Not trans? Huh? I don't get it.

[Zylia]

I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who regularly pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??

I think we're belittling the TG cause (if there's such a thing) by including everyone who wears clothing commonly associated with the opposite sex. I don't consider people who cross-dress for practical reasons (e.g. actors who portray a certain character, people who wear something of their partner because it's the only clean/warm thing around the house) transgender and one could argue that you're only a cross-dresser in the strictest sense (and the subject of this website) if you cross-dress to fulfil a psychological need.

In my opinion, any psychological need or want that a person has that can be fulfilled by crossing gender boundaries (e.g. presenting as the opposite sex), must be the result of some psychological gender-related incongruence and that makes that person technically transgender. Additionally, people who get a sense of normalcy out of cross-dressing or who get turned on by it aren't the 'norm', and that's what makes them transgender as well. They're not cisgender, therefore transgender.