]men's clothing is not transgender behavior."

Or are we to conclude that the definition of the term "transgender behaviour" is radically different for men and for women?

I'd prefer to say that women wearing men's clothes and mens-style clothes is transgender behaviour, but that American/British/Australian society for the past 50-100 years has let them get away with it (hooray!) whole Saudi/Iranian/etc society doesn't (boo!).

That way, you stay logical in your definitions, while clearly explaining what goes on in the world.

The alternative is to say that "wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is transgender behaviour except for trousers in the following countries: USA, UK, NZ..." Doesn't sound like a valid dictionary definition to me.

The point is that (say) trousers are typically male attire. Not because women don't wear them, but because men virtually never wear anything else. The day we all start going out in dresses and Barack Obama tosses a coin to decide whether to put on a trouser-suit or a skirt-suit will be the day that trousers start being really unisex.

So logically, women wearing trousers are cross-dressing, but nobody minds. They're not fetishists/transvestites/drag kings/male impersonators because their motive is fashion and not sexual pleasure/identity statement/satire/showbiz. But they are crossdressers. To say otherwise is illogical.

Yes, technically, a female wearing an article of clothing made for males is crossdressing, but we have to look at the person's reasons for wearing clothing intended for the opposite gender before deciding if their behavior is transgender or not. Dressing in men's clothing as fashion or a man wearing an article of women's clothing strictly as a fashion statement is not transgender behavior.

And if you buy women's clothing that is tailored to fit a male, you're still wearing that clothing as an attempt to appear female, so yes, that is transgender behavior, and it is crossdressing regardless of the fact that the garment you're wearing was made for males to wear.

The terms "crossdressing" and "transgender" are not synonymous. Crossdressing refers simply to an act of wearing an article of clothing intended to be worn by the sex opposite of the wearer, transgender has to do with one's reason for crossdressing. Crossdressing for fashion, which covers most crossdressing by females, is not transgender behavior because they are not crossdressing in an attempt to appear male.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Carol

[Nicki B]

Firstly there is no country in the world where CDs are accepted. Even in Thailand, CDs are still prejudiced against and can only get jobs in certain industries like beauty parlors and show business. There are no CDs in mainstream industry.

No?

Not sure what your links are meant to show since they back up what I was saying.

While semi-retired from the professional boxing ring, Nong Toom still enters the ring from time to time, especially for fights abroad.

She currently runs a business selling cosmetics and female boxing gear.

The sex and entertainment industry may be where kathoey are most visible in Thailand - but to suggest they aren't doing anything else assumes that because they don't make a big deal about it, they are not there. For a start, I have a good friend who is a successful restauranteur - she's not out to people, so I think you're highly likely to be wrong..

I see no good evidence though that the majority of CDs do so primarily because of gender dysphoria. Which gets me back to me central point, is the average CD any more TG than the average non-CD.

I think that all depends how you define 'TG', doesn't it. Do you know many trans people, Satrana?

Crossdressing is an action, transgenderism is an attitude. Perhaps.

One of the reasons I've always had a problem with 'CD' as a description - it says nothing about who we are..

[Elsa Larson]

I like to think of Transgender as an umbrella term to include the entire spectrum of thoughts/feelings/behaviors not normally associated with one's assigned sex at birth.

As Sidney Ecker, M.D. describes it:
We are all part of the wonderful diversity of God's creation.
(For the atheists: We are all part of the wonderful diversity of evolution.)

Just to confuse everyone, Transgender is ALSO used as a term for someone presenting as a member of the opposite sex. This includes people living full time without seeking gender correction surgery.

Peace !

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Wow what a thread!! and btw...is the original poster still around reading any of this??!! heh...if so, what do you think?

I spent my whole life thinking about being a woman...i remember as a kid planning to go to college and tell them i'm a female, then i thought after college , i'll move away and be a female...i fantasized about magically turning into a female, i imagined that i was forced into being a female, i snuck out and crossdressed and HATED when i had to go back to my male self....i could hold it in sometimes for months at a time, but then it would explode...i never purged...those clothes were ME and i never felt i could get rid of them...i got married to cure myself, thinking it was just a fantasy...i couldnt enjoy sex because i never liked anyone touching my privates and had to imagine my self as a woman with a man to ejaculate...
I finally lost it...i became anxious, depressed, lost weight (which turned out to be a good thing), started skipping work, started feeling trapped and wished i was dead...but i never actually can say i hated my penis...i loved all the guy things in life..football, video games, drinking beer, etc...i "released myself sexually" at least 3 times or more every day....this must mean i have a fetish i thought, i'm a crossdresser who has the bug really really bad i thought.....i kept working, stay married, raised kids...the whole "labels" thing was confusing and problematic for me...

I was guilty and ashamed, i felt there was no place in the world for me...finally i got help and most importantly i started to meet all kinds of transgendered people...i almost immediately knew that i related to the tg folks that identified as ts women....some of them transitioned already and i felt this almost jealous need to be like them....i realized that i had no desire or need to be a man and over a period of a year my inner life had totally fallen apart, divorce, etc....and i KNEW that i was going to start a transition and become the woman i always wanted and needed to be...

So what's my label??

I couldn't care less....trying to think about a label for myself has had a terrible and negative impact on my life, and now i just feel like i'm finally "me", and that's whats important..

i wish for everyone that they find their place...our quest for the right label is partially a quest for belonging, for having our own place in the world, so we don't feel guilt or shame about being transgendered in any way....as comforting as that may be, there isnt alot more to it than that...you are who you are, you do what you do, and the chips fall...

one caveat is that these labels do impact all of us in the political , work, medical and insurance community, so as a group, its in our interest to have the most inclusive "label" possible so that over the years, as we are inevitably more accepted, we get the best medical, insurance, and discrimination treatment possible. Right now our treatment on these things is close to the bottom of the barrel...

xoxo
michele

[Joanne f]

I suspect most will have a different thought on what one or another title /label would mean as it come from feelings within so they are only personal definitions of what others might think the meanings are so i can only give you mine as they stand at the moment ( and i would not expect any one to understand my meanings for one minute)
So the way i look at it is i have evolved from being a what you may call a cross dresser to being transgendered, i will try to explain (and i am not good at that ) . the clothes were a means to express what i felt inside but now i have overcome the necessity to have the clothes to express what is me , they are a bonus but not necessary to show or feel my gender which has transgressed beyond being one or the other , i am both, my body being one and my inner self being the other but i understand that when people see me they will say cross dresser as they cannot feel what i feel so lables are not really important to me but you cannot escape them .

[susiepaul]

I saw the recent thread on 'giving yourself permission to be transgendered' and I wondered. I’m OK with labels and definitions, if and only if they are well understood and accepted in the community. Crossdresser is a good label: we know where we are with this. It describes an activity which is visible and unequivocal. You know when you are a crossdresser. But transgendered?
I thought for a while I was transgendered but now I’m not so sure. I don’t know whether I tick all the boxes and I don’t know for sure what the boxes are.
When I crossdress, it’s to create the total illusion of a female persona. I go out in public regularly as Ruth and I pass as a woman. I do all the grooming details like leg shaving and eyebrow plucking; I do my face with moisturiser every night, I rub creams into legs and arms to keep them smooth and supple. My wife observes that I’ve got more cosmetics and beauty products than she has. But all this activity is merely in aid of creating the illusion. I don’t actually see it as specifically female behaviour.
If I’m being transgendered, and acting out female attitudes and behaviours, it has to be in other areas. For instance, I’m not interested in sports, or motorcars, or male bonding situations such as drinks evenings or poker parties, or masculine activities like hunting or fishing, so I'm not your typical male. I like music, drama, good conversation; peaceful activities like a walk in an ornamental garden or a trip round a gallery. But though these are non-macho pursuits, they are not specifically feminine.
I’ve got a feeling that a lot of my preferences are gender-neutral rather than transgender.
So is it actually all about the clothes?

i am defenatly a cross dresser not transgendered
i love to wear girls clothes but i dont want to apear as a femal to others, i never wear boobs or a bra seldom wear makup but do have my nails done now and then.
almost everone i know knows i wear girls clothes and not male clothes but they all accept me for a man in a skirt not a transexual.
there must be a definat line in if you try to apear as a female full time and want to be accepted as a femal then you are crossing the lines of just being a cross dresser and starting to become a transexual.

i belive most people dont know the difrence between the two.

[Fab Karen]

Unisex: of, designed, or suitable for both sexes; not distinguishing between male and female; undifferentiated as to sex: unisex clothes.