One of the nice things about questions coming up repeatedly is that I get to cannibalize earlier posts
So for those of you who were reading my posts back in November (or who read my blog), feel free to skip this...
What does it mean to "pass" and why do we care?
I suppose most CDs consider "passing" to mean generally being mistaken for a genetic female. If that's the case, then most of us - present company emphatically included - do not "pass". A very few CDs with small bodies, feminine shaping, androgynous features, slight voices and the good sense not to screw it all up with inappropriate makeup or attire just might "pass" in this sense. I don't find this an especially satisfying definition of passing, as it relies too much on a limited set of genetic flukes and little else. Moreover, as it represents a flatly unattainable condition for me, it would be useless as any sort of goal...
Many of us (present company included) are able to pass occasionally or in limited circumstances. Some of us seek out opportunities to improve the "batting average" - hence the popularity of evening activities! Nothing wrong with any of that - I have very much enjoyed the few instances where I appear not to have been clocked. Still and all, an occasional success probably does not constitute "passing": such a definition would be overinclusive and leave out only a few whose physique, facial features or other general characteristics utterly rule out the possibility of ever being mistaken as female.
With sincerest thanks for the insights of a number of people here, I have come to a different notion of passing. I view "passing" as meaning "communicating clearly to the world your presented (as opposed to genetic) gender, and enabling--not forcing--the world to willingly interact with you as such".
One can reasonably argue that I have just dumbed down the definition of passing; one with a sharper tongue could say I have done do specifically to allow myself to claim a measure of passability. Both are fair criticisms. At the same time, the definition I propose is reasonably limited: it excludes the "guy in a dress" as well as even an attractive CD who does not comport herself in an even slightly feminine manner. This definition also has the virtue of being aspirational: the better we are at presenting our chosen gender - whether by demeanor, dress, physique, voice, mannerisns, etc. - the more likely it is that people will receive us and willingly, even happily, interact with us as females.
Passing: using presentation, mannerism and character as a means to give the world around us the perceptional cues and tags so as to relate to us as females. With that as an opening volley, I open the floor to debate. Those of you who think that folly of this magnitude merits a private intellectual diatribe can feel free to pm me.
Best,
Erica