Third person references

[melissacd]

Many years back when I was totally in the closet, I referred to my femme desires as a form of sickness. Later as an interesting facet of my personality for which I felt total guilt and anger about. Even later I embraced it and then once I brought it all the way out of the closet I realized it was me all along.

During the earlier periods of my life I was an incomplete person, I was not myself at all. After many years of introspection, reflection, learning, reading, growing and now living the life I have pulled out and unfolded the rest of my personality and I am whole again. So rather than referring to my femme side in the third person, I was in actual fact one third of a person, a totally different thing. Now I am just me with all my masculine and feminine desires, dreams, foibles and tendencies.

[cindym5_04]

For me, it depends who I'm talking to and about what. If they're someone that doesn't know about my crossdressing and I'm telling them about something that happened when I was dressed, I'll relay it in the story as something like "so my friend Cindy this weekend"... or something like that.

[Rhonda Jean]

It's just a shorthand description of our fem presentation. If you're so much the same person, why even adopt a feminine name or a feminized version of your own name (like Davida or Raychel)?

For me, I'll readily admit that I'm not the same enfemme or drab. I look different, speak different, walk differently, etc.. I'm the same person, but undeniably a feminized version.

Some crossdressers are not different. They maintain the swagger, perhaps even intentionally lower their voice, perhaps even exaggerate their male mannerisms and speech patterns. Some proudly show their hairy legs and chest. The list is long. This is the segement of crossdressers that I don't get. Check out "People of Walmart". I'd bet that when the general public thinks "crossdresser", this is what pops into their mind.

My life (lives?) are pretty tightly compartmentalized. I don't think this make me crazy. Quite the opposite. I'm smart enough to know that I can't show up for work in a miniskirt and stillettos. At the places where Rhonda goes (There, I did it) that'd be just fine.

[Andrea's Lynne]

Karren doesn't like to refer to herself on the third person... Zarren concurs...

Indeed! LOL

[Rianna Humble]

I see people on the forum referring their dressed selves in the third person.
I don't want to sound like I am putting anyone down, I just don't understand.
Do some of you see yourself as totally different entities depending on what you are wearing?

I used to refer to my male self in the third person, partly because when I joined these forums I could not risk having my natal identity made public and partly to underline that I considered that Iwas only pretending to be a man.

Now I use "Robert" as a shorthand for what happened during those 50-odd years where I was pretending I could be cisgendered.

I don't believe that I am two people, but it is only since the start of my transition that I am whole.

[Diane Smith]

Internally, I really don't think of myself as having separate personas. However, as a literary device when writing about the different adventures I've had, it is convenient and seems natural to say "he did this" or "she went there" to help distinguish what mode of dress and behavior I was in at the time. I don't think it reflects anything deeper but is a conscious choice while telling a story to make the conversation clearer. Realizing that some people are a little confused by this, though, I will make an effort to avoid it where practical in the future.

- Diane

[ninapuella]

I dont see myself as two different persons when i am dressed. It is just two sides of the same coin. And my female-name is just to match when i am dressed, dont really take any bigger notice on it. But it would feel very odd to have a male-name in girl-mode.
But I must say that when i am dressed i get feelings that i usually dont have. For exampel i feel more relaxed and calm. So the girl-mode is definetaly adding something to my person that i wouldnt get in male-mode.

[DAVIDA]

Wow!
I didn't really think that this would get the responses it has!
Thanks for the expanations!
I can understand the need to refer to the dressed version to a degree.
Jean will say the same things as some of you have mentioned while shopping, as in "Davida would look good in this".
But,that isn't the same as me saying to her while I am dressed,"Davida likes that."
I too didn't have a fem name until I joined this forum. I was just following suit.
Again, Davida thanks you.

[Stephanie Anne]

I prefer fourth person perspective.

It's like first and third rolled into a delicious burrito of confusion.

I hear that Stephanie like to say things that make no sense.

[sandra-leigh]

I do not use third person very often, but sometimes it is easier.

For example,

"______'s FB page has to avoid X, but Sanda's FB page can talk about X"

flows easier than

"My FB page under my legal name, whose content is shared with family, friends, and relatives, and which both expresses and is constrained by my fully public personality, has to avoid topics about X, but my FB page under my female name, whose content is shared mostly with people who know me from the CD or LGBTQQ* community but which does not refer to my legal name, is not required to avoid discussing X."

(The range of things I cannot say publicly under my male name is staggeringly large )

[Gennifer]

I don't see myself as two separate people, but as someone who can flow along a spectrum that is purely feminine at one end and purely male at the other. Most of the time, in my daily life, at work, etc., I exist somewhere on the male end of the spectrum, but not all that far from the middle. That said, I have at sometimes, and my wife has, too, referred to me when I present as a woman, as Gennifer. But I know that a single name does not capture who I am. I am guess I am both.

[Starla]

I prefer fourth person perspective.

It's like first and third rolled into a delicious burrito of confusion.

Mmmmm.....perspective burrito....

[carhill2mn]

I use the "third person" (proper name) as a means of communicating if I was en femme or not at the time/event to which I am referring. I do see myself as having a masculine personna and a feminine personna and try to act appropriately in which ever one I am presenting myself.

[ChristineM]

I don't see myself as two totally separate persons but, as ninapuella said, two sides of the same coin. I'm me, he's him, and we're us. I do act and feel differently in each mode. And I don't mix modes. If I'm in male mode I wouldn't be wearing anything of Christine's, er, anything of a female nature. And vice versa. Wait, do boy shorts count against me?

Although I don't (OK, rarely) do the third person thing. If I see something I, er, she, ah, we like, I'll just think "oh, I want!", no matter what mode I'm in.

[Starla]

I'm me, he's him, and we're us.

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." -- John Lennon ("I am the Walrus")

[Mahoro]

I am one of those who is entirely the same person regardless of what I'm wearing on the outside. My core mannerisms, speech, and attitude are certainly much more feminine than most guys, but those things don't change with the attire. Clothes are just a cosmetic way to express my bi-gender nature, whether that be a dress and wig, or a suit and tie. That being said, I did long ago find my feminine name (Mia Tao), but mostly because I was never was really thrilled with the one my parents assigned to me at birth, and it makes me happy because I find it pretty and fitting to my innermost identity. This practice of naming yourself when you reach 'adulthood' is common in many other cultures, not just with CD/TGs.

As far as talking about myself in the third person, that only happens when I slip into Domme-mode, and then Mistress Tao will tell you exactly what she expects to have happen next, LOL!

[Starla]

This practice of naming yourself when you reach 'adulthood' is common in many other cultures, not just with CD/TGs.

I'll remember that, should I ever reach adulthood. (It's been 53 years, and still I don't think I'm quite there yet...)

[DebsUK]

It only becomes a problem if, after referring to yourself in the third person, the third person then commands you to rob banks, or, worse still, buy Justin Bieber CDs

As a rule I'm me whatever I'm wearing, first person singular. I occasionally refer to myself as Debs in order to make a point maybe, or if I'm trying to pass the blame for the suspicious itemised bill from the local record shop

[Rianna Humble]

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." -- John Lennon ("I am the Walrus")

Rats! Beat me to it!

Still - as they say - great fools seldom think alike but minds differ (or something like that)

[gwenbeth]

I would have go along with the "two sides of the coin" camp. There is the Gwen side, and the guy mode side. Each side has a different personality, but they are both me. We are working on being nice to each other (-:

[AKAMichelle]

It is easier to explain which side of themselves they are talking about.

[eluuzion]

Well here is another fine example of cognitive windsurfing in waters best left undisturbed. Not pointing or implying or judging or anything but simply thinking out loud here…

Aside from the multiple personality, schizophrenic and ventriloquist explanations…here is another option to consider. Here is a hypothetical example….

“Boris” marries an unsuspecting wife named “Nastasha“. He maintains a secret life as a CD named “Doris“. Doris is different than Boris. Doris happens to have all of the desirable feminine attributes that Boris felt he could not bring into the marriage or reveal to his wife Nastasha. It is like a little kid that creates an invisible friend…who gets to do everything the little kid is not allowed to do.

Boris’s guilt feelings grow as the secret “life” becomes more complex and difficult to conceal. One option is to be honest and disclose everything to his wife. The other option is to try and “distance” himself from the responsibility of his actions.

Sometimes it begins with reports of feminine feelings or thoughts popping up (like they are not your own). The “cloning” and separation expands into third party references to self as if two separate identities are appearing ( Boris is reducing his connection with everything, as “Doris” continues to “act on her own“). She ultimately becomes “Doris” which completes the disassociation of responsibility for Boris for any future behavior and actions carried out by “Doris”. It is almost like watching one of those TV shows, where somebody slowly turns into a “Werewolf“. Sounds a bit extreme, but not to me in conceptual comparison.

I frequently find myself observing this (unconscious?) behavior in a strange and distorted manner. I catch myself following each scenario almost like a TV game show, waiting for the participants to arrive at that same trailhead. Then seeing if I was correct in predicting which one of the three paths they will choose to take.

1) The genuine struggle with overwhelming guilt and the exhaustion of secrecy finally produces the courage for them to reach out to their SO and take a shot at acceptance.

2) Continue to conceal their CD activity… and live with the frustration and guilt of being stuck in the “middle”…unable to tell the wife ~ yet too faithful to face the guilt that would follow taking any “next steps” forward in their CD journey. (hoping for miracles)

3) Continue as usual, feeling happy, content with the status quo and feeling positive about the future.

3) Or continue with the self-deception of believing “Doris has control”…Anything is OK to do in “Doris mode”… there are “two persons“, so Boris is not responsible for Doris behavior…Boris had no other options…Doris behavior does not affect Boris behavior…and anything else that sounds credible enough to justify jumping aboard that “Street Car named Desire", lol.

4) Escalating the CD activities, but pretending it is acceptable, since Boris is struggling, but making an honorable attempt by seeking counseling, etc.

Just a thought…what do you think?

[Rhonda Jean]

Well here is another fine example of cognitive windsurfing in waters best left undisturbed. Not pointing or implying or judging or anything but simply thinking out loud here…

Aside from the multiple personality, schizophrenic and ventriloquist explanations…here is another option to consider. Here is a hypothetical example….

“Boris” marries an unsuspecting wife named “Nastasha“. He maintains a secret life as a CD named “Doris“. Doris is different than Boris. Doris happens to have all of the desirable feminine attributes that Boris felt he could not bring into the marriage or reveal to his wife Nastasha. It is like a little kid that creates an invisible friend…who gets to do everything the little kid is not allowed to do.

Boris’s guilt feelings grow as the secret “life” becomes more complex and difficult to conceal. One option is to be honest and disclose everything to his wife. The other option is to try and “distance” himself from the responsibility of his actions.

Sometimes it begins with reports of feminine feelings or thoughts popping up (like they are not your own). The “cloning” and separation expands into third party references to self as if two separate identities are appearing ( Boris is reducing his connection with everything, as “Doris” continues to “act on her own“). She ultimately becomes “Doris” which completes the disassociation of responsibility for Boris for any future behavior and actions carried out by “Doris”. It is almost like watching one of those TV shows, where somebody slowly turns into a “Werewolf“. Sounds a bit extreme, but not to me in conceptual comparison.

I frequently find myself observing this (unconscious?) behavior in a strange and distorted manner. I catch myself following each scenario almost like a TV game show, waiting for the participants to arrive at that same trailhead. Then seeing if I was correct in predicting which one of the three paths they will choose to take.

1) The genuine struggle with overwhelming guilt and the exhaustion of secrecy finally produces the courage for them to reach out to their SO and take a shot at acceptance.

2) Continue to conceal their CD activity… and live with the frustration and guilt of being stuck in the “middle”…unable to tell the wife ~ yet too faithful to face the guilt that would follow taking any “next steps” forward in their CD journey. (hoping for miracles)

3) Continue as usual, feeling happy, content with the status quo and feeling positive about the future.

3) Or continue with the self-deception of believing “Doris has control”…Anything is OK to do in “Doris mode”… there are “two persons“, so Boris is not responsible for Doris behavior…Boris had no other options…Doris behavior does not affect Boris behavior…and anything else that sounds credible enough to justify jumping aboard that “Street Car named Desire", lol.

4) Escalating the CD activities, but pretending it is acceptable, since Boris is struggling, but making an honorable attempt by seeking counseling, etc.

Just a thought…what do you think?

By far the best explanation I've ever seen. You are totally in my head.

[melissacd]

Oye-yoy-yoy ... Eluuzion, we don't need a third person, it is already complicated enough with two...Boris and Doris

[PretzelGirl]

Oye-yoy-yoy ... Eluuzion, we don't need a third person, it is already complicated enough with two...Boris and Doris

But what if Nastasha has an invisible friend named Nate?

Nice insight Eluuzion!