My thoughts on why

[Penny]

Well, here's a twist. I disagree with about everything you have said. Here is why. First of all, it's not just about the clothing; it's about gender roles and what we were taught (how we were brainwashed). Men are the strong and women are the pretty. Consider this, men and women in the military wear the same work uniform. Women are permitted to enhance their appreance with makeup (in good taste) or in other words, look pretty. A male who would come to work with makeup would be discharged. In this enviornment,
women do not have to aspire to be macho, they die right along with their male counterpart in a combat situation. In most all of the mach jobs, women
still may wear male clothing but can enhance their appearance to look pretty.
Men cannot!

Most CDs want to be recognized as being pretty yet fear being identified as
the male who is or is attempting to be pretty. For a male, pretty is a no-no.
That is the bottom line. The need to be and feel pretty fosters deception, embarrasement . guilt and shame. It is at the heart of the conflict between how ,as Cd's, we feel and how we were taught along with everyone else.

Women can be strong but men can't be pretty because it makes him look weak. Women can be plain but men can't be pretty. Men are only permitted to be dapper while woman are permitted to be both.
Women and men may be or acheive equality with but not to each other!

[Wendy me]

it's totally acceptable for a woman to wear masculine clothing but not for a man to wear feminine clothing.

I'm struggling for the correct words to express this, so bear with me:

Though women have come a LONG way since the days of not being allowed to vote and the attitudes that a woman's place is "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" we are *still* not viewed as *equal* by the majority.

Therefore, when a woman appears as masculine it's viewed as aspiring to climb that ladder of social equality, not actually to *be* a man, but to show the world they can do most anything a man can do.

On the other hand, when a man appears as feminine it's viewed as him taking a step back *down* that ladder of social equality.

As wrong as the concept has been proven to be, women are still viewed as the "weaker sex".

I do not in any way personally subscribe to, or agree with, these points of view, but I do feel it is a major reason for society's rejection of M2F crossdressers.

very interesting and what a step out there... and i was misunderstood in that we as as a society had come our scenes that women were and are people that can and do add value to our every day lives ... and that society had woke up and have evolved ....


when a woman appears as masculine... it's style fashion or simply the way thy want to be seen or viewed at that moment .... or could it be that thy just feel like wearing what thy are wearing???



On the other hand, when a man appears as feminine it's viewed as him taking a step back *down* that ladder of social equality.... wow could you possibly entertain that thought?? and coming from a gg at that .... look silly feminine as apposed to masculine a step back or down?? that would put woman on a lower scale of worth than men ... and in my eyes we being women and men are simply people and in no way would i think one group was above the outher......

why men dressing in woman's clothing not as accepted??? simple silly we as people simply have not evolved to were we stop judging people for what gender or what clothing a person might chose ...

disclaimer views might not be just what others might view as accepted ... and appear closer in the mirror than that are....

[Maggie Kay]

There is a major difference in the behaviors of men vs women. That is in the area of aggression and ultimately, violence. Men are suspect for their use of their inherent physical strength. Men are not expected to be gentle and feminine. It is assumed that they are "up to something" and something wrong. Western society bred a nation of potential soldiers after WWII and even though some baby boomers became hippies and flower children, they were imprinted with the values of the militaristic male. That male is supposed to be tough and aggressive, capable of enduring physical hardship and if neccessary, to kill. Just look at the movies and TV series of the past thirty years, with the popularity of violent images. Violence is more popular than sexual content and certainly much more permissible in media. I think that it is CD threatens this view of who a male is expected to be. It is changing but it will take many years to transition from a militaristic, aggressive, society to a peaceful, non-violent one. Until then male CDing will always be viewed as wrong. Perhaps, CDing is in some way a force for that change. Sort of a way of saying "hell no, I won't go".

[Robin Leigh]

Therefore, when a woman appears as masculine it's viewed as aspiring to climb that ladder of social equality, not actually to *be* a man, but to show the world they can do most anything a man can do.

On the other hand, when a man appears as feminine it's viewed as him taking a step back *down* that ladder of social equality.

I think this is definitely a major factor contributing to society's negative attitude towards MTF CDs. Leslie Feinberg covers this theory in great detail in the excellent book Transgender Warriors. The social inequity is ultimately biologically based, so it won't go away in a hurry. Testosterone is powerful stuff...

Robin

[noname]

This is no offense to the closet CD people here. But I would like to say, nothing will change until we take the same route the gay community did. They started comming out and being bold about it. They have done much of the groud work for us, with being gay becoming acceptable. They have definately worked hard for it as well.

[Roberta Lynn]

On the other hand, when a man appears as feminine it's viewed as him taking a step back *down* that ladder of social equality.
As wrong as the concept has been proven to be, women are still viewed as the "weaker sex".
I do not in any way personally subscribe to, or agree with, these points of view, but I do feel it is a major reason for society's rejection of M2F crossdressers.

Hit the nail on the head Vanya

Pornography still portrays us as slabs of meat on an open market. I also stated that, in my opinion, a "man in a dress" has a better chance of being accepted by society than the man who dresses to pass as a woman.

It's not only pornography but commercials, videos and just about anything else that's trying to get a mans attention.
In my opinion most of society stills views women as a sex objects first.
In their view ,a man trying to pass as a woman is trying to pass as that sex object and to them that is completely unacceptable.

[Sky]

it's totally acceptable for a woman to wear masculine clothing but not for a man to wear feminine clothing.

I don't think that's the case. Women fought for the right to wear clothes seen as masculine before (mostly pants) because they are comfortable. I don't recall women in the 1950s saying "we want to look like men". They wanted to get rid of the frilly laces, shoes and torture lingerie which are exactly the kind of things we cds love. Today, a woman purposedly trying to look like a man would command the same mistrustful reactions that we do (and will be called a dyke).

On the other hand, most of us want to look like women. I admit, some only want to wear skirts while keeping a male appearance, and they have a different point then: but when we wear makeup, wigs, miniskirts and "do me" heels, we shouldn't expect society to react like it did when girls threw away their petticoats.

[Marlena Dahlstrom]

It's not necessarily easy to be a masculine women, but it's definitely more acceptable because of the unfortunately still unequal status between men and women.

As you've said, for a woman to adopt masculine behavior and clothing has generally been a way to gain status, while men who do the reverse lose status. (Although arguably one reason Western culture has been anxious about masculinity is it's never made up it's mind between two competing archetypes of manhood: the "man's man" ala Stanley Kowalski and the gentle, contemplative Christ-like man.)

For what it's worth FTM crossdressers weren't at all uncommon during the past centuries in Western culture and generally they were tacitly accepted. (The Catholic Church even has about a dozen female crossdressing saints -- Joan of Arc being the most famous -- but no MTF crossdressing saints.) Many undoubtedly did it for the greater freedom and opportunitities available to men -- which was popularly assumed to be the reason -- but some of these women, like jazz musicians Billy Tipson, would probably be FTM TSs today, and it's likely a number of women did so not only for the opportunities, but also because being seen as "masculine" was a better fit for their personalities.

[Nike]

This is no offense to the closet CD people here. But I would like to say, nothing will change until we take the same route the gay community did. They started comming out and being bold about it. They have done much of the groud work for us, with being gay becoming acceptable. They have definately worked hard for it as well.

The sad fact is that the "Gay Pride movement" began because Transgendered people were being arrested in New York, simply for being dressed in the opposite gender. Stonewall was both a significant place and the decisive time. In an attempt to "control" the gay population, the police raided gay bars, but targeted and arrested specifically the transgendered.



In a sense, the gay community did a smart thing by focusing on a single significant issue. Sadly, the opportunity for acceptance of transgendered persons who were on the news and in the papers protesting the harassment, was lost when the movement on some level was hijacked and the gender issue was once again given second class status, by the "community" and the press accepted blindly that transgenderism was a small component of the larger issue.

I guess sexuality sells, but gender doesn't.

[Satrana]

Nike

From what I understand during these times (1960s and before) many gays thought they should crossdress as women. It was a standard role model for gays to be crossdressed. This mode of thinking can still be seen in other countries today like latino countries Mexico etc and throughout Asia where gays routinely dress as women to have sex with "straight" guys.

It was not transgendered people who were arrested at Stonewall but rather gays adhering to a routine of pretending to be women to attract men. Obviously they stood out as gays and could be easily arrested while other gays dressed in male clothes could walk away if they wished.

[Nike]

I think that perhaps the "Ladies of the day" such as Holly Woodlawn, author of "A Low Life In High Heels" and others may differ with you somewhat. That time (late 60's) was rather dynamic socially on many levels. The Drag Queens and other transgendered persons remained transgendered even as acceptance grew.

I can accept that there may have been some who chose to dress feminine at the time, as some may even today, but I don't believe that cross-dressing to "fit in" has ever been a large part of either the Transgendered or Gay communities. Acceptance of someone who was less than sincere about their identity, either their gender identity or sexuality, would have been far more difficult in those troubled times than it would be even today.

[Angie G]

Vanya you said it girl and it has been going on way to long
Angie

[Butterfly Bill]

Noname,

I posted a thread in the lounge once touching on this subject, and in it I remarked that possibly the negative reactions of women could be a feeling that a crossdresser is an "imposter" i.e. portraying himself to be something that he is not.

I also stated that, in my opinion, a "man in a dress" has a better chance of being accepted by society than the man who dresses to pass as a woman.

That's how I am able to get away with it as much as I do.

[ubokvt]

I agree with much of what has been said here, but let put forth a darker view. We are all conditioned to our gender roles from Birth, pink and blue. Fear mongers tell us as long as everybody conforms life will be safe and stable. If some one doesn't conform they must be forced to comply Like John McCain of failing to make them conform minimized or demeaned Like John Murtha, who advocated bring the troops home. CDs are kept in the closet by shame, fear of ridicule or ostracization from society and when they do come out are demeaned as trying to emulate the weaker sex. The very language we use to discuss this is so full of judgements about right and wrong "weaker sex" male best female lesser That in discussing it we reinforce the need to conform. Its all about power and staying there. :mad:

[kerrianna]

Despite feminism's gains, and a more open tolerant society in general, it's still a man's world, and any member of the tribe who is seen as weakening that power (by renouncing some of its traditions, etc) is seen as a threat to the tribe. There are many people who are comfortable in their little worlds and don't want ANYONE rocking the boat. Some of them run powerful countries and their military. Well, most of them actually.
But I sense a quiet evolution-revolution going on now, like an underswell that is rising slowly, inexorably up. It's like a universal subconciousness that knows it must awaken to save this planet and everything living on it, and the people on this forum are a big part of it. Just by daring to be free selves outside the external constraints we help bring a new way of seeing the world and force others to deal with issues like tolerance and freedom. And we're just part of a long chain that has come before, in all kinds of fights and struggles, and we're all moving the same way. Like an unstoppable wave.

[Brianna Lovely]

For those who are too young to remember, here is a local news story about the Stonewall Riots.

Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad
Reprinted from "The New York Daily News," July 6, 1969
By JERRY LISKER

She sat there with her legs crossed, the lashes of her mascara-coated eyes beating like the wings of a hummingbird. She was angry. She was so upset she hadn't bothered to shave. A day old stubble was beginning to push through the pancake makeup. She was a he. A queen of Christopher Street.

Last weekend the queens had turned commandos and stood bra strap to bra strap against an invasion of the helmeted Tactical Patrol Force. The elite police squad had shut down one of their private gay clubs, the Stonewall Inn at 57 Christopher St., in the heart of a three-block homosexual community in Greenwich Village. Queen Power reared its bleached blonde head in revolt. New York City experienced its first homosexual riot. "We may have lost the battle, sweets, but the war is far from over," lisped an unofficial lady-in-waiting from the court of the Queens.

"We've had all we can take from the Gestapo," the spokesman, or spokeswoman, continued. "We're putting our foot down once and for all." The foot wore a spiked heel. According to reports, the Stonewall Inn, a two-story structure with a sand painted brick and opaque glass facade, was a mecca for the homosexual element in the village who wanted nothing but a private little place where they could congregate, drink, dance and do whatever little girls do when they get together.

The thick glass shut out the outside world of the street. Inside, the Stonewall bathed in wild, bright psychedelic lights, while the patrons writhed to the sounds of a juke box on a square dance floor surrounded by booths and tables. The bar did a good business and the waiters, or waitresses, were always kept busy, as they snaked their way around the dancing customers to the booths and tables. For nearly two years, peace and tranquility reigned supreme for the Alice in Wonderland clientele.

The Raid Last Friday
Last Friday the privacy of the Stonewall was invaded by police from the First Division. It was a raid. They had a warrant. After two years, police said they had been informed that liquor was being served on the premises. Since the Stonewall was without a license, the place was being closed. It was the law.
All hell broke loose when the police entered the Stonewall. The girls instinctively reached for each other. Others stood frozen, locked in an embrace of fear.

Only a handful of police were on hand for the initial landing in the homosexual beachhead. They ushered the patrons out onto Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square. A crowd had formed in front of the Stonewall and the customers were greeted with cheers of encouragement from the gallery.

The whole proceeding took on the aura of a homosexual Academy Awards Night. The Queens pranced out to the street blowing kisses and waving to the crowd. A beauty of a specimen named Stella wailed uncontrollably while being led to the sidewalk in front of the Stonewall by a cop. She later confessed that she didn't protest the manhandling by the officer, it was just that her hair was in curlers and she was afraid her new beau might be in the crowd and spot her. She didn't want him to see her this way, she wept.

Queen Power
The crowd began to get out of hand, eye witnesses said. Then, without warning, Queen Power exploded with all the fury of a gay atomic bomb. Queens, princesses and ladies-in-waiting began hurling anything they could get their polished, manicured fingernails on. Bobby pins, compacts, curlers, lipstick tubes and other femme fatale missiles were flying in the direction of the cops. The war was on. The lilies of the valley had become carnivorous jungle plants.

Urged on by cries of "C'mon girls, lets go get'em," the defenders of Stonewall launched an attack. The cops called for assistance. To the rescue came the Tactical Patrol Force.

Flushed with the excitement of battle, a fellow called Gloria pranced around like Wonder Woman, while several Florence Nightingales administered first aid to the fallen warriors. There were some assorted scratches and bruises, but nothing serious was suffered by the honeys turned Madwoman of Chaillot.

Official reports listed four injured policemen with 13 arrests. The War of the Roses lasted about 2 hours from about midnight to 2 a.m. There was a return bout Wednesday night.

Two veterans recently recalled the battle and issued a warning to the cops. "If they close up all the gay joints in this area, there is going to be all out war."

Bruce and Nan
Both said they were refugees from Indiana and had come to New York where they could live together happily ever after. They were in their early 20's. They preferred to be called by their married names, Bruce and Nan.
"I don't like your paper," Nan lisped matter-of-factly. "It's anti-fag and pro-cop."

"I'll bet you didn't see what they did to the Stonewall. Did the pigs tell you that they smashed everything in sight? Did you ask them why they stole money out of the cash register and then smashed it with a sledge hammer? Did you ask them why it took them two years to discover that the Stonewall didn't have a liquor license."

Bruce nodded in agreement and reached over for Nan's trembling hands.

"Calm down, doll," he said. "Your face is getting all flushed."

Nan wiped her face with a tissue.

"This would have to happen right before the wedding. The reception was going to be held at the Stonewall, too," Nan said, tossing her ashen-tinted hair over her shoulder.

"What wedding?," the bystander asked.

Nan frowned with a how-could-anybody-be-so-stupid look. "Eric and Jack's wedding, of course. They're finally tieing the knot. I thought they'd never get together."

Meet Shirley
"We'll have to find another place, that's all there is to it," Bruce sighed. "But every time we start a place, the cops break it up sooner or later."
"They let us operate just as long as the payoff is regular," Nan said bitterly. "I believe they closed up the Stonewall because there was some trouble with the payoff to the cops. I think that's the real reason. It's a shame. It was such a lovely place. We never bothered anybody. Why couldn't they leave us alone?"

Shirley Evans, a neighbor with two children, agrees that the Stonewall was not a rowdy place and the persons who frequented the club were never troublesome. She lives at 45 Christopher St.

"Up until the night of the police raid there was never any trouble there," she said. "The homosexuals minded their own business and never bothered a soul. There were never any fights or hollering, or anything like that. They just wanted to be left alone. I don't know what they did inside, but that's their business. I was never in there myself. It was just awful when the police came. It was like a swarm of hornets attacking a bunch of butterflies."

A reporter visited the now closed Stonewall and it indeed looked like a cyclone had struck the premisses.

Police said there were over 200 people in the Stonewall when they entered with a warrant. The crowd outside was estimated at 500 to 1,000. According to police, the Stonewall had been under observation for some time. Being a private club, plain clothesmen were refused entrance to the inside when they periodically tried to check the place. "They had the tightest security in the Village," a First Division officer said, "We could never get near the place without a warrant."

Police Talk
The men of the First Division were unable to find any humor in the situation, despite the comical overtones of the raid.
"They were throwing more than lace hankies," one inspector said. "I was almost decapitated by a slab of thick glass. It was thrown like a discus and just missed my throat by inches. The beer can didn't miss, though, "it hit me right above the temple."

Police also believe the club was operated by Mafia connected owners. The police did confiscate the Stonewall's cash register as proceeds from an illegal operation. The receipts were counted and are on file at the division headquarters. The warrant was served and the establishment closed on the grounds it was an illegal membership club with no license, and no license to serve liquor.

The police are sure of one thing. They haven't heard the last from the Girls of Christopher Street.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to GLB News. For more information and for information on other topics of interest, see the Queer Resources Directory.

Ian Cabell / ian@yak.net Last updated: J3T / 29 March 1999

[ShannonDragon]

A lot of men view male cross dressing with being "gay" It doesn't matter that they are two different things, its how they perceive it.

Funny thing is, I work in a prison. The guards are always calling each other girlfried and what they plan to do to the person when alone. Its a form of "who is top dog-macho man"

[Anima-87-388]

Therefore, when a woman appears as masculine it's viewed as aspiring to climb that ladder of social equality, not actually to *be* a man, but to show the world they can do most anything a man can do.

Pants are comfortable and you don't have to shave to wear them...

I am ashamed that soo many CDs seem to think men are just macho-overprivileged-primitive and let's not forget-oppressive beings.

Women have had their troubles but they were and are still greatly exaggerated.

[GG Vanya]

I hardly see the relevance in your comparison, and quite frankly your wording is crass, crude, and offensive.

[ashlee chiffon]

its interesting you don't like the ****ty, trashy, young for their age look on cd's, as that must what those individuals are into... in their mindsets. Their thing...Something in their psyche is triggering their need to dress and act in that manner and i would submit it is their right to do so...if they want to live a time they never had the chance to do because of their sex, then i say "have a blast"! I'm sure their intent isn't to denegrate women and i'm sure vanilla people don't look at them as women dressing as ****s...so what's the harm? It's absolutely no different then a man wearing any Other kind of fem dressing...i Luv tight ,short miniskirts and waytoohighheels, but seldom wear them because as i get older, i look for comfortable clothes...but still love to picture myself in some "hot", ****ty,outit!!
loosen up, Luv...life is toooo short...live it any way you want!
please don't take this as a criticism and i know you were just expressing your opinion...as i am..

[ReginaK]

The sad fact is that the "Gay Pride movement" began because Transgendered people were being arrested in New York, simply for being dressed in the opposite gender. Stonewall was both a significant place and the decisive time. In an attempt to "control" the gay population, the police raided gay bars, but targeted and arrested specifically the transgendered.


In a sense, the gay community did a smart thing by focusing on a single significant issue. Sadly, the opportunity for acceptance of transgendered persons who were on the news and in the papers protesting the harassment, was lost when the movement on some level was hijacked and the gender issue was once again given second class status, by the "community" and the press accepted blindly that transgenderism was a small component of the larger issue.

I guess sexuality sells, but gender doesn't.

There is a bigger reason than that. A lot of gay rights activist sweep TG people under the rug so they will be easier accepted by their conservative opponents.

[GG Vanya]

its interesting you don't like the ****ty, trashy, young for their age look on cd's, as that must what those individuals are into... in their mindsets. Their thing...Something in their psyche is triggering their need to dress and act in that manner and i would submit it is their right to do so...if they want to live a time they never had the chance to do because of their sex, then i say "have a blast"! I'm sure their intent isn't to denegrate women and i'm sure vanilla people don't look at them as women dressing as ****s...so what's the harm? It's absolutely no different then a man wearing any Other kind of fem dressing...i Luv tight ,short miniskirts and waytoohighheels, but seldom wear them because as i get older, i look for comfortable clothes...but still love to picture myself in some "hot", ****ty,outit!!
loosen up, Luv...life is toooo short...live it any way you want!
please don't take this as a criticism and i know you were just expressing your opinion...as i am..

The harm, to me, is that while their intent might not be to denegrate women, they do. They also, in my opinion, harm the general opinion that John and Jane Public forms of transgenderism as a whole. I *do* understand that many CD's "missed out" on puberty in the feminine aspect. I do not agree that it is not harmful.

It is one thing for a genetic male to wear clothing of genetic females. It is quite another for a 50 year old genetic male to wear the clothing of a 16 year old genetic female. Just the visual is enough to make *some* people immediately think pervert.

Just as I stated in the school girl thread, I feel it is exploitation of young girls.
Now given the fact that I am married to, and fully accepting of, a crossdresser, how do you think those "not in the know" about transgenderism would view a "mature" male dressed like a pre (or post for that matter) pubescent school girl?

This all goes back to the reason men crossdress. The majority say they adore all things feminine and wish to emulate women. Well, I have not seen many 50 year old GG's wearing clothing better suited for a GG who is sixteen years old. When I do encounter this, I notice that they are oggled and snickered at.

Absolutely one has a right to dress as they please. I would only ask that they keep attire which draws negative attention to the CD community and exploits females, in private. To be sure, Trudi has some apparel that is better suited for a much younger woman, and we both enjoy her wearing it, but she would *never* go out in public dressed that way. Her ****ty look <grin> is for MY eyes only!

I'm not offended by your post and I appreciate your acknowledgement of my right to my opinions.

[Robin Leigh]

(The Catholic Church even has about a dozen female crossdressing saints -- Joan of Arc being the most famous -- but no MTF crossdressing saints.)

Joan's CDing certainly helped her achieve her military/political position, but it definitely wasn't accepted by the Church at the time. Her continued CDing was the evidence used to prove that she hadn't truly recanted her "heresy", and this lead to her execution. She only was given the official status of sainthood early last century. Her feast day is the 30th of May. Maybe she should be the patron saint of TGs?

A few months after reading about Joan in "Transgender Warriors", my mum sent me a postcard from the Jeanne D'Arc chapel in the Sainte-Croix cathedral. Cosmic!

Robin

PS You did a typo on Bill Tipton, but the link's ok.

[Robin Leigh]

From what I understand during these times (1960s and before) many gays thought they should crossdress as women. It was a standard role model for gays to be crossdressed. This mode of thinking can still be seen in other countries today like latino countries Mexico etc and throughout Asia where gays routinely dress as women to have sex with "straight" guys.

And a lot of straight people in Western countries still think it's true, too.

I can accept that there may have been some who chose to dress feminine at the time, as some may even today, but I don't believe that cross-dressing to "fit in" has ever been a large part of either the Transgendered or Gay communities. Acceptance of someone who was less than sincere about their identity, either their gender identity or sexuality, would have been far more difficult in those troubled times than it would be even today.

I don't think Satrana really meant people were pretending to be into CDing in order to fit in with the gay community. It's more about finding your gender & sexual identity when you're in the closet, pre-internet. Back then, people growing up non-straight had very few examples of other non-straight people as role models. Crossdressing sticks out (like the tiny tip of a very big iceberg), so it becomes natural for people to associate CDing with being gay, whether or not they are gay or CDs themselves. This point is discussed nicely from the FTM point of view in Les Feinberg's "Transgendered Warriors". In fact, I've begun calling it "The Feinberg Effect".

There is a bigger reason than that. A lot of gay rights activist sweep TG people under the rug so they will be easier accepted by their conservative opponents.

I think we could have achieved so much more if it weren't for Gay-Trans phobias. Oh well.

Robin

[Sheila]

The harm, to me, is that while their intent might not be to denegrate women, they do. They also, in my opinion, harm the general opinion that John and Jane Public forms of transgenderism as a whole. I *do* understand that many CD's "missed out" on puberty in the feminine aspect. I do not agree that it is not harmful.

It is one thing for a genetic male to wear clothing of genetic females. It is quite another for a 50 year old genetic male to wear the clothing of a 16 year old genetic female. Just the visual is enough to make *some* people immediately think pervert.

Just as I stated in the school girl thread, I feel it is exploitation of young girls.
Now given the fact that I am married to, and fully accepting of, a crossdresser, how do you think those "not in the know" about transgenderism would view a "mature" male dressed like a pre (or post for that matter) pubescent school girl?

This all goes back to the reason men crossdress. The majority say they adore all things feminine and wish to emulate women. Well, I have not seen many 50 year old GG's wearing clothing better suited for a GG who is sixteen years old. When I do encounter this, I notice that they are oggled and snickered at.

Absolutely one has a right to dress as they please. I would only ask that they keep attire which draws negative attention to the CD community and exploits females, in private.