Not B***dy Crossdressers

[Nigella]

I think a lot of girls already do some sort of form of Cd and in reality it's not frowned upon at all, so the dressing side of it would be no different. How many girls do you see wearing jeans, and flannel? Tons.




Honey's post in another thread, as shown above, has prompted this thread.

This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing) defines crossdressing.

In the definition it states that
From Wikipedia "Cross-dressing is the act of wearing clothing commonly associated with another gender within a particular society".

Please note the item in red here. In the modern western society the wearing of trousers and t-shirts is an accepted form of dress for all genders, ergo a genetic female cannot be, by definition, a crossdresser just because she chooses to wear these items.

I would also draw the attention of some members to the following
From Wikipedia "However, referring to a person as a cross-dresser suggests that their cross-dressing behavior is habitual and may be taken to mean that the person identifies as transgendered. The term cross-dresser should therefore be used with care to avoid causing misunderstanding or offense.

By constantly refering to genetic females as crossdressers just because they wear trousers is building up trouble and not endearing us to them. I am glad that most GGs do not paint us with the same brush because I certainly do not associate with the minority who subscibe to this ridiculous notion.

[Honey]

Please don't take what I said as an insult, it never was to be directed that way.

I must admit I haven't researched the term crossdresser, and if that's the case, I'm sorry.

Out of interest - what then would a female have to wear to be classed as a crossdresser?

[AliceJaneInNewcastle]

This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing) defines crossdressing.

In the definition it states that

Please note the item in red here. In the modern western society the wearing of trousers and t-shirts is an accepted form of dress for all genders, ergo a genetic female cannot be, by definition, a crossdresser just because she chooses to wear these items.

I would also draw the attention of some members to the following

By constantly refering to genetic females as crossdressers just because they wear trousers is building up trouble and not endearing us to them. I am glad that most GGs do not paint us with the same brush because I certainly do not associate with the minority who subscibe to this ridiculous notion.
As one of the long term wikipedia editors involved in this area, I absolutely stand by the wording that you've quoted. I believe that it is correct.

I also agree entirely with the point that you're making. There is nothing to be gained from getting GGs offside simply because they choose to wear clothing that is considered acceptable for them within our society as a whole but it doesn't fit some crossdressers' idea of female clothing.

It's a funny contradiction that in other threads, there is discussion of how some here wear women's trousers when in drab. In those cases, we have an acknowledgement that trousers cut to a female shape are indeed legitimate female attire and that males wearing then are crossdressing...

Alice

[Sandra]

Honey

don't worry :hugs:

[sissystephanie]

The main point here is, whose business is it what a person wears? That person, or the one looking? I have seen a lot of GG's wearing what is obviously men's clothing. Do I care? No, I just wish I could look as good in those clothes as they do!!

BTW, with apologies to the lady in Newcastle, Wikopedia definitions are certainly not textbook ones. Webster defines crossdressing as: "wearing the garments of the opposite gender." So a GG wearing "mens jeans" and flannel shirts is crossdressing! But who the heck cares? It is her business, and nobody else's. I used quotes for the jeans because there are, as most of us know, jeans made specifically for women. Thank God for that, since they fit me much better than men's jeans!!:heehee: Of course that makes me a CD, as if the panties underneath weren't enough!

[Kaz]

Hi Honey, I don't see any issue here other than one of our own making?

A major issue we might have as CDs is that GGs generally get the chance to wear pretty much what they want and it is acceptable. On the other hand we put on a dress and it is deemed societally wrong.

The issue is deeper than this as we want to express our feminine side and how we dress (along with body hairlessness and girly hair) is possibly one of the major enablers of that.

I have long held the view that GGs have it easy... they can wear pretty much what they want... but this is in practice far from the Nirvana we think it is, and we are inevitably then faced with issues like... you want to wear Jeans and pass? then get some girly jeans... so it is not the same - girls generally wear their own version of male drab (which ironically isn't drab - love my girly jeans!).

Fact One: we want to be girly so we don't want to wear stereotypical male kit and in fact our "dark" side is that we go too far the other way (I love short denim skirts etc, but my wife wouldn't touch them at our age);

Fact Two: it's not just about the clothes... it's about how we wear them? And who we are inside?

Honey, your comments are really important. I hope the contributers to this thread appreciate this.
Love Kaz xx

[RachelTVG]

Out of interest - what then would a female have to wear to be classed as a crossdresser?



IMO, anything designed for the male body.

[Jennifer_Cross]

Hmmm... In a past life me and my wife were in Cyprus. She made many many comments on the style of jeans (denims) the girls were wearing.

"OK... I'll take you out and we will get you some"

Wow... What had I let myself in for??

Hours and hours of searching ALL the 'Girly' shops... No hope!

Me being me, saw some ggirls waiting for a bus and so I asked where we could get these jeans.

They gave us directions... we found the shop... BUT no jeans like it!

Eventually 'I' had to ask the girl in the shop and she said "Oh noooo, We wear 'Mens' jeans, NOT ladies as they are boring LOL.

She grabbed our arms, ran us accross the street, into another 'Male' clothes shop... and! Yup!

Everyone was happy!

Jen

[Intertwined]

Out of interest - what then would a female have to wear to be classed as a crossdresser?

That is a very good question, and let me put this as an example.

In the following two photos of me, would you say I am crossdressed?
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=10259&albumid=927&dl=1233114683&thumb=1 - - http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=11153&albumid=927&dl=1234675908&thumb=1

If you said yes, you would be wrong, both of those skirts are made for men as male attire, the one on the left is made by Tripp, and is marketed as a "Man's single legged pant" and the one on the right is a Hiking Kilt made by Mountain Gear.

I believe (once again, i may be wrong) to be crossdressed, you have to be wearing clothing that was produced with the intent to be worn by the opposite gender.

[Fiona K]

Honey's post in another thread, as shown above, has prompted this thread.

This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing) defines crossdressing.

In the definition it states that

Please note the item in red here. In the modern western society the wearing of trousers and t-shirts is an accepted form of dress for all genders, ergo a genetic female cannot be, by definition, a crossdresser just because she chooses to wear these items.

I would also draw the attention of some members to the following

By constantly refering to genetic females as crossdressers just because they wear trousers is building up trouble and not endearing us to them. I am glad that most GGs do not paint us with the same brush because I certainly do not associate with the minority who subscibe to this ridiculous notion.

Amen!!!!

It is one of the statements made by TVs so often and is just so much ********.
I'm hardly the picture of butchness when I'm out in my girl jeans and top.

[Sammy777]

The whole do women crossdress debate can be quite fun at times.

I don't think the problem is women can wear t-shirts, jeans dress or flannel shirts in public without a problem.

If it is made for and sold in the womens dept it is womens clothes, no matter how much it looks like mens clothes.

I think the hurdle to overcome here is that every article of mens clothes through out time has either been adopted or out right stolen and in a lot of cases over time has become solely thought of as womens clothes.
The last modern example of this could be rounded collars, but anyway.

Yes women have available to them [ie made solely for them] pretty much whatever can be found in the mens section.
[Including the underwear, lol.] and on top of all that get to wear all of the "girlier" items as well.
Is it fair - sorta not really - but what ya gonna do about it?

I think the real bottom line is that women can not only wear all their [made for them "male style"] clothes but can also openly wear ours [mens wear] as well without any repercussions.

More so if you were to openly ask most women, I would guess most [if not all] would not consider themselves crossdressing by leaving the house in their Brothers/ Dads/ BFs/ Husbands/ Ect clothes.

You will most likely get the same responses I get/have gotten from my sisters and/or GFs like:
"I like it"
"Its warm"
"I'm only borrowing it"
"Its comfortable"
"You'll get it back"
"These are yours?"

And that is how most of society feels -
And that is the real rub, isn't it?

My only pet peeve over all of this, is having to navigate around the increasingly over abundance of women while shopping for clothes - In The Mens Section. lol

Funny how we say womens clothes fit us better, but yet that is the same response I get from women shopping in the mens section.
Maybe they should just switch the overhead signs, lol

[DemonicDaughter]

Have you even bothered to read the transmen section of this forum?

Or are you all so obsessed with what you are doing that the plight of others completely escapes you? Do you realize you are belittling what they go through to be accepted as men?

[Honey]

DD, I understand where you're coming from in thinking we don't care, but as CDing is different from TG, I believe you are confusing the idea that we are lumping the idea of female "cd" and transmen together.

Any girl going for guy has my respect, as I think that would almost be looked on harder than mtf.

I could almost ask the question - if you are dressed 24/7 are you then cding the odd time you go drab?


Please that's just a joke question, not trying to infer anything.

[Kelsy]

Please excuse me for laughing but don't ya think that there are times when we just take all of this way to seriously!!! Come on now! maybe if we didn't make such a big deal about dressing and what we wear, might it not cease to be a big deal????


Kelsy:battingeyelashes:

[kittypw GG]

Kelsy,

You have said the most sensible thing so far.

How many times does it have to be said? A women wearing pants is not TRYING to present as a male! Crossdressers ARE trying to present as a female. It is NOT about the damn clothes!!!!!:eek:

Kitty

[Honey]

Kelsy,

You have said the most sensible thing so far.

How many times does it have to be said? A women wearing pants is not TRYING to present as a male! Crossdressers ARE trying to present as a female. It is NOT about the damn clothes!!!!!:eek:

Kitty

Actually I thought a CD was someone who liked to wear the opposite sexes clothing, not necessarily passing.

Yes I want to be able to pass, but I don't think of myself as a CD anymore.

[Sandra]

People should be allowed to wear what they like when they like but, IMHO

People who say that women wearing trouser/pants are cding, are trying to justify themselves cding, it's ok for them to wear those clothes but if we put a skirt or dress on we are ridiculed, made fun of etc.


See this is where a lot of people get on their high horses, let me try and explian it from a GGs point of view.

Most not all on the this forum are cders and to nearly all the GGs, that is someone who dresses in womans clothes, wears a wig makeup etc, and presents as a woman, so when it is said that us GGs cd, it comes across that people are saying that we are presenting as a male, we don't go round with fake stubble, packing or binding, trying to look like a male.

[battybattybats]

Joan of Arc was executed for crossdressing!

Am I crossdressing in these pics: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89282 in my womens jacket based of a mens jacket style over a century gone with my womens nail polish and my womens nail art and my womens lipstick?

Yes and no, depending on which set of definitions and standards one uses. It would be enough to get me arrested under anti-CDing laws in several countries!

More importantly i'm still being transgender in those pics even if its not crossdressing because I am displaying a mixture of gender traits/styles. So its still genderqueer/genderfree regardless!

Just because mixing gender expression is acceptable in Goth circles now does not make that not so! And, like women wearing pants it was plenty outrageous when the early pioneers of Goth fashion androgyny were paving the way for that acceptance.

And the same is true for womens pants wearing acceptance. The womens rights movement included crossdressers and lesbians whose contribution was deliberatly marginalised and played down later in the movement in the typical under-the-bus rot.

Lets look for example at Marlene Dietrich who was a major contributor to pants becoming considerd fashionable and acceptable for women http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/images/sjcf_01_img0073.jpg That, my friends, exhibit A, does seem rather substantially to be crossdressing!
Exhibit B http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/joanmarlene2.jpg
Exhibit C http://twoliablog.com/heres-looking-like-you-kid/files/2008/12/dietrich-dark-suit-and-cufflinks.jpg
Exhibit D http://fredfred.net/skriker/images/fred/music/marlene_dietrich/marlene_dietrich.jpg

The fact is that on average women have a greater degree of gender expression latitude. This came from the womens movement initially celebrating and to an extent being inspired by the daring FtM crossdressers who were claiming parts of what was considered seperated only for men as their own. A huge amount of the womens movement involved staking a claim on most things seperated as for men only.

The gender expression part of the sexual revolution cannot be easilly dismissed and ignored!

And quite a few people are happy with their crossdressing involving only a mixing of male and female, of androgyny. This has been a regular repeating fashion which has gained a lot of ground amongst todays youth where from Goth to Emo their are plenty. Like Davey Havok of the band AFI for example. http://www.freewebs.com/mishasdancefloor/davey%20havok.jpg http://petegraham.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/miss_murder.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/06/15/billboard-afi.jpg

So mixing gender expression amongst males has acceptance amongst some parts of society, like Goth and Emo culture.

So not every CD wants to pass. But just because some do and some do not this does not render invalid the vital point that the acceptance of womens wearing pants either for fashion or comfort or practicality relies substantially on gender-rebels of past generations, from those who did so just a little to those who did so quite a lot.

And so if a CDing husband considers it unfair that their wife is enjoying the fruits of past generations gender-rebelion while decrying gender non-conformity in their husbands simply because the society has grown accustomed to the outrageous flagrant breaking of social taboos of the past those CDing husbands still have an extremely good point whether they dress to pass or like the mens effeminate fashions of past centuries like lace cuffs, frilly shirts, stockings and knee high high heeled boots.

[DemonicDaughter]

DD, I understand where you're coming from in thinking we don't care, but as CDing is different from TG, I believe you are confusing the idea that we are lumping the idea of female "cd" and transmen together.

Nope. Not confusing the idea at all. Whether an individual is ts, tg or cd doesn't change the fact that society has some pretty clear definitions of "acceptable attire" and just because its now acceptable for a woman to wear pants doesn't mean she can wear whatever she wants and will not get harassed for it.

And I don't think its that cders don't care but I do believe that a lot of the general tone of these types of threads makes it sound as if women have all the freedom in the world to dress how she likes with no repercussions. Which is ridiculous.

Hell, I can't even wear certain feminine clothes without getting stares, rude comments, etc. and all because its outside the "social norm".

My point is, reading the transmen section in which some only put on androgynous clothing would give a good idea of how differently they are treated because of their attire.

Just these comments on this forum about how women aren't "feminine enough" because they don't wear skirts as much or dress up as much proves that no, we can't wear what we want without someone having an issue with it.

[battybattybats]

And I don't think its that cders don't care but I do believe that a lot of the general tone of these types of threads makes it sound as if women have all the freedom in the world to dress how she likes with no repercussions. Which is ridiculous.

Hell, I can't even wear certain feminine clothes without getting stares, rude comments, etc. and all because its outside the "social norm".

My point is, reading the transmen section in which some only put on androgynous clothing would give a good idea of how differently they are treated because of their attire.

Just these comments on this forum about how women aren't "feminine enough" because they don't wear skirts as much or dress up as much proves that no, we can't wear what we want without someone having an issue with it.

Really good points. There is still a lot of judgement about the way women dress. The increased gender expression only goes so far before things get nasty and there are heaps of class/group catagorisation issues as well in clothing. Theres an age element to the gender expression too, the frequent experiences of Tomboys being expected to become girly as they get older is worth us MtF CDs noting!


DD, I understand where you're coming from in thinking we don't care, but as CDing is different from TG, I believe you are confusing the idea that we are lumping the idea of female "cd" and transmen together.


Transgender is an umbrella term. It covers everyone not fitting the gender stereotype of their birth sex. It covers Transsexuals and it covers Genderqueers and Androgynes so it certainly also covers Crossdressers.

[valenstein]

Just these comments on this forum about how women aren't "feminine enough" because they don't wear skirts as much or dress up as much proves that no, we can't wear what we want without someone having an issue with it.

Bullseye.

There is a tipping point on what ANYONE can wear before they come under scrutiny. A genetic woman goes to work in a pantsuit and makeup, heels and shoulder length hair and few people would comment. That same woman comes in the next day in a similar outfit but with no makeup, loafers and very short hair, people would start talking behind her back and begin to look at her differently. I don't know of any woman that could go out in shorts without shaving her legs that wouldn't be looked at with disgust by a lot of people.

A LOT of people still think it's inappropriate for a woman to breastfeed in public,or wear a bikini if she's only two pounds underweight.

As far as definitions go, it's all semantics. If you pile up all the posts on this board, it comes down to individual intent, I think most of us know when we are purposefully crossdressing. Sometimes I'm wearing women's jeans just because I happen to own them, sometimes I borrow my SO's scarf because I'm cold. George (Amandine) Sand had purpose in her crossdressing, flouting what was tolerable for women of her time. Most genetic women of today do not usually have that same intent when putting on pants and a dress shirt, though they can because others suffered to make sure they had that right.

[beenherelongtime]

As i've said before, all this gets confusing. first to comment on intertwined post, you bring up a point that i wrote on another post. that was: if i had clothes tailord made for me in feminine style would this be crossdressing. you with your "pant" and kilt bring up a good point, you don't consider it c/ding, but the average person seeing you would assume they are female clothes.

I have written that i have experienced almost all of the feelings we go through. One: i have presented as a female, i have also enjoyed some of the dressing as just another mode of dressing, i.e. i didn't feel extra feminine when i would wear slacks (womens style) to work with a womens top, they just became comfortable clothes for me. even the underdressings, hose and panties, just felt natural. i firmly believe that we could wear every item (sans one) of female clothing and not feel crossdressed. I STILL HAVE NOT FOUND AN EXCUSE (OR REASON) FOR WEARING A BRA. Although I could have gotten away with saying I needed support for my "manboobs", unfortunely i am only between an A and B cup.

[CharleneT]

Bullseye.

........
As far as definitions go, it's all semantics. If you pile up all the posts on this board, it comes down to individual intent, I think most of us know when we are purposefully crossdressing.....

Bullseye for you too !

I agree completely with the above, it is the intent that can cause trouble with society. Sure women can now wear a wider range of clothing than men, but what rankles folks about CD's is the *intent* of wearing women's clothing. Not really the clothes. Evey year the difference between men's and women's clothes gets less and less - slowly. I wear almost all women's clothes every day. But it is subtle, no one picks up on my intent or they would notice, and probably comment/disapprove etc. !!

[linnea]

[QUOTE=Kelsy;1612544]Please excuse me for laughing but don't ya think that there are times when we just take all of this way to seriously!!! Come on now! maybe if we didn't make such a big deal about dressing and what we wear, might it not cease to be a big deal????


Probably.

[Bev06 GG]

IMO, anything designed for the male body.

Tee hee, well then that qualifys quite a few of us. I love mens lumber shirts and DMs when I'm in the garden. Feel so feminine and sexy
Bev

[Lorileah]

IMO, anything designed for the male body.
Then by extension, anything designed for the female anatomy would be crossdressing, thus, if I don't wear a bra with my skirt would taht be crossdressing? As someone stated before, a jockstrap would be about the only piece of clothing that would be specifically for a male. A bra (with a few exception of gynecomastia) would be the only piece specifically for a female.

I move we don't call GG's who wear male (ugh did I just classify a genderspecific clothing) clothing crossdressers if they don't do the same to us.

[Sheila]

I move we don't call GG's who wear male (ugh did I just classify a genderspecific clothing) clothing crossdressers if they don't do the same to us.

but then Lorileah cdrs themselves call themselves crossdressers, in fact Deborah Jane calls herself a bloke in a skirt on numerous occasions :eek::eek::eek:

[Lorileah]

but then Lorileah cdrs themselves call themselves crossdressers, in fact Deborah Jane calls herself a bloke in a skirt on numerous occasions :eek::eek::eek:
that was my point, just badly made. If we don't wear a bra (sorry Phil Michelson, but you needed one a few years ago) we aren't crossdressers we are just guys who dress pretty ;)

[Tashee]

Blame me---I call my wife a cross dresser all the time---She wears out my clothes--Its all in fun-----But----Be like me go get a life altering life changing disease that mat take you---It helps you live A little easier--Love a little louder --forgive a lot more...And just plain lighten up....



I will never---No I can not say that---But if I go outta my way to offend anyone here-----I give you the permission to PM me and ask me to apologize and leave and I WILL

with Love--------And for luvs sake lets lighten up and stop labeling us---I do it in fun....But lets be us----Who we are----Not A fill in the blank------A warm Loving Caring brilliant creation who brings sunshine to all..


Yes I may be corny but the song Live like you were dying----Just wont stop playing in my darned head---

with luv

T

[O2B Barbara]

I think that "Rosie The Riveter" from the WWII era did a lot to change the notion of women only wearing skirts & dresses. This was out of necessity as building ships & tanks in a skirt just was not practical.

Women have done a lot of fighting for their right to wear what they want as well as the right to vote or to smoke in public. When we have done the same battles, we will be able to wear what we want, when we want.

The problem with this train of reasoning is that there are a lot of macho males out there that would see nothing wrong with showing a MtF crossdresser what being a man is all about! Those same males would never think of doing any physical harm to any female, no matter how dressed or how "butch"they appear to be.

I do not think women had to fear physical harm with the way they dressed in the same way that we do.

Just my opinion and in no way ment to offend anyone.

[Sheila]

we are just guys who dress pretty ;)

and some of you look darn pretty as well ;)

[battybattybats]

I do not think women had to fear physical harm with the way they dressed in the same way that we do.


Many women who fought for womens equality were raped and/or murdered.

There was police brutality against the suffragettes to the point where they began learning martial arts (judo ju jitsu and variants) to defend themselves. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/2458182813_30aafacf9a_o.jpg Their treatment in prison was often brutal. Many were sent to insane asylums where they suffered horrific treatment.

Women as well as men for daring to crossdress to any extent have been:
raped
murdered
jailed
tortured
mutilated (even in the last 12 months! From acid thrown in the faces of women not following proscribed clothing rules including the wearing of pants in some middle eastern countries to MtFs being hacked with machettes in Jamaica!)
lobotomised
given extreme electro-shock treatment
given extremly neaseating but non lethal drugs and poisons to develop an aversion to crossdressing

This still happens in many countries where those who speak up for womens rights are raped, tortured, mutilated and/or murdered.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her crossdressing.

Women won their rights to vote and to wear pants etc through blood sweat and tears. http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/sufpix.htm
Through marches and demonstrations and stone throwing breaking windows and acts of arson and arrests and hunger strikes and force-feeding that damaged their vocal chords.
These are images of a vital part of history they dont teach at schools:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3177063531_18d30108e6.jpg
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/archives/columns/2006/images/suffragette.jpg
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/Politics/g9/images/g9s1a.jpg
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/mhillebrandt/2005/02/19/suffragettes2.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU002146.jpg?size=67&uid=%7BA2C2D1D4-BD00-45F8-B410-CAEF34D4E4CF%7D

The word Bloomers comes from the Suffragette Amelia Jenks Bloomer who wore pants of her own making!

Perhaps CDs need to know more about the history of womens rights as well as the struggles of earlier generations of TSs CDs and Drag Queens and Kings? It might help us realise how far we've already come on the backs of past generations as well as how much we owe to the next generation! And maybe some GGs might be more accepting of CDing too.

[Molly Wells]

I am sometimes amazed by the positions taken here by many CDs and yes I am one, to justify their crossdressing on what others, in particularly GGs might wear now or in the past or whenever.
It certainly seems to me the issue of whether or not I am crossdressing is not just about the clothes themselves, but about what I am trying to express in the process.
Let's see, if I put on a dress, I want to have all of the necessary items on as well to appear as much as I can to be female. Or what if I am to put on women's jeans? I want the padding etc to look female! What is my motive? To appear as feminine as possible. To present myself in such a manner that in my own eyes and my own mind as well as to any others that might see me that I might be seen as female. Why, because it is the way I feel inside and it brings me personal pleasure.
To do this I purchase everything imaginable to complete the image and make it a realistic as i can.
On the other hand, if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing! OK, now I would say that if I decided to wear a skirt for comfort, style or whatever my reason might be, on the inside I am only fooling myself because I am not happy to merely wear the skirt, I want the panties, the bra, the forms, the shoes, wig, .... the whole thing. Why? Because I am a crossdresser and it makes me feel good and I want to feel good! I want to live in a world where I am content, even if only for a little while! I want to present myself and take on the persona of a woman to what ever extent that I can!
The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!
So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.
Recognize as well that if I am rejected by other people because of the way I dress it was my choice to dress that way. In this life, whether we like it or not the fact remains that we get rejected for many reasons that do not hold up to scrutiny in our so called free society. Example, I am a Christian and I have had people belittle me, ridicule me and reject me because of my belief. Those who are of a different political persuasion reject, belittle and riducule one another, and on and on!
Here is the bottom line, some are going to reject you, some are going to accept you and others are going to love you, and many will just ignore you!
Learn the boundaries you are willing to live in whether they be self imposed or societal and then live in them. If you aren't happy with them change them, but let's quit blaming others and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.
sorry, I got on a roll!!

[Sheila]

It certainly seems to me the issue of whether or not I am crossdressing is not just about the clothes themselves, but about what I am trying to express in the process.

if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing!

The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!

So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.

let's quit blaming others and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.
sorry, I got on a roll!!

:yrtw: thankyou it makes sense to me :hugs:

[Honey]

I find it interesting how everyone is sticking on one point - what is a cd and or a female cd.

Again - what is classed as a female CD. Considering a basic male cd does nothing to enhance the look just dressing, no boobs, makeup etc.

also find it funny that people think that I think women who wear mens clothing are cd's. It's never crossed my mind that that's what they are.

To me there is no such thing as a basic female CD. Because it is common for women to have jeans, pants, shrts, t-shirts etc.

Interesting to read the history of female "cd" because at one point a woman in pants was frowned upon, maybe in a century, men in skirts etc won't be frowned on. Can't see it happening in my lifetime though

[AliceJaneInNewcastle]

Why don't we reclaim the words transvestite and transvestism from now on to mean "M to F crossdressing for the purpose of personal satisfaction or inner need"? Perhaps if we all do that, we'll stand a chance of getting out of this sterile yes-it-is, no-it-isn't debate.
I think that it would be more productive to reclaim the word transvestite based on its derivation. Literally, presenting the image of the opposite gender, which I've recently seen referred to as "emulating" a female or "femulation" when applied to M2F CDs.

The separate term transvestic fetishism already exists to describe people who crossdress for sexual stimulation.

Alice

[Sammy777]

For sake of argument & to clairify,
A TS, TM & TW are not considered CD'ers or CDing to me.

Now Crossdressing vs Crossdressers

It seems the word Crossdress just doesn't cover everything like it used to.

I think most people tend to combine the differences in the word & what they mean between someone who Crossdresses & a Crossdresser.

Bear with me on this one folks....

Anyone [Male or Female] who wears any article of clothing [for what ever reason] that is designed for & sold to the opposite sex can & is considered to be Crossdressing.

BUT, Someone who is Crossdressing
should not automatically be considered or called a Crossdresser.

Examples:
1) My sister borrows & wears my [mens] clothing,
she is by strict definition in fact Crossdressing,
But I would not consider her to be a Crossdresser.

2) A guy borrows & wears his SO's clothing,
he is by strict definition in fact Crossdressing,
But I would not consider him to be a Crossdresser either.

3) A girl does not have to be Crossdressing
or be a Crossdresser in order to be called a Tomboy.

So when someone Technically Crossdresses for whatever reason
[Excluding the below*] that person is not necessarily a Crossdresser.

But when a person *feels the need, urge, want, ect to wear the clothing of the opposite sex then they are not just Crossdressing, but they are in fact a Crossdresser.

I think if people realize that there is a big difference between a person who "Technically Crossdresses" & a Crossdresser we will all be better off.

And then, maybe, just maybe we can put this one to bed, lol. :D

PS: I would love to dive into the whole
"Just wearing the clothes vs Presenting" &
"The Bra: To wear or not to wear"
But this is enough for now, lol.
Stay tuned folks. :D

[JoAnne Wheeler]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

[Sheila]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

JoAnne a lot of double standards happen right here on the forum .. and as a GG I can assure you we at times do not get a lot of respect and a great deal of grief

[trisha59]

JoAnne a lot of double standards happen right here on the forum .. and as a GG I can assure you we at times do not get a lot of respect and a great deal of grief

I for one am greatful for each and every GG that is on this forum. I appreciate how you tell us in clear language to knock off the BS. How you call us on the carpet when us guys make an unfair comment. This site would not be what it is without you girls keeping us grounded.

[battybattybats]

On the other hand, if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing!

I guess i need to reiterate.

Joan of Arc with her pants wearing and short hair was a crossdresser. Amelia Jenks Bloomer, despite making bloomers specifically as womens pants nevertheless she was still a crossdresser and one of the most important people to popularise the till then fairly minority pant-wearing by women (even in the fields and factories where many still frowned upon it as crossdressing!) was Marlene Dietrich so I'll remind you again:

Exhibit A http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/i...01_img0073.jpg
Exhibit B http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/joanmarlene2.jpg
Exhibit C http://twoliablog.com/heres-looking-...-cufflinks.jpg
Exhibit D http://fredfred.net/skriker/images/f...e_dietrich.jpg

Womens wearing of pants WAS crossdressing. Some to the level of Marlene Dietrich and others much less. They were arrested as crossdressers. They were crossdressers.

And not every one who wears clothes of the opposite sex attempts to pass. There are plenty of male-born people that are androgynous and mix gender expression together. Goth and Emo fashion has quite a lot of it. Heck there are effeminate male teen CDs being paid to flaunt Hot topic gear! Its so mainstream in that community its starting to be exploited commercially!


The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!

Actually it does hold up to scrutiny. it's the equality bit thats the basis of all rights. If everyone has equal rights and if any single one person gets to wear what they want then ergo by being equals everyone gets to wear what they want. QED. Done. Cannot be refuted. Absolute. So long as the first if is true then the rest cannot be untrue! Argument iredeemably finished. A clear example of Aristotelian logic.

The only way it cannot be so is if we do not have equal rights.. and then its back to the feudal system and the divine right of kings, back to slavery and back to the women being barefoot and pregann cooking the mens dinner as the basis for all womens rights, that all people are equal, is no longer considered true.

So you see, it does in fact utterly demand by pure unbeatable logic that we all have the right to wear whatever we want because some of us can. The consequence of it not being so is the total destruction of the foundation principle of modern western civilisation and modern democracy!


So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.

They have the right to dress as they please then we do. If we do not they do not. Or there is no equality.


Recognize as well that if I am rejected by other people because of the way I dress it was my choice to dress that way.

Thats called victim-blaming. They are displaying clear bigotry if they reject you. They too have a choice, of stupid pointless bigotry whereby someone is judged not on their virtues but an incidental charcetristic or of judging you on your virtues. You can never be responsible for their choice.

But you are being unvirtuous if you act as if you are responsible for their choice! That robs them of having their own virtue tested for starters.


In this life, whether we like it or not the fact remains that we get rejected for many reasons that do not hold up to scrutiny in our so called free society.

True, but that can change if we act to change it.


Example, I am a Christian and I have had people belittle me, ridicule me and reject me because of my belief.

Indeed. That does happen. Though its small fry compared to what athiests go through (discriminatory laws exist to prevent atheists from holding office in several parts of the USA for example) or what wiccans go through (the struggle for wiccan American soldiers to get their holy symbols added to their military tombstones while other faiths were allowed to have theirs so enscribed was wretchedas again just one example). Still it is true that indeed anti-christian bigotry does exist and like all bigotry that should be opposed by all citizens.


Here is the bottom line, some are going to reject you, some are going to accept you and others are going to love you, and many will just ignore you!
Learn the boundaries you are willing to live in whether they be self imposed or societal and then live in them. If you aren't happy with them change them,

Actually we should all change them, especially in defence of others because it is the mutual recognition and defence of rights that out own equality and liberty depends.


but let's quit blaming others

But others ARE responsible for the anti-crossdressing attitudes in our current society.

Native American cultures were largely CD accepting.

Native Australian peoples were often CD accepting.

Polynesia was and some parts still is CD accepting.

South East Asia was and sometimes is CD accepting.

The Middle East was at times often CD accepting, even under Islam!

Ancient Rome was often CD accepting.

The Goths and Vandals and Scythians and Dorians were often CD accepting.

The Vikings were often CD accepting, even Thor and Loki crossdressed in some (mostly now lost but mentioned in the surviving ones) sagas!

Parts of the early church (especially some of the gnostics) was CD accepting!

I could go on.. the list is quite long as at one time or another virtually every culture on earth was CD accepting!

People chose to change that! People chose to hate CDing and to try and stamp it out! It did not go into the closet by itself for no reason! CDing was persecuted ito the closet!

So let s look at the historical truth accurately. CDing has always existed. It was often accepted. It is now rarely accepted. Why? Because hating CDing was taught and CDing was deliberately oppressed!


and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.

It's not at their expense! We are justified with or without women enjoying the fruits of past gender rebels by the basic universal human right os fre self expression. The fact that many women have reaped the benefit of gender rebels of the past just makes it less justifiable for them to impose strict gender conformity on men!

But it is not at their expense if we accurately point out that a century ago, a woman wearing pants was crossdressing and sometimes illegally so. And that a century before that high heels were menswear as was stockings and lace. These are simply facts that do underline that everyone, men and women, should have the freedom to dress as they see fit and that anyone who judges people based solely on their apparel rather than the virtuosness of their actions is themselves bigoted unvirtuous and stupid.

[Sheila]

But others ARE responsible for the anti-crossdressing attitudes in our current society.

Native American cultures were largely CD accepting.

Native Australian peoples were often CD accepting.

Polynesia was and some parts still is CD accepting.

South East Asia was and sometimes is CD accepting.

The Middle East was at times often CD accepting, even under Islam!

Ancient Rome was often CD accepting.

The Goths and Vandals and Scythians and Dorians were often CD accepting.

The Vikings were often CD accepting, even Thor and Loki crossdressed in some (mostly now lost but mentioned in the surviving ones) sagas!

Parts of the early church (especially some of the gnostics) was CD accepting!

I could go on.. the list is quite long as at one time or another virtually every culture on earth was CD accepting!

you did Batty :heehee::heehee::heehee:

[battybattybats]

you did Batty :heehee::heehee::heehee:

Its the very tip of the iceberg! I couldnt have the list too short or it wouldn't show how widespread acceptance has been in the past, but I left out whole continents from it nonethless.

[Sandra]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

How do you mean double standard?

As for respect well that IMO that has to be earned.


I for one am greatful for each and every GG that is on this forum. I appreciate how you tell us in clear language to knock off the BS. How you call us on the carpet when us guys make an unfair comment. This site would not be what it is without you girls keeping us grounded.

Trisha

Thankyou :love:

[valenstein]

Okay, what if I wear all clothing that has been deemed "Unisex". Am I crossdressing? Or does it matter if it's purple or pink or blue or fetishwear? Or if it looks more "male" or "female" to other people? At that point, I'm relying on someone else to decide what's going on in my head.

[Honey]

Wow, Valenstein you look great from your avatar.

Anyways - Why does it matter at the end of the day, Why do we need labels?

I think the GG's here are brilliant, especially when girls are asking should they lie to their SO. I'm surprised they haven't mob attacked anyone asking that.

At the end of the day, I don't see girls as CD's no matter what they wear, and as to CD, TG, TS, FO, AN, or PQ - why do people feel they need to fit into a specific two letter code?

The only two letter code I conform to is ME.

I'm unique like everyone else on this planet.