Is this Hypocrisy??

[Heather64]

Hello all.
This came to my mind today when random thoughts brought me back to a disagreement we recently had over clothes.
His question”. If it is not alright for me to wear what I want in my own home why is it alright for you to go out dressed in trousers”.
“This smacks of hypocrisy to me.”
My reply. “Society allows me to wear trousers as a fashion not to pretend I am a male”

I feel like I am in a no win situation here.
Any thoughts.?
Heather

[JohnH]

Heather, I assume you are a female at birth and you are talking about your husband or boyfriend.

What rags me to no end is there are some narrow minded fools that disapprove of my wearing a denim skirt while not pretending to be female. Your husband should be allowed to wear plain skirts as a man and society should not disapprove of that.

Fortunately most people accept my wearing denim skirts as a man.

If you cannot accept the above maybe you should not wear trousers publicly. I really hate how some trouser-wearing women do not accept the idea of a man wearing a skirt in a masculine context.

John

[AllieSF]

Hi Heather. I don't remember your previous posts, so I am not up on what is happening in your life. However, taking this post for what I understand, then I see a discussion about the limits of dressing at home. If you had been here for a significant amount of time, 1 -2 years, you would see that a CD's desire to dress is very strong, and, generally, the major issue with dressing at home is the spouse's "permission" or "tolerance" to let the other do so, along with maybe other family members like kids, parents, etc. Since you know that he wants to dress in women's clothing, he is asking for your permission to do that at home. Apparently, that is not OK with you. His question with the comparison of you wearing trousers is an old one that gets thrown out a lot on this site. Some CD's think that women crossdress when they wear pants, jeans, men's style shirts and blazers. In my opinion that is a very weak and immature argument. But it is probably the best that he could do at that moment. It's not the reason he gives that is important here. It is that he has needs and he asked for your support and apparently on this topic he is not getting it. That is not a criticism by me to you.

That being said, I think that maybe looking at this in another way may help you understand what is happening and may help you both find some common ground to deal with and live with his needs in this area. First, at least he has appeared to have asked you to let him dress at home. That is good, believe me. From what I have read here many sneak around and do it anyway and do not ask for permission. Why don't they ask? They expect a "No" anyways and most likely a following drawn out discussion or argument that results in hurt feelings, frustrations and a deterioration in the relationship's communication process. One more thing not to talk about! I really hate the "Don't ask, don't tell" arrangements that some couples seem to arrive at. Open and honest communication is so important to make any relationship last, even if that communication is hard and uncomfortable. Or, maybe they are so far in the closet they have no way of communicating their needs and desires, let alone discussing anything associated with the lifestyle that society does not accept. So, I say be thankful that he at least asked. It is your opportunity to talk more about his CDing and maybe develop a way to talk about it civilly, learn more about what he wants and explain more about what you need and where your current limits are.

Second, he really does need your cooperation, tolerance and understanding of his need to dress. It will probably never go away. So, why not dress in the safety of his own home instead of out in a cheap motel room, or sneaking around when he can behind your back. You don't have to be there when he does dress. Out of sight, out of mind can work in this kind of situation. You get your occasional girl's night out. Why not give him a girl night in?

If you come to an agreement on this topic, will it stop there? Maybe not. He may want more freedoms. If you both can communicate and work your way through this issue, you will be better prepared to talk and work your way jointly through the next one. Where you think that you are in a no win situation. I see that you are in a potential win-win situation if you can realize that dressing for your SO is very important to him and mostly out of his control, and you can mutually work out some guidelines (not strict rules) that lessens its negative impacts on you and let's him express that side of him in the safe environment of his own home.

One more thing. Please do not let his lame excuses or reason's lessen the importance of all this to him. Some people can explain things much better than others, others cannot. That does not make them bad people. Help him to explain it better and that will help him to help you understand his side of it and it will help him better understand your side. I do wish both of you the best of luck.

[shesadvl]

hey Heather I see you are new to the forum..... welcome..
if you search through some of the threads in the Male to female threads they talk about women crossdressing when we wear trousers etc,....
there has been some discussion on this very subject in the M2F forum

perhaps this may help you answer your SO there is nothing hypicritical about it....sounds like he is feeling out of sorts and referring to his CDing, or trying to push your boundry's,.. dont take it as Hypocrisy the following statement should help.....

Women who wear pants & polo shirts have no thought of gender when they choose their clothing. Men who wear dresses, and women's pants & polo shirts do. It's as simple as that.:D:battingeyelashes:

John: I agree with you, about some of the narrow minded fools that disapprove, I have known a guy i went to school with, used to wear male attaire at the top and always wear a skirt stockings or pantyhose, or knee high sox and sandles,always.
I went to a school reunion was 50th,.... a couple years ago & this guy he hasnt changed one bit... he doesnt care what anyone thinks.... its so natural for him....hes not trying to emulate a female has long wavy blonde hair & is as exactly as i remembered him from my school days.

But im wondering in Heathers case with her and her SO,... is this comment caused over his CDing issues and her comfortability with his dressing, that he makes a statement like that. ?? :battingeyelashes:

Good point Tanya.

[Tanya C]

The old "women get to wear trousers" arguement has been around forever. It's actually an expression of frustration at being closeted and unable to dress in public.
And if your SO is correct in that he is unable to dress in his own home, then you can see how that frustration can become a little intense.

[Lorileah]

Just because "society" says something doesn't mean you have to abide by it. If you don't work to change how society feels then you cannot complain. So he (and you assuming you are not being hypocritical and using society to keep him from dressing) need to work to change ideas.

Otherwise it isn't so much hypocrisy and maintaining an unfairness. You see it should be an equal rights thing and when one partner doesn't defend and protect the other, that just isn't what love should be about. It is what women have been saying for years, everything should be level.

[eluuzion]

Hello all.

His question”. If it is not alright for me to wear what I want in my own home why is it alright for you to go out dressed in trousers”.
“This smacks of hypocrisy to me.”

I feel like I am in a no win situation here.
Any thoughts.?
Heather

hiya Heather,

Please click this button to set the proper atmosphere for this discussion...
http://www.dramabutton.com :)

No win?...maybe not...what is the score and how much time is left on the game clock? lol
Ok, bad joke...bad timing...sorry...

"Hypocrisy"?...no...Logical Fallacy?...YES

It is difficult or impossible to have a discussion based upon “Logical Fallacies” and/or “False Analogy”, which is what your SO presented you with. The two “dressing” scenarios simply do not relate to each in the manner he suggested. (false analogy)

Here is a list of the common Logical Fallacies we often encounter, with explanations and examples. You will find at least two that apply to your SO’s statements. I will let you discover them on your own rather than point them out to you.
(I am trying to help, not supply you with “ammunition” to “defeat” your opponent, er...eh...I mean SO, lol)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Hopefully you both can find a way to view your relationship as a partnership again instead of a competition. Life is too short to spend it in constant turmoil.

Hang in there...:hugs:


http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

[Kate Simmons]

As was previously stated, it basically depends on if one is their own person or not and how much of an individual they are. In my opinion what society "dictates" is a suggestion not a rule.:)

[Joanne f]

There are different issues going on here , the right or ability to wear what you like in your own home away from society, in which the reason why you are wearing it will affect only the one's in that house at that time.
The degree in difference of the dressing and what it represents for that person , a skirt swapped for trousers/pants or trousers/pants swapped for a skirt should not make much difference ( in theory) and then you get to the gender crossing as once one is doing it to emulate the opposite gender you can no longer make it a sensible comparison or argument .
One other thing that complicates things a bit is that society is use to seeing women wearing trousers/pants of all descriptions for what ever reason so it does not stand out to the same amount as it will when a man wears a skirt or dress out for what ever reason whether this is a fair enough argument to getting your own way in abling you to wear a skirt in the house ,yes maybe but whether it is a fair enough argument to allow you to go out emulating a woman then i personally would say no .

[Sue101]

Heather

Well there is a clear double standard and you should be sympathetic to the issue. How happy would you be to be told that you cannot do this and that because you are a female? Are we not supposed to be trying for gender equality? It does not matter why someone likes certain clothes, you would still object to him wearing female clothes even if he had no intent to pretend to be a female.

Hiding behind society's double standards does not help with the issue at hand. Society wrongs men by denying them the right to wear feminine clothes. Is it your intent to extend this wrong into your own home and your relationship?

The crux of the matter is why would you want to stop him doing this? What is the harm? If the answer is because it makes you angry or hurt then the question is why does it make you feel this way? The answer does not lie with him it lies within you.

Your husband needs to be sympathetic to your emotions and so there needs to be discussion and negotiation between the two of you. The last thing you should be doing is bringing in society's prejudiuces and double standards into your relationship. You are having the wrong discussion. The talks should be about what it means to each other, what emotions are generated, what fears are created and are they founded. This is about the two of you and your opportunity to have a happy loving relationship based upon mutual understanding and empathy.

[erickka]

What about a Scotsman wearing a kilt?? Is that not a man in a skirt?

[J'lyn GG]

Heather.
When we wear trousers, we are not wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex and trying to present as a man. The pants we wear were designed for WOMEN and we are presenting as WOMEN. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges, my dear. My husband tried this one on me, too.

And should he not care how you feel about him wearing a skirt at home? Hell, yes, he should. He wants you to care about what he wants to wear, but doesn't want to reciprocate. Goes back to my old stand by. It is not all about him. If you aren't comfortable with it, maybe he should tone it down. Is he doing it every day, twice a week? You want not at all, twice a month? Compromise in the middle. My h goes to his social meeting once a month. He gets to dress, I don't have to have it shoved in my face for half a day and night.

[Joanne f]

Heather.
When we wear trousers, we are not wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex and trying to present as a man. The pants we wear were designed for WOMEN and we are presenting as WOMEN. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges, my dear. My husband tried this one on me, too.

I can see your logic behind that but ( always that but) :D what if we take into account that trousers/pants were first of all basically designed for and worn by men only ( before emancipation) so can we assume that if a skirt was specifically designed for a man to wear then it would be OK for men to wear them .

[J'lyn GG]

I can see your logic behind that but ( always that but) :D what if we take into account that trousers/pants were first of all basically designed for and worn by men only ( before emancipation) so can we assume that if a skirt was specifically designed for a man to wear then it would be OK for men to wear them .

Short answer: yes. ie kilts are made for men. A man is not presenting as a female when wearing a kilt. But that's besides the point. Heather's SO is using this as an excuse to bulldoze over her comfort levels and do what he wants. (from what I understannd) Not fair to make her feel like a hypocrite so he can guilt her into accepting or being ok w/ him doing whatever he wants. Correct?

[Joanne f]

Yes you are correct he should not be doing that way .

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Short answer: yes. ie kilts are made for men. A man is not presenting as a female when wearing a kilt. But that's besides the point. Heather's SO is using this as an excuse to bulldoze over her comfort levels and do what he wants. (from what I understannd) Not fair to make her feel like a hypocrite so he can guilt her into accepting or being ok w/ him doing whatever he wants. Correct?

this is the point...

it's an obvious true fact that society has a mostly double standard...

but it's also true that women don't fantasize about being men when wearing trousers, they don't wear masculine fashions for sexual gratification, for relaxation, to express their identities, for the thrill...etc...

the double standard is not fair, and it hurts crossdressers for sure..however, it's a disingenous argument to call your wife a hypocrite..

pointing out that women wear "mens fashions" is an argument that falls mostly flat with people outside the broader tg community..
the reason for this is that the distinction between crossdressing and women wearing masculine fashion is so obvious

the better argument is much simpler...
there is nothing at all wrong with crossdressing, and that it's very important to the crossdresser ..if crossdressing is not accepted by the SO, then it's a relationship issue, not a "crossdressing" issue..

[Danni Renee]

Heather, you are in a no win situation here for certain and unfortunately your SO chose to put you there. I doubt it was intentional but regardless you are there none the less. I think the other ladies here have thoroughly discussed the issue of "rights" and the acknowledgement of the hipocracy in society. Although there is no real "win" here for you or your SO, it does present the opportunity for discussion. I am not sure what boundaries you have set for him (if any) but taking it slow is the best course of action. I was guilty of moving too fast for my girlfriend and it certainly set us back a little. But when we talked and I slowed down it really helped the relationship and now she is comfortable with me dressing whenever I want. I know you are nervous and scared and a little lost and your SO is probably ready to go full speed ahead with his new found freedom after telling you about it but things can work out for you both with trust, communication, and time. Let him know your feelings. I hope you are able to come to a good compromise.

[TGMarla]

You are right. And no matter how much any guys try to paint hypocracy in this situation, he's still beating a long-dead horse. Like it or not, it's not the same thing.

:dh:

[Pythos]

Women who wear pants & polo shirts have no thought of gender when they choose their clothing. Men who wear dresses, and women's pants & polo shirts do. It's as simple as that.

Thing is....what if I could wear my skirts as a male or as an androgen (mix of both styles), and NOT GET RIDICULED to the point of losing one's reputation at one's job, having family members hate them, having wives leave them, and so on and so forth.

I most likely would never have tried out breast shaping or tucking except for costuming, had I not faced the BS I faced from my parental units along with other intolerant people if I could freely choose a skirted out fit, longer hair and makeup, and still be treated as and addressed like a man. But as we all know, women wear trousers, do not ALWAYS try to female (Oh you are fooling yourself if you think this is always true. The GG herself said she wears pants to feel more assertive, or even more boyish).

Women can choose between many many styles and wear those styles as women. But if a guy openly wears a skirt, hose, and heels, with a nice blouse, maybe with longer hair (this is no different than a woman in jeans, tennies, t-shirt, and with a short hair cut), he faces all kinds of stuff a woman does not. In my field it can lead to people thinking I am mentally unfit to be pilot in command of an aircraft. A woman doing similar WOULD NOT.

I would love to take my Abby like outfit that I have here and make an androgynous to even male version of it and add it to my wardrobe choices, but due to the limited thinking of the general public, the skirt and hose are for women only.

I think the attitude of "it's ok as long as its not my man" among women is going the way of the do do. I sure hope so. I have noticed many women hanging on to the mythical male protector image, and that protector too often looks like some quintessential image of a male that has been shoved down their throat from day one.

Men cannot be cute, they cannot be whimsical, they must be rocks, and solid (I am exaggerating here).

To answer the OP's question, in my opinion when a women forbids her male SO from wearing items of clothing that arbitrarily fall into the female category (a category that dwarfs the choices males have), she is in fact exercising a HUGE example of hypocrisy.

I recall on one of the many occasions where my mother was insulting my wearing of leggings, when I said "but mom, you wear jeans". Her response? "Well that's different." How? How was my wearing leggings in a tasteful manner and NOT trying to look feminine, and her wearing jeans that looked like they belonged on a man, any different aside from she was a woman and I was a male? There is another term I apply to this hypocrisy....sexism.

Now this is a male in skirt look that aside from my brillo pad hairdo, is one I would love to go out and about in
http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww102/Pythos1/personal%20skirted%20styles/DSCF0681.jpg

Now, in this I am NOT trying to appear feminine. But you all know that this would not do well in most circles, and many women would reject a man similarly attired just purely based on the double standard which we address.

[Pythos]

GraceAnne. I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE LIMITED TO KILTS!!! Just like I am sure you would not want to be limited to linen beige trousers of a loose fit with a side zip. Why the hell should I be limited in the kinds of skirts I can wear, when you can wear whatever style of pants you wish. The only reason there are pants "made for women" is because some clothing makers decided to do it. Womens pants need more room for the hips and a bit different fit in the inseam.

HOw are skirts to be modified for a more masculine build? My skirts have NO modifications and fit me just fine.

How about this. DROP the double standards? How about drop the gender lables. How about equality?

As far as the compromise you presented. How would you feel if your husband dictated to you (under the guise of compromise) that you can wear pants only twice a week every other week? All the other times you must be dressed like Barbara Billingsly from Leave it to Beaver? His reasoning being that he wants his wife to be the quintesential house wife, and that image is of the 50s house wife. He does not want shoved in his face the liberated woman, (yes women's pants are a result of women gaining some liberation)

Also. The notion that this argument is like kicking a dead horse. BS!!! It is only considered that because too many have given up. It is just as valid an argument, it is just there are too many people here, and elsewhere that come out with the "dead horse" argument. Yes there are some invalid statements in the argument that ocasionally come up. But the base issue, Women having a wiser range in clothing choices, and men not, is JUST AS VALID.

[TGMarla]

No, it's still a dead horse, as the argument for hypocrisy has been kicked to death. The answer to the question is, as you have indicated, to remove the social stygma for men wearing such articles of clothing, just as women have done it for the wearing of trousers. It is not a hypocrisy because women successfully removed that social stygma while men have not done so in reverse. women can wear anything they want to with aplomb. Men cannot do so at present, but with the help of people like yourself, this stygma slowly evaporates for men.

[Vanessa Storrs]

Of course it is not fair. Many things in life are not fair. Is it fair that women make 70% of what a man makes? Is it fair that women have monthly cycles and men do not? Is it fair that women are often victims of sexual harassment and men are not?
The old "Life Is Not Fair" argument is not valid, men can wear skirts if we wish, we can wear makeup, all we have to do is to pull up our big boy panties and get on with life.

[jill_cd_girl]

I pretty much agree with everyone here, especially Eluuzion. Here is what I think:

Is it hypocrisy? No. Hypocrisy is, roughly, failing to follow what one insists, in an almost oppressive and judgmental manner, on others. So, if I cheat on my taxes and feel bad about, explaining that I did a bad thing because I believe cheating on ones taxes is wrong, I am not necessarily being a hypocrite. If, however, I constantly preach about how cheating on taxes is a terrible thing, and how those that do cheat on their taxes are awful people, then I am being a hypocrite. Standards of dress may be 'unequal' in the sense of not the same. But that hardly counts sufficiently as hypocrisy. (Note the word 'hypocrite' literally is composed of the prefix 'hypo', meaning low, and 'critic/critical'; I understand that to mean that a person who is hypocritical fails to apply the same standards of judgments and criticism to him/her self that he/she applies to others.)

But a man in dresses and heels is denigrated whereas a woman in pants is not - how is that not hypocrisy? Having a double-standard is different from being hypocritical. The double-standard may lead to hypocrisy, but I don't take them to be the same. A man may view a sexually promiscuous woman in a negative way due to societal expectations on sexual proprieties governing the behavior of women, but he might not view sexually promiscuous men in the same way, though he himself is not sexually promiscuous. In such a case, he would be subscribing to a double standard, but not necessarily being a hypocrite.

So is there no difference between a man wearing a dress and heels and a woman wearing pants? There are plenty of differences. Typically, I take it that women don't wear pants and various articles of men's clothes because of transgender inclinations or fetish, but rather mainly for comfort and practicality. But I believe that men who crossdress, on the other hand, do typically dress because of transgender inclinations or fetish. (While some tg/cd do dress because it calms them, I don't think this should be conflated with the comfort and practicality motivation for women).

But it's seen as acceptable for women to dress in men's clothes but not the other way around! That's true, but this, again, isn't hypocrisy (see above). My guess is that the reason for this double standard or unequal standards of acceptable dress reflect something deeper in the psyche of our general society. At this point, I'm being totally speculative. I think many still see the feminine and masculine in a hierarchical fashion, with the former placed beneath the latter. They see, for example, masculinity as superior to the feminine, in the way they see adult maturity superior to childish immaturity. Hence, when a woman dresses in men's clothing, there is a sense in which for many this is going 'up' the ladder, empowering the woman, etc. But notice this presupposes a subscription to the hierarchy. Men who dress in women's clothes and look feminine, on the other hand, are taken to be going 'down' the ladder towards inferiority, similar to the way an adult who digresses into childish ways is seen (though perhaps to an even higher degree). This, again, presupposes a subscription to the hierarchy: the masculine is seen to be superior to the feminine. (Even consider the word 'emasculate', which means, generally, to weaken. It's root meaning, though, is to reduce masculinity, as if what is less masculine or not masculine is weaker or weak, respectively). It might be that once people stop subscribing to this hierarchy, people will be more accepting of the tg community. But again, this is all speculative at best.

[Pythos]

How is a WOMAN telling a man he cannot wear an article of clothing arbitrarally labled "female" while she can wear pants designed for a man "yes women do this", anywhere NOT hypocracy?

Oh and "life is not fair" is only valid, because people fall for that old cop out. The only reason it is not fair, when it comes to other human's behaviors is because we allow the unfairness to prevail. This statement is a cop out.

Vanessa, if you honestly think you can wear a skirt as a male and not face ridicule laughter and a trip to the house of pain, then please do. I would like a report of how it goes. When I have gone out in my skirted male outfits, yes for the most part nothing happened. BUT, I have gotten rauchious laughter from WOMEN!! and some very very scary looks from males (not surprisingly of the gang banger category). Women do not face this, even when looking almost complely male. I saw a woman acting as foreman for a natural gas pipeline crew. She looked like nothing less than a cowboy. 10 gallon hat, blue jeans, loose fitting shirt, and tan vest. She had on cowboy boots. If a man were to do the feminine equivelant of this, there is no way he would maintain is foreman position.

I have been able to wear my skirts with makeup and long hair, but only to certain venues, like my beloved goth clubs, and parties.

[ReineD]

Heather, I'm sorry your husband brought up this old and tired argument. It got so bad in this very forum some months back, that one of our FAB (Female At Birth) mods started a thread specifically to dispel the notion that women who wear pants crossdress, therefore if it is OK for us to wear pants then it should be OK for men to wear skirts.

Here's the link:
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?150664-We-are-not-crossdressers.....and-we-get-fed-up-of-being-told-we-are

8 pages, 188 posts, almost 1,000 views.

Although it is true that women have a much greater variety in terms of clothing options than men do the bottom line is, when most women wear pants in our culture they do not attempt to present male. (For the sake of inclusion, I want to add that of course this does not apply to transmen). But, most of the crossdressers (except perhaps Pythos and a few others) who wear skirts, most definitely attempt to present as women. Kilts and sarongs aside, there is a huge difference between the two.

I agree with Tanya C that your husband is probably saying this out of frustration, and perhaps also out of an attempt for justification. It is difficult for many crossdressers until they have accepted themselves to look inside and face their motives for dressing, which is that they do identify to a degree with the feminine gender.

Pythos .. I appreciate the strength of your views on this, but your argument that women and men *should* be able to have equal clothing options will not convince a brand new GG that her husband's argument is correct, in the context of their discussion. While it may be a great point of philosophical discussion, it does not reflect the way things are right now in our society and the challenges that couples face when the CDing first comes to light in their marriage, which is ultimately what this thread is all about.

[Sue101]

Although it is true that women have a much greater variety in terms of clothing options than men do the bottom line is, when most women wear pants in our culture they do not attempt to present male. (For the sake of inclusion, I want to add that of course this does not apply to transmen). But, most of the crossdressers (except perhaps Pythos and a few others) who wear skirts, most definitely attempt to present as women. Kilts and sarongs aside, there is a huge difference between the two.

Women's use of clothes designed to mimic men's is a form of crossdressing and if you read my last post in the beat the dead horse thead I explained it there. But I will address your point above and ask you to explain why someone's differing motivation to do something gives another person the right to deny them the right to do so? Why are actions and motivations being mixed up.

Here is an anology. A drives a car soley for transportation. B likes to drive a car for racing. Please explain why A can tell B that he is not allowed to drive simply because his motivation is different?

All I see is someone trying to rationalise why it is ok for them to do something and not ok for someone else. The implication is that the person is being deprived because his motivation is considered wrong.

I see no basis for a women to defend her wearing of pants because her motivations to do so are "normal" so giving her the moral authority to tell her spouse he does not have the same rights because his motivation differs.

[Rianna Humble]

Women's use of clothes designed to mimic men's is a form of crossdressing

PLEASE! Not that old sophistry again!!! :eek:

There is a fundamental difference between a woman wearing women's clothes in order to present as a woman and a man wearing women's clothes in order to present as a woman.

Let's indulge your little side-show a bit more


Here is an anology. A drives a car soley for transportation. B likes to drive a car for racing. Please explain why A can tell B that he is not allowed to drive simply because his motivation is different?

B should not drive on the public highway for the purpose of racing - whilst it is irrelevant that B will endanger his own life by doing so, he will also endanger the lives of innocent men, women and children by racing on the public highway. That is without even thinking of the trauma that will be caused to the ambulance crews and fire-fighters who have to clean up the mess that his racing will have caused.

[docrobbysherry]

Hello all.
This came to my mind today when random thoughts brought me back to a disagreement we recently had over clothes.
His question”. If it is not alright for me to wear what I want in my own home why is it alright for you to go out dressed in trousers”.
“This smacks of hypocrisy to me.”
My reply. “Society allows me to wear trousers as a fashion not to pretend I am a male”

I feel like I am in a no win situation here.
Any thoughts.?
Heather

Maybe it's like this, Heather:

It's OK for women to dress as, "Tomboys". And, they've been around for a LONG TIME! But, what about "Janegirls"? Society hasn't even recognized that they EXIST yet!
Much less come up with a proper word for them!

Until they do, it's HYPOCRISY!

[Annaliese2010]

Hello all.

His question”. If it is not alright for me to wear what I want in my own home why is it alright for you to go out dressed in trousers”.
“This smacks of hypocrisy to me.”
My reply. “Society allows me to wear trousers as a fashion not to pretend I am a male”

I feel like I am in a no win situation here.
Any thoughts.?
HeatherThere is hypocrisy but it's on you sister - if I may be so blunt. How can you not see it? And no, youre not just wearing trousers. You ARE in fact assuming a more maleness when wearing male clothing, you really are. It's just that its incremental - so its hard to discern. Go back far enough in time and you'd raise major controversy by doing that. Its just that women's sexual identity has evolved in time - its more flexible and encompassing. While mens societal roles have remain fixed since...oh I dont know...like the caveman days?! Unfair! I protest. In the end it's a losing battle though. It's been said that the most powerful force of nature resides between the thighs of a woman. Women have Always been the ultimate dispenser of pleasure. And now that "Law" pervades every aspect of 'civilized' human endeavor, there is no need for muscle or bravery or heroism or force or protection etc etc - all the things that empowered males, made them intrinsically valuable. Behold the 21st century! All's quiet on the Western front, and the Eastern, Northern & Southern. When's the last time you had to worry about your personal safety? Like....Never! Not in most cities & suburbs - long as you stay away from 'those' sections of town.

[ReineD]

But I will address your point above and ask you to explain why someone's differing motivation to do something gives another person the right to deny them the right to do so?

I agree, NO ONE has the right to deny anyone the right to dress however he or she pleases. I'm a staunch supporter of all the members in this forum. As far as I'm concerned, the right to present oneself as who we are is an inalienable right, unless of course the mode of expression propagates a message of hatred where a case might be made that in some situations, such form of expression should be curtailed.

What I was saying is that unfortunately members of our general society have not caught up to this view when it comes to gender expression. Bias is alive and well in our culture with gender and sexual expression along with a host of other things and the fact remains that most people believe in gender specific expression and further that anyone who transgresses this is viewed with suspicion. And this problem will remain as long as there is little education in our world about trans issues.

When a spouse first finds out about her husband's crossdressing, she will likely not immediately champion human rights and gleefully embrace the knowledge that her husband wants to wear a dress. So, philosophical discussions about what "should" be vs. what "is" are not helpful at this point. It is not through rhetoric that a spouse who has just found out will become convinced that it is OK for her husband to present to the world as a woman. It will take much more than that and a part of it will hinge as I said earlier on educating everyone so that the husband AND his wife will not suffer discrimination should people find out about the CDing.

I've just describe a situation where it is ONLY about the clothes, where the husband and wife don't battle over who gets to be the female in the relationship. But the other side of this is, if the gender expression is indicative of gender identity, then a heterosexual wife also has the right to her sexual preference. If she wishes to retain the female gender role in her relationship she has every right to move on. There are degrees of this, in other words a CDing husband may wish to retain his male role most of the time and his wife may be willing to relinquish or share her feminine role some of the time, or they might both decide to be gender neutral in terms of their roles ... this is up to each couple to decide.

But, when a wife first finds out about the CDing, not only is she concerned about what her family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors will think, she also needs to redefine the gender roles in their relationships based on her husband's degree of feminine identity.

[Rianna Humble]

His question”. If it is not alright for me to wear what I want in my own home why is it alright for you to go out dressed in trousers”.
“This smacks of hypocrisy to me.”
My reply. “Society allows me to wear trousers as a fashion not to pretend I am a male”


Firstly, Heather - despite what some people who continue to defend your SO's false argument might say - there is no hypocrisy when you wear clothes designed and tailored for women and portray yourself as the woman that you are. This is nothing like being the same as when a man puts on clothes designed and tailored for women whether it is to present himself as "a man in a dress" or to present himself as a woman.

Secondly, by joining these forums to gain more understanding of what your SO is going through, you have already proved that you are an extraordinary person and have demonstrated your love for your other half.

I don't think that your SO really intended to accuse you of hypocrisy, but it would appear to me to be an indication that he could be feeling emotionally hurt. This would be another reason for you to discuss your respective feelings as openly and as dispassionately as possible.

I get the impression from this and from some of your other posts that you do not yet feel comfortable to see him dressed (if I have misinterpreted you, please accept my apologies). There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but I would urge you to sit down quietly with your SO and discuss your feelings and his. In this way, I hope that you will be able to reach some compromises that will allow him to express this part of his personality without it making you uncomfortable.

It is my belief that as you understand more and also gain from the support of the otrher wives/SOs in the Female At Birth section, then you will probably want to revisit these compromises and may possibly - over time - feel able to participate in some way.

[Taylor186]

it's an obvious true fact that society has a mostly double standard...

but it's also true that women don't fantasize about being men when wearing trousers, they don't wear masculine fashions for sexual gratification, for relaxation, to express their identities, for the thrill...etc...

There is hardly anything obvious, truthful and/or factual when it comes to explaining the differences and motivations of MtF crossdressers versus a woman in pants.

In fact the nicely articulated argument above is why many, including myself, would say there is absolutely no societal double standard going on, at all. The well known motivations for most MtF CDs are completely different than those of the woman in pants (FtM excepted). Society and the Psychiatric community see this clearly. The women in our lives see this clearly. It continually baffles me as to why we (MtF crossdressers) cannot reach consensus on this.

[Sue101]

There is a fundamental difference between a woman wearing women's clothes in order to present as a woman and a man wearing women's clothes in order to present as a woman. Is this your knee-jerk reaction? You clearly did not bother to read my post since it has nothing to do with this issue.


B should not drive on the public highway for the purpose of racing Who said B was racing on roads? He is racing on a race track. Now please explain why A can tell B he cannot drive because he likes cars for racing not just for transportation purposes.


When a spouse first finds out about her husband's crossdressing, she will likely not immediately champion human rights and gleefully embrace the knowledge that her husband wants to wear a dress. So, philosophical discussions about what "should" be vs. what "is" are not helpful at this point. Sure in the time after discovery when emotions are running high, all bets are off. My issue is why this rationalization is still suuported even by those not in emotional turmoil. Just look at the answers in this thread where most agreed that the husband was wrong to point out the double standard????????

My mind boggles at the notion that many crossdressers actually agree that it is ok their clothing choice to be discriminated against because their motivation differs. The idea that we should use society's normalcy to guide us is precisely why so many wrongs like racism, bigotry and sexism continue to this day. If you cannot understand this principle then you are doomed to believing crossdressing is wrong and you will allow others to trample over your rights and dignity without objection.

Let me make clear - a person with rights cannot decline the same rights to another person (especially their spouse!) on the basis of society's inequitable normalcy codes.

[Pythos]

The last line in the preceeding post says it all. Double standards whether accepted in society or not are STILL wrong.

[Rianna Humble]

You clearly did not bother to read my post since it has nothing to do with this issue.

You are of course right since you won't allow anyone else to have an opinion. In fact I read so little that I was not even able to reply to your silly little example about someone who only likes to drive cars for the purpose of racing.


Who said B was racing on roads? He is racing on a race track.

That must have been in the part of your post that I didn't read because you hadn't written it.

[ReineD]

Sure in the time after discovery when emotions are running high, all bets are off. My issue is why this rationalization is still suuported even by those not in emotional turmoil. Just look at the answers in this thread where most agreed that the husband was wrong to point out the double standard????????

The answer to this is simple. We are all precisely in a thread that was started by a woman who has just found out about her partner's CDing and who is not familiar with any of the issues. This is not the place for rhetoric. None of these discussions will help her to align herself on the side of CDers who say there "should" be no difference in gender clothing anywhere in the world. The CDers in this thread understand that the husband will not further his own cause by pointing out something that his wife, understandably, is in no place to see right now. And even then, the minute you consider motives the argument falls through.

As to your earlier analogy about the motives for driving, as much as you may believe that motives shouldn't enter into the discussion, they simply are THE most important factor since they do indicate the degree of gender dysphoria. A wife has the right to know whether she is married to someone who sees himself as a man or a woman or who wishes to change the dynamics of their relationship by taking on the female gender role.

[suchacutie]

Societal norms about dress have changed over and over again throughout history. It just so happens that at the moment, in much of the planet, outside of some ethnic specifics (kilts, for example), it is not considered socially acceptable for a man to wear what we call "skirts" or "dresses" in public while still presenting as men. This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with crossdressing. They are completely separate issues and they should never be confused. Society in general is biased in this area, at this moment in time.

Then there is society's totally rediculous bias against either gender actually presenting as anything but their biological gender.

Let's keep the issues identified and separate, lest we lose our way!

tina

[Stephanie47]

I just dropped my wife off at work. I came home and slipped into my en femme attire. I am banging away on the key board dressed in a Studio 1940 black with floral design dress, black slip, bra, garter belt, panties, stockings and hosiery and heels. No makeup but I always wear a wig. What would my wife say if she walked in on me? The scene would be ugly. She knows I cross dress. I know she disapproves. I know the vast majority of people do not approve. They may not say anything, but, they do disapprove. So, if you want to make a statement. If you want to cause a great disturbance in the force. Then by all means force the issue.

I grew up in the 1950's and the best center fielder we had was "Charlie," AKA: Linda. She was a 'tomboy.' Was she a cross dresser? No, she just like playing baseball. She wore jeans and a tee shirt because it was comfortable. Sliding into home in a dress may have been the culture of the Tom Hanks' baseball movie of the World War II era, but, girls did not play baseball in the 1950's and 1960's.

My point is this" "I do not want to cause my wife mental anguish or pain because I want to upset society's conventions." This past season there was a nice advertisement for (finally) a line of female NFL jerseys. Great! As a cross dresser for whatever reasons that are truly unknown to me, I do want to present as a woman. This is not an issue of comfort for me. If I want comfort, I do not dress en femme. You will catch me barefooted with cut off jeans and a tee shirt.

This issue has been beaten to death. If anybody wants to assert their rights to dress anyway they want, assert them! Just remember there are always consequences for our actions- intended or unintended.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Let me make clear - a person with rights cannot decline the same rights to another person (especially their spouse!) on the basis of society's inequitable normalcy codes.

What do you think about the rights a wife has to simply not like her husband in a dress, or totally dressed....especially in the case where she had no idea her husband enjoyed feeling femme...

where do you place her rights?

[Jordana Divinorum]

I think there are a lot of cases where men wear something or want to wear something, and not because they want to appear as a female. A friend of mine bought shoes from Lady Footlocker because they fit him better. Does that mean he's a crossdresser? Also, what if a man finds a shirt or sweater he likes but it was intended for a woman? Or it could simply be skinny jeans or an earing that was made for women. Sometimes a man wearing one thing that was intended to be worn by a woman doesn't mean he is transgendered or trying to present himself as a woman. Is a UFC fighter that wears black nail polish a crossdresser? I might be totally wrong, but I do see a bit of a double standard as there are a lot of women that are on the masculine side and a lot of men that are on the feminine side. Only the men are labelled crossdressers because it is outside of the current social norms.

[Sue101]

Kaitlyn

The wife has exactly the same rights as the husband - the right to walk away if this is something she cannot accept. The husband has the same rights. See equality.

The OP was about whether it is hypocrisy. Whether or not you believe women crossdress when they choose to wear masculine clothes, she is still doing something she should not, namely believing she has the right to tell her husband he cannot do something which she does all the time. The husband is right to challenges this, he should be trying to open up her eyes (and heart) to the double standard. He is correct to challenge her desire to quote inequitable social norms to justify her point of view.

As Reine pointed out this may be moot if emotions are running high. Yes the wife certainly has the right to know why her husband wants to dress a certain way but that is not the issue under discussion.

[Taylor186]

He is correct to challenge her desire to quote inequitable social norms to justify her point of view.

The way I read Heather's original post he quoted the inequality of the social norm to justify his point of view, not the other way around.

I view the burden of persuasion is upon him not her. And quoting the tired old inequality cliche is not the best way to start, IMO. (We CDs cannot even come to agreement on this issue: after discussing it ad infinitum. How could she possibly make any sense of it in this context?)

Alternately, maybe she didn't sign up to be a social activist. Maybe her primary concern, understandably, is about what "is," not about what "should be" in society today. For many, striving to live the "American Dream" is tough enough without becoming (being perceived as) a "rule breaker."

We'd all like someone to equalize that norm, certainly. But it seems to me, from the posts I've read, that most here at CD.com are in the closet to a large degree. If we're not actively working to change mainstream society's perception, why should we expect her to accept it?

One more thing. He is the one who called it a hypocrisy. I don't see this double standard as a hypocrisy. Maybe he can work on that inflammatory description too.

[Pythos]

Taylor, double standards ARE hypocrisy. They are saying "you can't do what I do because of (state reason here). In the case of women. Women could not play baseball on my team. But boys could. There was no girl's baseball team. That was hypocritical. How? The girls that wanted to play the same game boys could were told they couldn't because they were girls.

When scoffed at the idea of their daughters wearing jeans to school, those people (usually men if I am not mistaken) were exercising a double standard, as well as hypocrisy, along with sexism. The same goes for women not being able to be part of the police force, or heck even to work in a junk yard.

Oh, and on the quoted line. What desire was being challenged was the woman's desire to follow societal norms and restrict her husband from wearing feminine clothing , when she wears what USED to be considered male only clothing.

How about this. Let's just agree that telling someone, restricting someone, or denying someone something (other than intimacy), simply on the basis of their birth sex is SEXIST, and is also very very wrong. Never mind what the "other side" is doing. Let's see how the discussion goes from there.

[Taylor186]

Taylor, double standards ARE hypocrisy.

Sorry, but for her to accept this double standard is not the same as her being a hypocrite.

[from dictionary.com]
Main Entry: hypocrite

Definition: person who pretends, is deceitful

Synonyms: Pharisee, actor, attitudinizer, backslider, bigot, bluffer, casuist, charlatan, cheat, con artist, crook, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, fake, faker, four-flusher, fraud, hook, humbug, impostor, informer, lip server, malingerer, masquerader, mountebank, phony, playactor, poser, pretender, quack, smoothie, sophist, swindler, trickster, two-face, two-timer, wolf in sheep's clothing


Main Entry: hypocrisy

Definition: deceitfulness, pretense

Synonyms: affectation, bad faith, bigotry, cant, casuistry, deceit, deception, dishonesty, display, dissembling, dissimulation, double-dealing, duplicity, false profession, falsity, fraud, glibness, imposture, insincerity, irreverence, lie, lip service, mockery, pharisaicalness, pharisaism, phoniness, pietism, quackery, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, speciousness, unctuousness

[Rianna Humble]

Let me get this right. A man shatters his wife's world by the revelation that he is not the person she thought that she married. She tries to understand and joins this site to gain more insight into what makes him tick, but she does not instantly encourage him to dress around the house as often as he wants regardless of her feelings, so he is right to accuse her of hypocrisy?

Get real people! Heather came here, questioning herself, trying to understand what makes her husband tick and you-all accuse her of being a hypocrite.

You expect wives / girlfriends / partners or what have you to instantly accommodate your dressing yet you are not willing to give any consideration to those SO's when they are trying to understand.

Not only that, but the best justification you can come up with for accusing her is the notion that men wearing women's clothes to portray themselves as women is no different to women wearing clothes designed to be worn by women with no attempt to portray themselves as men. Or some sophistry about once upon a time it was frowned upon for women to wear functional garments.

I think the wrong person is being accused of hypocrisy.

[Pythos]

Taylor...I stand corrected. My error. I was going (mistakenly) by the mainstream definition of hypocricy.

So it would seem what we are indeed dealing with is a double standard.

Doen't make it any more right though.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

the hypocrisy in the OP's argument is that he is saying what he is doing is OK because "it's not fair that men can't wear because women wear trousers"... that does not even come close to passing the smell test...

one thing that really really outs this as baloney is that if really is just a fashion issue, then it would not dominate your life ...i really liked those 70's "clyde" puma sneakers growing up, but when they went out of style, i didn't sneak around wearing them when i was alone

Crossdressing is OK because it's ok...but if you really believe that , then don't pussyfoot around with these types of discussions...talk about the underlying issue, and how crossdressing makes you feel inside, how the need to dress will never go away, and how it is overwhelming at times, how many crossdressers go on to realize that they are ts, and others keep feeling compelled to feminize themselves more and more....how you understand your SO may feel deceived, and how you felt it was undisclosable before, and how it may have caused anxiety and other negative feelings in you that you repressed... and how you are willing to work in the relationship to fit this important part of you into a framework that works for you and your SO......these are the real issues...

[Taylor186]

one thing that really really outs this as baloney is that if really is just a fashion issue, then it would not dominate your life ...i really liked those 70's "clyde" puma sneakers growing up, but when they went out of style, i didn't sneak around wearing them when i was alone

QFT



(ignore this: just getting around the, 20 character minimum)

[Sue101]

And quoting the tired old inequality cliche is not the best way to start, IMO.

The inequality may be a tired cliche to you on a crossdressing forum but it certainly is not to a couple who are discussing these issues for the first time.


Alternately, maybe she didn't sign up to be a social activist. She does not have to be. Is her husband asking for public support or private? This is about understanding your spouse's needs and having your own recognized. Something which happens all the time in relationships. The crux of the matter is the negative feelings generated by crossdressing and how these are handled within the relationship dynamic.


Maybe he can work on that inflammatory description too. I agree not the most helpful way to put it, he should have talked about society's double standard not go personal. However I would guess this was said during an argument so it is forgiveable. What is more important is the recognition that it exists and should not be used.

The discussion should always focus on what really matters - namely what feelings are generated, why do they exist, are they justifiable and morally right, are they flexible, what compromises need to be made to make things work.

[TxKimberly]

No it is not Hypocrisy, and for the very reason that you mentioned. Comparing your wearing of 100% socially acceptable and appropriate clothing to our wearing of 100% unacceptable and inappropriate clothing is not fair or valid.
But honestly, that's really not the question at the heart of this, is it? The real question is, is it fair or right that he apparently is not allowed to wear what he wants in his own home? That question has nothing to do with society and is entirely between the two of you.

[Pythos]

Comparing your wearing of 100% socially acceptable and appropriate clothing to our wearing of 100% unacceptable and inappropriate clothing is not fair or valid.

The wearing of pants by women outside the garden was pretty much the same. It was also 100% unacceptable for a woman to show any part of the ankle.

Frankly the wearing of female garments by a male is not 100% unacceptable, it is maybe 30%, but that 30% is very vocal, and full of bigotry.

Don't support that 30%

[Taylor186]

The discussion should always focus on what really matters - namely what feelings are generated, why do they exist, are they justifiable and morally right, are they flexible, what compromises need to be made to make things work.

Yes, I fully agree that the discussion should "focus on what really matters."

So I say the "women can so why can't men" is a "tired old cliche" because invoking it may actually do exactly the opposite of what the crossdresser wants. It basically reminds the partner/wife that the full weight of society and social norms are on their side. It totally sidetracks the discussion from "what really matters" and how "to make things work," to one about how "society is unfair." The unfairness of society with regards to crossdressing is just not something most partner/wives want to expend much effort changing, and rightly so, given most CDs are closeted and not actively trying to change those social norms either.

I say she has to become an activist in that she has to be prepared to defend this currently "anti-social" behavior if and or when this "shared secret" becomes public even if it is only to neighbors, co-workers, family and/or friends. Every week on these boards someone posts a topic that says, more or less, "I've been outed, what now?" So, if she cannot defend this seemingly strange behavior when confronted publicly then her own self-esteem comes into question. The neighbors, co-workers, family or friends will certainly wonder, "what's wrong with her to stay with a kook like that?" It ideally will never become public, but she carries the burden of being prepared anyway.


"I agree not the most helpful way to put it, he should have talked about society's double standard not go personal. However I would guess this was said during an argument so it is forgiveable."

I cannot imagine any couples/family counselor (and I have talked with many) who would ever say that going "personal," even during the heat of an argument, is "forgivable." Going "personal" is never ever productive, in the heat of the argument or not, if you "want to make things work."


"What is more important is the recognition that it exists and should not be used."

Agreed

[ReineD]

No it is not Hypocrisy, and for the very reason that you mentioned. Comparing your wearing of 100% socially acceptable and appropriate clothing to our wearing of 100% unacceptable and inappropriate clothing is not fair or valid.
But honestly, that's really not the question at the heart of this, is it? The real question is, is it fair or right that he apparently is not allowed to wear what he wants in his own home? That question has nothing to do with society and is entirely between the two of you.

And that, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter. Heather, I think it would be good if your husband were to tell you that he feels the need to dress a certain way, and if he can, also tell you why or where it comes from, even if it is a need to feel feminine sometimes. It would be more honest than trying to disassociate himself from the need to CDress by spouting arguments over the unfairness of gendered clothing. And hopefully the two of you will be able to agree to a compromise especially since he is talking about dressing at home.

Also, Heather, you've no doubt by now discovered that we love a good discussion here at CD.com and that threads often veer away from the original concerns the thread starter may have had. I hope that you will appreciate that many of the points made in your thread were in the spirit of general discussion rather than specific advice and support for you, and just take it for what it is. :)

[TxKimberly]

The wearing of pants by women outside the garden was pretty much the same. It was also 100% unacceptable for a woman to show any part of the ankle.

Frankly the wearing of female garments by a male is not 100% unacceptable, it is maybe 30%, but that 30% is very vocal, and full of bigotry.

Don't support that 30%

Yepper, but the key word in your statement is "WAS". Long ago it WAS inappropriate for a woman to wear pants, but that is history and not valid today for most developed nations.

Women stood up for their freedoms and fought for them. I guarantee you that the first women to start wearing pants were laughed at, picked on, and abused, but they toughed it out and achieved their goal. If a significant number or majority of men are willing to do the same for the "right" to wear skirts, then society will again adapt and bow to the majority. The thing is though, that the majority of males are not going to clamor for the right to wear what the majority of females fought to get out of. LOL

[ReineD]

Kim, I agree with you and an added point is, there is such a thing as universal truth. Women were ready at the turn of the last century to be recognized as also having rights, and though the first women may have caused raised eyebrows among other women and perhaps some fear, deep down they weren't disapproved of. If they had been universally scorned, then the movement for women's liberation would not have taken on the epic proportions that it did. Pants became a symbol for a woman's ability to be her own person and to make her own choices in terms of no longer being a man's property, and it didn't take long for all women to want to shed their shackles. And as you say, the battle to cross gender lines, even though it is also a matter of equal rights, does not speak to nearly as many people as did the battle for women's rights.