Definitions outside our forum

[Sarah Doepner]

We have seen several threads recently attempting to unravel some of the tangled defiinitions we commonly use. Crossdresser vs. Transvestite vs. Transgender vs. Transexual etc. have been discussed with logic and emotion bringing in clinical definitions and personal expericence as well. I admire and respect this discussion as we attempt to find out where we fit in the world. It is important that we are able to define ourselves by what we are rather than by the process of elimination stating what we are not. I'm not pre-op TS, I'm not Gay and I'm not dressing en femme for physical pleasure, but the way the terms are being bantied about in the wider world, I don't have a definition I can comfortably hang my wig on.

Here is what I'm talking about. Outside our forum the world continues to do what it wants. It is Transgender Awareness Month and locally there have been a series of discussions sponsored by the local Pride Center and reported on by local media. Here is a link to the coverage of one of those events and the discussion that is taking place in the public forum.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52902406-78/neca-gender-grayson-utah.html.csp

The issue I'm seeing seems to be the adoption of the term Transgender to mean nearly the same as Transsexual while at the same time making Transvestite and Crossdresser refer to more of a fetish behavior. We can do all we can to define these terms as they fit within our forum, but when we turn outside it seems they are doing what they will. As you read the story and comments, it turns out it isn't the media that is doing this, but it is the GLBTQ community. It seems that we need, one way or another, to enter that wider discussion and stake out some territory that will maintain a place from which we can spend time teaching something other than definitions.

[Rianna Humble]

I don't read the article the same way as you. To me, the paragraph which contains
Many think of gender in black and white terms, but there is a great deal of unacknowledged diversity, said Dayne Law, the Pride Center’s transgender program director. The conference supports those who don’t fit in strict male and female categories, as well as their loved ones and the professionals who help them. appears to make it clear that they are not talking merely about transsexuals.

I agree that the specific examples in the article are of TS individuals, but are we now to be banished from being recognised as part of the TG community? If so, I commend you to the separatist group whose manifesto was publicised in the TS forum. Also, you say that this is part of a Transgender Awareness Month, could it be that there is still time in that month for a second article to appear? A single article for a whole month seems somewhat paltry to me.

[Cheryl T]

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by what we are rather than by the process of elimination stating what we are not.

Sorry to have to disagree.

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

[Sarah Doepner]

Sorry to have to disagree.

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

Cheryl, your point is well taken and the poor choice of wording was mine. You are correct it is Who we are and I didn't mean to objectify anyone.

[Sarah Doepner]

I don't read the article the same way as you. To me, the paragraph which contains appears to make it clear that they are not talking merely about transsexuals.

I agree that the specific examples in the article are of TS individuals, but are we now to be banished from being recognised as part of the TG community? If so, I commend you to the separatist group whose manifesto was publicised in the TS forum. Also, you say that this is part of a Transgender Awareness Month, could it be that there is still time in that month for a second article to appear? A single article for a whole month seems somewhat paltry to me.

There have been other presentations and articles, and will probably be more. It could be that I'm reading more into it than is actually there, but I don't see much in the media that represents me or most of the crossdressers I know when the topic is transgenderism. It could be a result of a couple of things. First is the success the GLBTQ community has had over the last many years in bringing public awareness of their issues and points of view. The second is the tendency of the media to focus on the extremes in society. In that media environment a crossdresser is not nearly as interesting as someone who has GRS.

While I doubt we are being isolated or intentionally banished from or by the TG community. However, I'd suggest as the media pairs TG and TS as synonyms and relegates Crossdressing to news of the weird stories about failed bank robberies, we are losing ground. Later in the month I may discover they have covered crossdressing with respect and accuracy and I'll very happily eat my words, but for now I'm not seeing that happening.

[sanderlay]

My thoughts from the article...
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52...-utah.html.csp

I'm delighted that many in society are breaking down these old hurtful stereo types in favor of helping the person find themselves and how they wish to present to the world. That's un-conditional love and a great real life story. My congratulations go the the parents and care takers of these beautiful persons as they make their way in a challenging world. Thank you for sharing.

Definitions...
We need to help people on these different personal and unique journeys. The Standards of Care version 7, and beyond, helps in this process but it is not the last word. Education and tolerance should be a big part of education today. Terms and labels will change as time goes on and we need as a society need to keep ourselves up to date and remain flexible and tolerant of each other. What worked for you, and your journey, may not work for another as we are all individuals.

FYI... I wish to avoid hurtful discussions that only seem to entrench old wounds and alienate new ideas. If I come off as arrogant to you then tell me. I want to come across as friendly, flexible and a teachable heart. I'm open to new ideas and concepts.

[Frédérique]

The issue I'm seeing seems to be the adoption of the term Transgender to mean nearly the same as Transsexual while at the same time making Transvestite and Crossdresser refer to more of a fetish behavior. We can do all we can to define these terms as they fit within our forum, but when we turn outside it seems they are doing what they will. As you read the story and comments, it turns out it isn't the media that is doing this, but it is the GLBTQ community. It seems that we need, one way or another, to enter that wider discussion and stake out some territory that will maintain a place from which we can spend time teaching something other than definitions.

In my mind a transgendered person is more like a transsexual than one who crossdresses for pleasure, but I’m basing that assessment on a definition I once read, stating that a transgendered person lives as the other gender, 24/7, but does not entertain the idea of SRS. If that is incorrect, I welcome any responses from TG or TS individuals, but that definition makes sense to me. With that in mind, a MtF crossdresser, who is largely concerned with one’s tactile or physical pleasure, is definitely NOT the same as a TG. In my case, I don’t live as a woman 24/7, and I cross over and cross back according to the whim of the moment, i.e. how I’m feeling. It would be an insult to all TG’s everywhere to proclaim “I am transgendered,” when, compared to what other TG’s do, I am not like them at all (except that I also wear women’s clothing)…
:straightface:

In this context, I would say the GLBTQ community you are referring to isn’t too far off base. It may be painting with a broad brush to call all CD’s purveyors of fetishism, but, if I may say so, the shoe fits. The more dedicated CD who is less fetishistic and is moving towards a TG lifestyle is the “betwixt and between” person here, but, for the sake of expediency, certain types of behavior may need to be clumped together with the idea of longed-for tolerance in mind. However, “staking out territory” sounds a lot like male behavior, and there is no wider discussion I wish to enter into at this time – I’m here, on this site, because MtF crossdressers understand other MtF crossdressers (by and large), and, since I‘m solitary, a group cannot or will not be able to speak for me under any circumstances. I’m on the queer periphery, and that’s where I wish to stay, away from the other “community” that is embarrassed by my existence…

[Kaz]

Inside, from an early age, well puberty actually, I wished I would become female... I went to bed every night wishing I would wake up as a girl. It never happened. So I did what people did in those days and set out on my 'predestined' path... I was fortunate... 18 years old in the early 70s... I got to be a local guitar hero and wore stack heeled boots and satin and crushed velvet, grew my hair long. I bought high heeled boots from women's show shops, and more! All in the name of rock... It was great and my girl-friend encouraged me! Got to wear make-up on stage and life was good... BUT... end of University.. get a job... band carried on (different band by now) but then we were into the punk rock era...

Now... I wonder who the hell I am? A TG, a TS, a CD? I don't actually give a s**t. I don't want to be part of a prescribed category with tight definitions and rules.

These definitions are drawn up by activist and pressure groups to suit their causes (all with the best intentions)... the reality is that it ain't that simple.

So I will resist joining any subdivision as I haven't found one that I fit. So I guess I will always be an outsider... just Kaz... figuring it out... and doing what I do...

[Babette]

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

Cheryl sums my feelings with her two sentences. Speaking only for myself, I am anoyed by terms like transsexual, transgendered, crossdresser, etc. Except for a few members on this forum that I have personally met, most of you know very little about me. So here is my bottom line. I am nothing more than a person and should we meet someday, my only wish is to leave you with the impression that I am a good person. If you think later of me as a TS, TG or CD, then I have failed to live up to my expectations. Does anyone else feel this way?

Babette

[Vickie_CDTV]

In my mind a transgendered person is more like a transsexual than one who crossdresses for pleasure, but I’m basing that assessment on a definition I once read, stating that a transgendered person lives as the other gender, 24/7, but does not entertain the idea of SRS. If that is incorrect, I welcome any responses from TG or TS individuals, but that definition makes sense to me.

You are thinking of "transgenderist", the term Virginia Prince coined to describe someone who is FT and transitioned but does not desire SRS, a term she also used to describe herself.

[sanderlay]

... It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

Exactly my feeling on the mater.


Cheryl sums my feelings with her two sentences. Speaking only for myself, I am anoyed by terms like transsexual, transgendered, crossdresser, etc. Except for a few members on this forum that I have personally met, most of you know very little about me. So here is my bottom line. I am nothing more than a person and should we meet someday, my only wish is to leave you with the impression that I am a good person. If you think later of me as a TS, TG or CD, then I have failed to live up to my expectations. Does anyone else feel this way?

Babette

Yes... I am a person... not a label.



... Now... I wonder who the hell I am? A TG, a TS, a CD? I don't actually give a s**t. I don't want to be part of a prescribed category with tight definitions and rules. ...

Yes... Get to know... ME... not some assigned term that rarely paints an accurate picture. I live 24/7 presenting mix clothing presentation to the world. I will not hide my feminine or my masculine self as both are part of who I am.



I’m here, on this site, because MtF crossdressers understand other MtF crossdressers (by and large), and, since I‘m solitary, a group cannot or will not be able to speak for me under any circumstances. I’m on the queer periphery, and that’s where I wish to stay, away from the other “community” that is embarrassed by my existence…

How can I be embarrassed by another persons journey? To do so would deny my own past and sent a hurtful message.

I fully believe everyone has the right to present their gender as who they wish and not be boxed into some set standard. They do however need to respect their own ID gender and use appropriate public facilities, as I do as a male. I never use a women's bathroom no mater how I'm dressed.

[Sophie86]

I posted this link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-juro/why-transgender-identity-_b_1069475.html) in that other thread (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?162444-Can-you-CD-w-o-being-TG&p=2647232&viewfull=1#post2647232), but it makes a nice companion piece for Sarah's article. In neither one is there any mention of crossdressers. Transsexuals are used to represent the transgender community, and that "unacknowledged diversity" remained unacknowledged, and undefined.

[Aprilrain]

I posted this link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-juro/why-transgender-identity-_b_1069475.html) in that other thread (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?162444-Can-you-CD-w-o-being-TG&p=2647232&viewfull=1#post2647232), but it makes a nice companion piece for Sarah's article. In neither one is there any mention of crossdressers. Transsexuals are used to represent the transgender community, and that "unacknowledged diversity" remained unacknowledged, and undefined.

Could this be that very few CDers are willing to throw a monkey wrench into their comfortable male lives in order to gain some acceptance as CDers? just a thought.

[Sophie86]

Could this be that very few CDers are willing to throw a monkey wrench into their comfortable male lives in order to gain some acceptance as CDers? just a thought.

No. Regardless of whether or not they could have been found, neither author had to have specific examples in order to mention the existence of crossdressers.

[KellyJameson]

Words make me apprehensive because the definitions build boxes that feel like coffins and than we become corpses
and they should come with a warning label like cigaretes "may help bring clarity but also may cause greater confusion"

For me I just do not want people to hurt me for being myself after that it is only a question of self discovery and self expression which I call life.

[docrobbysherry]

Sarah, I may be off base, but maybe it's NOT about definitions of CD/TG/TSs that is the issue. But, UNDERSTANDING that there is incredibly diverse community UNDER those/that label!?

I'm still coming to grips with it all after 4 years here. I'm sympathetic with the general public's and media's lack of understanding. Because unless you're VERY INTERESTED in the topic, you're likely to lose interest before you've barely scratched the surface of the subject!

It's much easier for them to pigeon hole us, like they can with gay or bi's. "Yeah, I know all about them. They sleep with members of their own sex."

[Jorja]

Sorry to have to disagree.

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.


Cheryl sums my feelings with her two sentences. Speaking only for myself, I am anoyed by terms like transsexual, transgendered, crossdresser, etc. Except for a few members on this forum that I have personally met, most of you know very little about me. So here is my bottom line. I am nothing more than a person and should we meet someday, my only wish is to leave you with the impression that I am a good person. If you think later of me as a TS, TG or CD, then I have failed to live up to my expectations. Does anyone else feel this way?

Babette

Personally I believe Cheryl and Babatte have hit the nail squarely on the head. There is way too much time and effort spent trying to define something which is undefinable. There are too many variations that someone would be left out or feel insulted because they were not included.

The only label I personally go by is my name. Jorja. What am I? I am a woman.

[NicoleScott]

The only label I personally go by is my name. Jorja. What am I? I am a woman.

Your post (#17) makes me think you don't like labels, then you label yourself as a woman. That, of course, depends on your definition of a woman. Most sources agree that a woman is an adult female, which you are not. But I guess that depends on the definition of a female. Most sources would refer to the genetic information and sex organs you were born with. The problem with labels continues, especially when we make up our own definitions.

[kimdl93]

Sarah, I may be off base, but maybe it's NOT about definitions of CD/TG/TSs that is the issue. But, UNDERSTANDING that there is incredibly diverse community UNDER those/that label!?...

."

I agree entirely. I also think there's an element of denial involved. I may not like the idea that my behavior would be defined in a certain way, so I might question the definition.

[Claire Cook]

Sorry to have to disagree.

It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

True, we are all individuals, but probably no two of us have the same view of where we are in what Joan Roughgarden calls "the rainbow". Others do think in terms of categories and definitions, and in this context I don't see a problem with this article. "Transgenderism" as I understand it embraces everything within that rainbow, from closeted panty wearers to post-op transexuals. When the question comes up, I tell people that I'm transgendered -- a happily married crossdresser.

[Jorja]

Your post (#17) makes me think you don't like labels, then you label yourself as a woman. That, of course, depends on your definition of a woman. Most sources agree that a woman is an adult female, which you are not. But I guess that depends on the definition of a female. Most sources would refer to the genetic information and sex organs you were born with. The problem with labels continues, especially when we make up our own definitions.

This is where the problem lies. We have people, like you, who do not have the education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity. You my friend, are not a linguist.

As for most sources refering to the genetic information and sex organs one was born with, I have yet, in the past 31 years, had anyone, any doctor, state or federal government, any agengy or organization require my genetic information or ask to see my sex organs before granting me membership, a loan, a job, medical treatment etc….. Therefore, you are incorrect in your assumption that genetic information or proof of sexual organs is needed to qualify as a female.

On top of all that, my birth certificate has shown that I am female for the past 31 years. I am truly sorry you were not around or aware of your condition when this brief and almost unknown expermental opportunity came along in my home state’s political arena. I was infact in transition at the time and was smart enough to take advantage if it. I would not have known of the program had I not been friends with one of the state senators at that time.

So you see, I am a woman. Learn of what you speak, before you speak. It helps all concerned.

[Veronica27]

You are thinking of "transgenderist", the term Virginia Prince coined to describe someone who is FT and transitioned but does not desire SRS, a term she also used to describe herself.

You are quite right in that Virginia Prince used the word transgenderist to describe herself. The word transgender actually originated sometime in the late 1960's, but there was no concensus as to what it meant. When Virginia Prince became concerned that what she had become in her senior years did not reflect the type of individuals that her organization Tri-ess was about, she felt that she needed a term that would distinguish those like herself from most of the Tri-ess membership. The word transgender seemed descriptive of what she felt she had become, and she coined transgenderist which is simply a noun form of the adjectives transgender or transgendered. Her defining of the term became the standard until the activists broadened it to an umbrella term in the 1980's. Both schools of thought prevail, although the Prince version has become somewhat broader than simply those living full time on hormones but not SRS, while the "umbrellists" have attempted to include intersex, transex and several others in their version.

Veronica

[Veronica27]

This is where the problem lies. We have people, like you, who do not have the education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity. You my friend, are not a linguist.



You are a tad harsh on Nicole. The post to which she referred made no reference to you having transitioned or being in transition. I jumped to a similar conclusion that there was an inconsistency between your distaste for labels and your use of two labels, your name and woman. For most crossdressers, the reality is that they are not genetic women, despite the fact that they may feel that they are, wish to be one, identify as one or whatever. So you appeared to be injecting a definition of woman after stating such terminology was indefinable. Lets all discuss things in a civil manner.

Veronica

[DanaR]

.................It is important that we are able to define ourselves by WHO we are...NOT "What" we are. The most important thing is the character of the person not the label we or anyone else places on that person.

Cheryl sums my feelings with her two sentences. Speaking only for myself, I am anoyed by terms like transsexual, transgendered, crossdresser, etc. Except for a few members on this forum that I have personally met, most of you know very little about me. So here is my bottom line. I am nothing more than a person and should we meet someday, my only wish is to leave you with the impression that I am a good person. If you think later of me as a TS, TG or CD, then I have failed to live up to my expectations. Does anyone else feel this way?

Babette

This is the way that I feel as well.

[ReineD]

I agree, the media seems to be increasingly more comfortable with the term "transgender" than "transsexual". I wonder if they prefer to keep the "sexual" part of "transsexual" out of their headline, in order to not titillate. We all know how many people have a good chuckle and sneer whenever they see the term "sex" or "sexual". We do live in a puritanical society.

Had the story been about a crossdressing child, I wonder if they still would have used the term "transgender" in the title, in order to stay clear of the negative, fetishistic image that is commonly associated with the term "crossdresser".

Also, transgender is a neutral term that is applicable to a variety of gender identities and expression. People who read the term are free to assign whatever meaning they want to it. The term "transgender" begs for further explanation, which is its purpose. "Transgender" no more defines a person's particulars, than the word "food" when you are describing what you had for dinner. The terms "transsexual" and "crossdresser" have much narrower connotations.


my only wish is to leave you with the impression that I am a good person. If you think later of me as a TS, TG or CD, then I have failed to live up to my expectations.

I hear what you're saying, but when I leave the room people classify me into a gender box. When they later think of me, the most salient categorization is "woman". We all classify at a number of levels: race, gender, sex, social strata, educational level, age, etc, and this doesn't mean passing moral judgment. It is just how we assign meaning to everyone we meet and everything we see in order to organize the data and store it into memory.

EDIT
To everyone who objects to any attempts to understand members of the community, I don't understand why there are so many people in this forum who insist on calling ordinary words, "labels". I suppose everything is a label: every object in a room, every description of emotion or experience. The words assign meaning to the people, places, things, and experiences we are wanting to describe. Perhaps you are confusing the term, "label", with "value judgment", or "insult"?

This is what a sentence would look like, if I refused to label anything: "Last _____, I took my _______ to the _______ in order to ______.; my ________ was with me and _____ was _________ over ________.

And this sentence doesn't even have any adjectives! :)

[NicoleScott]

Thanks, Veronica. You understood the exact meaning I intended. I guess when people say they don't like labels, they mean labels other people use and define differently.

[suzy1]

I started a thread a few days ago asking what definition I was.
It wasn’t a serious thread but I was interested in what I should call myself.

I have now read all your posts here and, Because of them and the posts I got from my thread I have taken my little label off, burnt it, and flushed the embers down the loo.

It’s obvious who I am, I am me!

It feels good. Thanks girls. [You are a clever lot you know]

Hugs, SUZY

[sanderlay]

... To everyone who objects to any attempts to understand members of the community, I don't understand why there are so many people in this forum who insist on calling ordinary words, "labels". I suppose everything is a label: every object in a room, every description of emotion or experience. The words assign meaning to the people, places, things, and experiences we are wanting to describe. Perhaps you are confusing the term, "label", with "value judgment", or "insult"?

This is what a sentence would look like, if I refused to label anything: "Last _____, I took my _______ to the _______ in order to ______.; my ________ was with me and _____ was _________ over ________.

And this sentence doesn't even have any adjectives!

Interesting example and I do understand your point. But that's painting with to broad a brush. Let me clarify...

The problem I have with labels is how some people use them on myself in order to categorize me... as a person. I would rather choose the label or term rather than be put in one without asking me.

Many labels, or words, have multiple definitions, like bi-gender and two-spirited, which I currently use as a quick reference. But these labels have other meaning that do not describe me. So it is wise for a person to ask me to clarify. That's the element that is missing.

To not ask becomes like gossip without going to the person to whom it's supposed to describe. It can become a value judgement and sometimes an insult. We all know what happens when people assume things and not try to be fair and balanced.

[ReineD]

The problem I have with labels is how some people use them on myself in order to categorize me... as a person. I would rather choose the label or term rather than be put in one without asking me.

But this is true for anyone who forms a value judgement over another. For example, I may choose as an adult to go back to school, thus asking my family to pick up the slack in areas that have previously been my domain. Others may see this as being selfish especially if it requires others to make sacrifices, and categorize me as a selfish person.

It is up to me to explain my motives, if I care about the person making the value judgment, or ignore them if their opinion doesn't matter to me. In this case, I would substitute the term, "seeking self-fulfillment so that I can be a better mother", with "selfish". :)



Many labels, or words, have multiple definitions, like bi-gender and two-spirited, which I currently use as a quick reference. But these labels have other meaning that do not describe me. So it is wise for a person to ask me to clarify. That's the element that is missing.

Totally agree, some concepts are too complex to fully define in just one word. There are volumes written on biology for example, although there are many fields within the discipline. But, the word is an introduction to the science and it begs further clarification when discussing concrete studies, just as do the words "transgender", or "bigender".

[Sarah Doepner]

I agree, the media seems to be increasingly more comfortable with the term "transgender" than "transsexual". I wonder if they prefer to keep the "sexual" part of "transsexual" out of their headline, in order to not titillate. We all know how many people have a good chuckle and sneer whenever they see the term "sex" or "sexual". We do live in a puritanical society.

Had the story been about a crossdressing child, I wonder if they still would have used the term "transgender" in the title, in order to stay clear of the negative, fetishistic image that is commonly associated with the term "crossdresser".

Also, transgender is a neutral term that is applicable to a variety of gender identities and expression. People who read the term are free to assign whatever meaning they want to it. The term "transgender" begs for further explanation, which is its purpose. "Transgender" no more defines a person's particulars, than the word "food" when you are describing what you had for dinner. The terms "transsexual" and "crossdresser" have much narrower connotations.

Exactly! I guess my point is while we do what we can here to create a language that represents how we self-identify, the rest of the world is tossing some of the same terms about without the same kind of thought. Even if this evening we all came to agreement on a set of terms that fit us all perfectly we would see those same terms used tomorrow in the news or on a talk show in ways that would drive us crazy. The current trend, as Reine points out, seems to be for the media to use Transgender when they mean Transexual. So we may use Transgender because to us it means "crossdressing but not as a physical fetish but to bring balance to my perception of my gender". However the people you are trying to communicate with watched the news last night believe you are transexual. Instead of needing more information they already think they know the rest of the story and we are back to square one.

[*Vanessa*]

It is dangerous to over generalization. To assume all media use a blanket term when they mean a specific one is just poor journalism on their part.

I also agree Reine when she says "media seems to be increasingly more comfortable with the term "transgender..." Of course they are selling a product and the general public find that term more palatable. If they get it wrong then they get it wrong. It's not our responsibility to be the public watchdog for our community, Transdog if you will.

Even within the global community there is a difference between the terms. I don't think one continent can draw a line in the sand over use of any single term.

Personally, this site can be a tough place to 'fit-in'.
Today, I like to 'label' who and what I am. Finally fitting in to a cubical is cool. There are few here that sit on the fence and let others tell them how and who to be. Case in point...

[Sophie86]

I don't have a problem with labels. I have a problem with labels that are murky and confusing.

Let's go for a little more clarity here. We're not talking about labels, we're talking about concepts. A label can be as particular as you like, naming an exact individual: Sophie, Sarah, Reine, etc. Concepts are general. They are meant to gather individual entities into a mental grouping in order to make them easier to think about. They are essential for human thought. We could not possibly deal with every single apple as if it were an entirely new phenomenon completely unrelated to all the other apples we've ever seen in our life. Multiply that by all the gazillion entities out there in the universe, and you can easily see how our brains would get nowhere trying to handle all that date if we did not form concepts.

So yes, concepts are good, they're essential. They only work properly, though, when they're formed properly. There are two important steps in concept formation. One is to make sure that the items being grouped have an essential similarity that makes them cognitively functional. One can't form a concept that groups tires with pencils. There's nothing we can do, cognitively, with that concept. We can group apples, cherries, lemons, mangos, etc, under the concept 'fruit', but tires & pencils is a non-starter. I'll gloss over the question of whether transsexuals and crossdressers are cognitively commensurate, and just stipulate that on the basis of gender non-conformity, they can be grouped together.

The other important step when forming a concept is to give it a name. If the name is made up from whole-cloth, then no problem. Where in the world did the word 'fruit' come from? Who knows? But someone came up with it, and it stuck. Scientists like to invent words out of Latin and Greek roots. When they do so, those roots should be employed properly. If they describe a creature as 'monocephalic', it should have just one head. People who know what the root words mean are going to expect that, and it would be confusing to call something with two heads monocephalic.

The naming schemes they come up with should also be internally consistent. For example, if scientists doing research in human sexuality want to come up with a name for heterosexuals who have occasional sexual fantasies about members of the same sex, it would be a grave error to call them 'polysexuals'. Sure, they can stipulate their own definition of the word, and give it the weight of expert authority. Given current usage of the words 'homosexual', 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual', however, people will misunderstand that word. They will take it to be a statement about the person's sexual preference, not about his sexual fantasies. The people saddled with that "label" will constantly have to explain that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean; or they will simply reject it--perhaps by saying they hate labels.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the underlying concept that groups people together by the fact that they rebel against gender conformity. The problem I have is with the name that has been given to the concept. The similarity in form of 'transgender' and 'transsexual' leads people to think that they are synonyms. There is simply no reason to read the 'trans' in 'transgender' differently from the 'trans' in 'transsexual'. The two words have the exact same construction, and should be read the exact same way. When transsexuals decide that they can be happy with changing their sex just for a few hours every other week, then I'll believe that the 'trans' in 'transgender' means "crossing back and forth," rather than crossing over permanently.

[ReineD]

The similarity in form of 'transgender' and 'transsexual' leads people to think that they are synonyms. There is simply no reason to read the 'trans' in 'transgender' differently from the 'trans' in 'transsexual'.

This is why we need comprehensive gender and sexual education in schools. Our children can learn the difference between these two terms, just as with "telescope" vs. "television". And then they can teach their parents. :)

[Samantha_Smile]

Sorry If Im not really adding any solid content to the thread, but I just thought this was weird.
On one of many occasions googling 'Crossdresser', I came across a website the professed to know the difference between a transvestite and a crossdresser with this little pearl of wisdom...

"Male transvestites generally will dress entirely in female attire, often with makeup, wig and other accessories to complete the outward appearance of femininity, where-as a cross dresser will only wear feminine underwear beneath his male clothes".

Now this was a random site, Im sorry that Im unable to link, but the point is that if this sort of knowledge is allowed to be shared with the world, its very little wonder that society and the media are getting their ideas and opinions screwed up.
I know it's not factual, but nor is it the worst fabrication ever ie...'where-as a crossdresser will ask a friend to nail them to a cross made from an old dresser'.
But based on this, I think it's fair to state that the internet, while being a valuable, often lifesaving resource for us, can also be our worst enemy, even when people aren't tranny-bashing.

[Sophie86]

This is why we need comprehensive gender and sexual education in schools. Our children can learn the difference between these two terms, just as with "telescope" vs. "television". And then they can teach their parents. :)

Okay. Just keep refusing to listen.

[ReineD]

Sophie, I'm not wanting to be flippant, really. But we do have many words that share the same root. "Trans" means to cross over and it makes sense that many of the words in this community would share that root.

People confuse the two because they are ignorant of the fact that gender is separate from sexuality. I mean, most people are gender conformant and they are hetero. They take it that gender and sexuality are tied together, it is "normal" to be opposite-sex attracted, they don't know the difference between a person who wants to change their sexual characteristics and someone who doesn't but wants to express femininity, and they don't immediately think that "sex", "sexual", or "sexuality" means both, a person's biology and also their attraction to others. They don't take the time to think deeply about gender and sexuality issues. This is why we seriously need to teach our kids what this is all about.

[Sophie86]

Sophie, I'm not wanting to be flippant, really. But we do have many words that share the same root. "Trans" means to cross over and it makes sense that many of the words in this community would share that root.

People confuse the two because they are ignorant of the fact that gender is separate from sexuality. I mean, most people are gender conformant and they are hetero. They take it that gender and sexuality are tied together, it is "normal" to be opposite-sex attracted, they don't know the difference between a person who wants to change their sexual characteristics and someone who doesn't but wants to express femininity, and they don't immediately think that "sex", "sexual", or "sexuality" means both, a person's biology and also their attraction to others. They don't take the time to think deeply about gender and sexuality issues. This is why we seriously need to teach our kids what this is all about.

This has nothing to do with gender vs sex. It's about the prefix 'trans' and whether it applies to crossdressers. The parallel with 'transsexual' cannot be glibly dismissed. In that word, 'trans' means crossing over permanently. There is no reason to read it otherwise in 'transgender'. It would be far easier to simply use a different word than it would be to go around and explain to everyone on the planet that the word doesn't mean what it ought to mean based on its etymology.

Here's a question for you: Why do you insist that the word 'transgender' must be the name for this concept of gender nonconformity? Why are you unwilling to consider that a different word would be more readily acceptable to crossdressers?

[sanderlay]

Meaning of... trans-

Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-

Meaning of... transgender

Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

Sophie...
I'm all in favor of exploring a new terms or words that would work better. But I was confused where you added... permanently... to the meaning of trans or transgender. I think this is being added incorrectly by someone... or altering it's meaning which is inconsistent with the word.

I can see where someone might confuse it with the word.. transaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transaction)... and it could seem to be permanent. But permanent is never mentioned in that words definition.

[ReineD]

This has nothing to do with gender vs sex.

What? It has everything to do with gender and sex: "Transgender", "Transsexual". :)

A transsexual feels a disconnect with her biological sex, and her gender role/expression. She therefore wishes to alter her biological sex and change her gender role/expression.

A crossdresser does not feel a disconnect with his biological sex (except when he wants breast creams, maybe), but he does feel a disconnect with the expression assigned to his gender. This is why he wants to present as a woman.

Both cross the gender boundaries in some form, and they fall under the transgender umbrella.

If you don't personally fit under any of these two scenarios, that's fine. I am talking about the community as a whole.



In that word, 'trans' means crossing over permanently.

Who ever said that crossing gender boundaries is permanent? It is for the transsexual. It is not for the crossdresser.



Here's a question for you: Why do you insist that the word 'transgender' must be the name for this concept of gender nonconformity? Why are you unwilling to consider that a different word would be more readily acceptable to crossdressers?

Because I think it's simpler to use established terms. You can get a lot more people to understand your meaning that way. Here's an example of several different gender neutral pronoun conventions. Everyone did their own thing, and so no one uses gender neutral terms, really:

http://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com/

Oh ... and I'm not the one who comes up with all these "trans" terms, although once in awhile I'll play around and come up with yet a new "label", just to yank people's chains. :p

[Rianna Humble]

There is simply no reason to read the 'trans' in 'transgender' differently from the 'trans' in 'transsexual'. The two words have the exact same construction, and should be read the exact same way. When transsexuals decide that they can be happy with changing their sex just for a few hours every other week, then I'll believe that the 'trans' in 'transgender' means "crossing back and forth," rather than crossing over permanently.

So, if I follow your logic, no telephone conversation between people in (say) Paris and New York can possibly be considered transatlantic since the communication goes both ways and by your definition trans can only be one-way traffic. Alternatively, if we accept that the conversation is indeed transatlantic, then a flight carrying an individual from Washington to London would not be transatlantic because it only crosses the Atlantic in one direction, not both.

What description do you propose we use to differentiate these two concepts (in my examples) so that Trans does not merely mean "cross" but means either "crossing and returning" or "crossing in a single direction"?

[Veronica27]

Meaning of... trans-

Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-

Meaning of... transgender

Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

Sophie...
I'm all in favor of exploring a new terms or words that would work better. But I was confused where you added... permanently... to the meaning of trans or transgender. I think this is being added incorrectly by someone... or altering it's meaning which is inconsistent with the word.

.

While there is no reference to permanence in any of the definitions of trans, there is an implied sense of being on the other side in most of the examples used in the definitions. i.e.
“across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” “transverse,” and
"Astronomy . a prefix denoting something farther from the sun (than a given planet): trans-Martian; trans-Neptunian." and "
changing thoroughly: transliterate..transcending: transubstantiation"

I have to agree with Sophie on this one. The implied permanence added to the overall confusion over the differentiation between gender and sex, leads most people to equate transgender as being a form of transexuality. If you undergo the knife you are a transexual but if you have stopped short or are awaiting, then you are transgender. I am not stating that as my opinion, but simply as the way I believe that many people think.

In addition, the linking of "T" with LGB for political purposes, has the unfortunate effect of corroborating the false stereotype that crossdressers are all homosexual.

The concept of permanence to the prefix "trans" leads directly to the original sense in which the word transgender was used by Virginia Prince. She had ceased being a crossdresser in the sense that the word was used by Tri-ess, and had become full time and on hormones.

The digital age has speeded up the physical communication of messages and ideas, but it has brought about irreparable damage to the various languages used around the world. Things like spelling, grammar and definitions are being rendered unimportant nuisances in everyday usage and the world of texting, replaced by acronyms, spell check and smilies. Schools are neglecting to teach these subjects on the assumption that the machine will handle everything. However, the accurate conveyance of ideas, agreements, laws and intentions requires the use of proper language. I realize that languages evolve over time, but there was traditionally a logical sequence to the process over a considerable period of time. (step down from soapbox)

Veronica

[Veronica27]

What description do you propose we use to differentiate these two concepts (in my examples) so that Trans does not merely mean "cross" but means either "crossing
and returning" or "crossing in a single direction"?

You raise a good question, and I am sure there is a logical answer to it, but one does not pop into my head at the moment. What you are describing is the "sloppy" use of linguistics that has been creeping into the lexicon of English over the past century or so. Trans means across or through, but there is no necessity for return in the definition. Once established on the other side, I suppose, the prefix would properly describe the return trip. A saw which goes back and forth to make its cut is referred to as a reciprocal saw. There are a number of usages of that word, and some version of it might have been more fitting for someone who fluctuates back and forth between gender expression, or simply choices in clothing. In the meantime, I will stick with crossdressing to describe my activities, as it seems the most apropos

Veronica

[Rianna Humble]

You raise a good question, and I am sure there is a logical answer to it, but one does not pop into my head at the moment. What you are describing is the "sloppy" use of linguistics that has been creeping into the lexicon of English over the past century or so. Trans means across or through, but there is no necessity for return in the definition.

There is nothing sloppy about using transatlantic to describe both the conversation (2 way) and the flight (1 way) both cross the Atlantic.

The sloppiness comes when someone tries to strait-jacket the prefix trans into meaning only one or other of its senses - e.g. someone who insists that the prefix as used in transgender has to have the same precise sense (either uni or multi directional) as it does in transsexual.

[Sophie86]

What? It has everything to do with gender and sex: "Transgender", "Transsexual". :)

Our objection to the term has nothing to do with the gender vs sex distinction. Is that clearer?


Who ever said that crossing gender boundaries is permanent? It is for the transsexual. It is not for the crossdresser.

It is for the transsexual, and since that word was established first in the public consciousness, the public assumes that it is also permanent for those who are transgender. Here's the definition of transsexual per the Random House Dictionary:


trans·sex·u·al noun 1. a person having a strong desire to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of the opposite sex.

So by analogy one would assume that a transgender person wants the gender role, but not the physical characteristics, i.e., pre-op, but still with the same desire to live 24/7 as a woman. That's not me, and I daresay it's not the majority of people who qualify as crossdressers.

From the same source, here is the definition of transgender:


trans·gen·der noun 1. a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.

With the crossdresser, everything hinges on what they mean by 'to be' and 'habitual'. Are they talking about someone who wants to be a member of the opposite sex 24/7, to habitually crossdress every single day? Or do they mean someone who likes to dress up on the second Saturday of every month? This is not purely an academic quibble, as you ought to know. Go read Anne's recent post (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?163857-My-wife-went-off-on-me-(), if you need a refresher in what it means to a crossdresser to be understood on this score. Wives who are happily accepting of crossdressing can get decidedly nervous when it starts to look like their husband might be a transsexual.


Because I think it's simpler to use established terms. You can get a lot more people to understand your meaning that way.

Not if the terms are confusing, and this one is. It's established in academic circles and in the activist community, but it is not established with the general public.

[sanderlay]

So what if we picked... either... What does this mean?

Meaning of... either

Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either

From what I read... "... one or the other of two..." which works for the cross dresser... who moves in both directions. And it can work for a person who moves from one gender to the other. But it leaves out people like myself who present and say we are both male and female... or the third gender. The term is not flexible enough.

Trans... does have its advantages as it is a flexible term.

[ReineD]

*sigh* I'm just tired of all this arguing, with the same rehashing of definitions, the same points and counterpoints, with the same handful of people (no disrespect intended).

So ... :surrender I'm bowing out of this one too.

Sophie, you're more than welcome to come up with any word you like to define yourself with and I say this with all due respect.

:outtahere:

[Tammy V]

Labels are labels and everyone's definitions seem different and honestly we are all different. I consider myself trangender because I fell like a girl inside and want to be able to be full time at some point. Because I am not on medical hormones or living full tiem I don't think of myself as transexual and honestly I think we are all crossdressers (unless one has fully transitioned) but to me its much more than just dressing in women's clothes.

[Sophie86]

Sophie, you're more than welcome to come up with any word you like to define yourself with and I say this with all due respect.

Thank you.

::This space for rent::

[Jorja]

Once again I state the obvious fact. This is where the problem lies. We (trans community) have people, who do not have the proper education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity.

To this point we have allowed amateurs, popular celebrities, or medical personnel to coin a word or phrase. Would it be too difficult to involve a linguist in any attempt to untangle the terms and definitions we commonly use?

When and whom decided that the terms we use today are correct and proper for us? I have been involved in this community for some where near 40 years. No one has ever asked my opinion as to what I think I should be called or what I think a crossdresser should be called.

If the current words and terms are out of date we should correct them. But, we should do it as a community and not continue to allow just anyone to label us because they are some amateur of the street, popular, a medical quack and do not even belong to our community.

If we are going to do it, do it right once and for all.

[NicoleScott]

Once again I state the obvious fact. This is where the problem lies. We (trans community) have people, who do not have the proper education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity.


Translation: since you all are too stupid to use words, shut the hell up.

[*Vanessa*]

Once again I state the obvious fact. This is where the problem lies. We (trans community) have people, who do not have the proper education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity.

To this point we have allowed amateurs, popular celebrities, or medical personnel to coin a word or phrase. Would it be too difficult to involve a linguist in any attempt to untangle the terms and definitions we commonly use?

When and whom decided that the terms we use today are correct and proper for us? I have been involved in this community for some where near 40 years. No one has ever asked my opinion as to what I think I should be called or what I think a crossdresser should be called.

If the current words and terms are out of date we should correct them. But, we should do it as a community and not continue to allow just anyone to label us because they are some amateur of the street, popular, a medical quack and do not even belong to our community.

If we are going to do it, do it right once and for all.

wow - aren't we a little angry this morning Jorja..

Sh*t happens!

As a professional photographer I have seen my entire profession hit the drink do to the DLSR and people with more time on their hands to shoot crappy images (amateurs). I am challenged to be better, to take the tools I have learned over the years using ALL of them to be the best I can be. Given that, if I fail then so be it.

Quirky little words and phrases come out of society as part of fabric we live in not universities.

Most important things that need input from ‘more educated’ people in fact take that route. I’m sure there are at least a couple of philosophers that get a little twisted from time to time here as well (in fact I know of one). To stand up on any soapbox and way that flag, you got to expect people to turn their back no matter what education you or they have.

Be nice!

[Sarah Doepner]

It's possible I was either misleading or premature in my orginal post. I didn't want to revisit the effort to come up with a set of terms we can all agree on, other threads have covered that to the point of exhaustion. My intent was to vent over what I saw as the media changing the definition of Transgender and adding to the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Crossdressers for the general public. I understand we still don't have a base for agreement on the general terminology within this site, let alone the wider community. I'd just like to believe that someday I'd be able to say "I'm a crossdresser" and not have a majority of listeners think I steal panties off clothes lines at night or perform in drag shows. It would be nice to say "I'm transgender" and not have others ask how long I've been on hormones or back away thinking I'm a serial killer when I put on a skirt. Maybe it would be nice if the media could understand and accept the "Gender" vs. "Sex" definitions. I'm not sure they do yet, but when it happens there may be progress beyond our little corners of the world.

[*Vanessa*]

.
and for the most part Sarah your thread has been discussed as intended. It is just one of those tricky posts people seems to don't hear exactly what is being talked about. IMHO

[Jorja]

I am saying the trans community has been around much longer than you and I. Yet, we have terms and definitions that do not begin to cover to those involved. Why? Because people who are seen as popular, medical personnel who have no idea, amateurs who think they have all the answers, and media personnel have been allowed to coin a phrase or a word and those that decided they like that word make it popular and now we are stuck with like it or not. I am sure you can see where that has gotten us.

Instead of sitting at your computer complaining, why don't you create a webpage and put a survey on it. With the following questions:

If you fall under the Transgender umbrella, do you like the current terms and definitions that describe you?

What would you like to be referred to as?

Then go to the current "transgender" websites and get your survey linked to the sites. Allow it to run for say..... 6 months. Take your survey to all the gatherings around the country such as Southern Comfort or have another person take it for you. Now you need to find someone in the other countries of the world to help you obtain their information. Then do the work to assemble the information you have gathered. Take it to a linguist and come up with terms and descriptions that do employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity. Put those words and definitions out to the community and see if they can be lived with.

Or maybe you could start a program that would teach media personnel the difference between "Gender" vs. "Sex" definitions. Before you can do that you will need a unified understanding within the trans community of what those definitions are.

[*Vanessa*]

If you are talking to me jorja, then I would ask "Why me?" It is you that seems to profess that you have all the answer. Why sit there on 'your computer' and try direct other to do your bidding. Ah, of course, that way you would be right no matter what the out come.

[sanderlay]

... I'd just like to believe that someday I'd be able to say "I'm a crossdresser" and not have a majority of listeners think I steal panties off clothes lines at night or perform in drag shows. It would be nice to say "I'm transgender" and not have others ask how long I've been on hormones or back away thinking I'm a serial killer when I put on a skirt. Maybe it would be nice if the media could understand and accept the "Gender" vs. "Sex" definitions. I'm not sure they do yet, but when it happens there may be progress beyond our little corners of the world.

Sarah... I share your dream... and I do so wish to see more tolerance and respect for each person. It has improved a lot from when I was a child... which is part of the reason I'm out of the closet so to speak. But hate crimes are still out there and we have leaps and bounds to go. I agree that education is the key and a few out there have their own website.

I applaud their efforts. I'm not sure I'm ready to be that exposed to society. I haven't yet come out on facebook. Being here is a start for me. Sorry Jorja... I'm not that brave yet.

I also hate having to consider image and what some in society might think about us. Words like... transvestite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transvestite?show=0&t=1321560915)... says I might do this for... "sexual gratification" ... Some groups see this as a sin in our overly prudish society. That just adds to the idea of... panty thief... pervert... molester... and the sicking list goes on. "Don't come near my school..." ... "Stay away from my kids..." I'm not even sure you can say the m word here without someone being offended.

So I'll stop my venting and get off this soap box. I think I feel a little better now. :)

Thanks for letting us vent in this thread.

[ReineD]

To those of you who are taking this to a personal level and bickering, Stop It.

Read carefully the original posts, and save your contentious remarks for PMs.

If this continues here I will close this thread.

[Veronica27]

There is nothing sloppy about using transatlantic to describe both the conversation (2 way) and the flight (1 way) both cross the Atlantic.

The sloppiness comes when someone tries to strait-jacket the prefix trans into meaning only one or other of its senses - e.g. someone who insists that the prefix as used in transgender has to have the same precise sense (either uni or multi directional) as it does in transsexual.

The sloppiness to which I was referring was not the limiting of the prefix to mean only one thing (or the other). Rather it was the broadening of it from its original sense which leads to confusion. As used in transexual, it was correct. As used in transgender by those who share The Virginia Prince school of thought it was also correct. But the application of it to include everyone from TS to CD as well as IS and a few others is where things get sloppy.

Veronica

[Pink Person]

Gabba gabba who? Yabba dabba what? Other people don't understand you? It's because some of you don't know how to communicate, with yourself or anyone else.

Transgender people are ones who have a combination of gender characteristics that extends across both genders. Cisgender people are ones who have a combination of gender characteristics that does not extend beyond one gender.

Don't respond by telling me everybody cries and everybody wears dresses, so everybody who cries or wears a dress is transgender. Crying isn't a gender characteristic because both genders do it. Wearing dresses is a gender characteristic because both genders don't do it. Identifying gender characteristics requires an ability to identify general similarities and general differences.

Every transsexual is a transgender person. It is completely accurate to describe them in either way. Not every transgender person is a transsexual. If you are transgender and other people falsely infer you are transsexual then I guess you will just have to "splain" yourself to them, Lucy. You could do it in one sentence, so quit bitching about the irreparable harm this confusion causes you. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Transgender and transsexual are both very useful terms. The problems caused by their misuse are trivial in comparison.

[ReineD]

The issue I'm seeing seems to be the adoption of the term Transgender to mean nearly the same as Transsexual while at the same time making Transvestite and Crossdresser refer to more of a fetish behavior.

Sarah, back to your point in the OP about the media using the term "transgender" synonymously with "transsexual". I think a few pages back I suggested that if the article had been about a crossdressing child, the media might still have used the term "transgender".

This morning I came across an article in Toronto Life about a fairly visible philosophy Professor who teaches at York University (student pop 54,000), in Toronto. He sometimes crossdresses to teach class. Other than the word "naughty" in the article's headline (which I object to, but this might well have been done as a hook), if you read the first paragraph Dr. Gilbert is also characterized as being transgender:

http://www.torontolife.com/features/naughty-professor/

I'm suggesting that we look at a variety of articles, not just the ones who refer to transsexuals as transgenders.

Professor Gilbert has also written an excellent article about what it means to be a "committed crossdresser". This link was posted in another thread by another member, Tailor186:

The Transgendered Philosopher (http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm)

Prof Gilbert writes about the meaning of transgender, the controversy, and he also acknowledges there are individuals who dress but who do not fall under the transgender umbrella: "... female impersonators who look upon dressing as solely connected to their livelihood, actors undertaking roles, individual males and females enjoying a masquerade, and so on."

The above article is well worth reading. It is one of the best articles I've read that defines the various ways of being a crossdresser, even though the bulk of it is Prof Gilbert's own story.

[sometimes_miss]

I think the biggest problem, is that most of society wants to be able to define what we are in the simplest possible manner. Same way that the medical establishment wants to find the 'one' true reason we crossdress. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy, because why we crossdress/cross gender behavior lines comes from many different reasons. But we're not going to be able to change what people want to do. The want a simple solution, and won't accept anything else. It's the 21st century, and we still have a huge percentage of the world's population that won't accept the concept that race shouldn't be a defining characteristic of any other part of a person's personalilty makeup.

[Sophie86]

I'm suggesting that we look at a variety of articles, not just the ones who refer to transsexuals as transgenders.

Thanks for posting those, Reine. I enjoyed them very much. If you find any more, I hope you'll post them here.

[sanderlay]

Sarah, back to your point in the OP about the media using the term "transgender" synonymously with "transsexual". I think a few pages back I suggested that if the article had been about a crossdressing child, the media might still have used the term "transgender".

This morning I came across an article in Toronto Life about a fairly visible philosophy Professor who teaches at York University (student pop 54,000), in Toronto. He sometimes crossdresses to teach class. Other than the word "naughty" in the article's headline (which I object to, but this might well have been done as a hook), if you read the first paragraph Dr. Gilbert is also characterized as being transgender:

http://www.torontolife.com/features/naughty-professor/

I'm suggesting that we look at a variety of articles, not just the ones who refer to transsexuals as transgenders.

Professor Gilbert has also written an excellent article about what it means to be a "committed crossdresser". This link was posted in another thread by a new member, ElizabethAmy:

The Transgendered Philosopher (http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm)

Prof Gilbert writes about the meaning of transgender, the controversy, and he also acknowledges there are individuals who dress but who do not fall under the transgender umbrella: "... female impersonators who look upon dressing as solely connected to their livelihood, actors undertaking roles, individual males and females enjoying a masquerade, and so on."

The above article is well worth reading. It is one of the best articles I've read that defines the various ways of being a crossdresser, even though the bulk of it is Prof Gilbert's own story.

Thanks for posting this. These two articles are a very interesting and a very thought provoking read.

I agree that the first article... The Naughty Professor (http://www.torontolife.com/features/naughty-professor/?pageno=1)... was poorly named. And I doubt the writer, David Macfarlane, actually came up with the title. The story does not support it in any way. Nothing naughty at all in the story. (Although perhaps... in hind sight... they were trying to play both sides of the political spectrum with the title?) I suspect it was his editor and your theory of a hook makes a lot of sense to some degree. As we all know... Sex sells, or a controversial subject to some... and the magazine is trying to make money by getting traffic and selling advertizing. So I let this name, The Naughty Professor, slide for now.

David's report seems well written and fairly sensitive to transgendered persons, unlike the title, and is well worth the read, especially as an introduction to reading the second article... The Transgendered Philosopher (http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm)... who is Michael ‘Miqqi Alicia’ Gilbert.

This long but well written article struck a cord with me in many ways as it looks into the average crossdresser in different phases of their life. i could certainly relate to each one.

Of most interest to me was near the end... On Growing Up.
About the seventh and eighth paragraph...

This is where he/she talks about... "... gender as non-bipolar."



A segment of... The Transgendered Philosopher...
by Michael ‘Miqqi Alicia’ Gilbert.

"One recent development, circa 1995, that has, in a burst of synchronicity, appeared in several places within a very short period of time, and is very relevant to these considerations, is the idea of gender as non-bipolar. This idea, which has resulted in discussion of transgendered people of all stripes as not being men or women, but as belonging to the Third, has much to recommend it. For one thing, it makes the "I am really a woman in a man's body" approach out dated. Now it becomes correct to say, "I am a male transgendered person who chooses to present female." (A presenting which may or may not go as far as genital surgery.) This solves many problems, especially political ones, and goes a long way toward undermining the tyranny of the bi-polar gender system on which depends such heavy duty items as the family, hetero and homosexuality, sexism, and the division of society into gender determined roles. This way of thinking opens u many options which go beyond the standard male equals man, female equals woman dichotomy that rules our lives. Once we follow this route there are many possible options - being bi-gendered, non-gendered, multi-gendered, cross-gendered, and on and on. The idea of the "third" is a potent one, especially if it is not considered as one homogeneous category itself. It would not do at all to replace a bipolar system by a tripolar one. The very idea that one need be a gender at all is disposable. It could be replaced by, say, having a set of attributes in various ranges of femininity and masculinity where those are considered as characteristics like being creative or straightforward rather than the most fundamentally defining aspects of a person."

I love this idea, gender as non-bipolar, especially as a bi-gender or two-spirited person as this speaks to the path I am already trying to pursue. We spend to much time trying to fit into our current bipolar gender system and trying to normalize persons. It would put the decision of one's gender back to the person. Let them express who they are and wear what feels comfortable for them.

Religious dogma might stop this from ever coming true... but I can only dream life could someday be fair. For now the best I can hope for is education and tolerance so more persons can feel free to be themselves.

"Never say never"... and... "Dream of what life could be... not what is."

[ReineD]

I love this idea, gender as non-bipolar ...

Another way to refer to this is a 'gender binary'. You might have read this term several times at cd.com. It describes a belief that people are either male or female, and does not allow any gender variance in between the binaries. The truth is, there are many CDers who fit somewhere in between the two binaries. They are not TS (they do not feel they were born in the wrong body), but they also don't always quite click with their male peers and they certainly wish to present as women even if it is only on occasion.

[Rianna Humble]

Hi Sanderlay, I found your quote from The Transgender Philosopher quite interesting, but just want to question one part - where it says
This idea, which has resulted in discussion of transgendered people of all stripes as not being men or women, but as belonging to the Third, has much to recommend it. For one thing, it makes the "I am really a woman in a man's body" approach out dated

Up to that last phrase, I was having no difficulty with what was written, but is it entirely fair to deny the reality of a transsexual's life experience just to allow for the existence of other gender expressions?

You qualify yourself as "Bi-gender or two-spirited" and you can see from my other writings on these forums that I accept that reality; but unlike my interpretation of the above quote, I do not need to deny who I am in order to accept who you are.

[sara.s]

Labels are labels and everyone's definitions seem different and honestly we are all different. I consider myself trangender because I fell like a girl inside ...
Thank you for coming out. This is what separates a casual crossdresser from a Transgender.

[sanderlay]

Hi Sanderlay, I found your quote from The Transgender Philosopher quite interesting, but just want to question one part - where it says


This idea, which has resulted in discussion of transgendered people of all stripes as not being men or women, but as belonging to the Third, has much to recommend it. For one thing, it makes the "I am really a woman in a man's body" approach out dated

Up to that last phrase, I was having no difficulty with what was written, but is it entirely fair to deny the reality of a transsexual's life experience just to allow for the existence of other gender expressions?

You qualify yourself as "Bi-gender or two-spirited" and you can see from my other writings on these forums that I accept that reality; but unlike my interpretation of the above quote, I do not need to deny who I am in order to accept who you are.

I can't speak for Michael ‘Miqqi Alicia’ Gilbert and exactly what he/she meant by what you have quoted. But I believe every one should be able to present who they feel they are without the restriction of two genders. Those who wish to present as male or female or what ever... should be able do so no mater what their birth gender is or was. Expand the choices without restriction.

But here is my take on this idea of "gender as non-bipolar". And perhaps I'm miss understanding Michael ‘Miqqi Alicia’ Gilbert's idea... or interpretation of it.

What if society, when you were a small child, did not put you in a labeled gender... male or female. Children started with unisex clothing at first. Toys were all unisex and you got to choose what to play with. You were not forced into a male or female role. Your anatomy did not play a part in your gender identity. You got to choose your own path... dress as you wanted.

Some persons in that society might be male... some female... some might be a mix of both... some might appear androgynous... and so on.

The person... not their gender... is what is important. The society would not be dominated by one gender or group as the dominate... like today as a..."mans world."

Gender specific roles would be gone. Your talents as a person would be more important. All clothing would be considered unisex. Etc...

[ReineD]

Some persons in that society might be male... some female... some might be a mix of both... some might appear androgynous... and so on.

That's true! :)

But there will never be a way to measure the percentage of people who would wish to remain either male or female, and those who would naturally fall in the middle. I think there are enough resources online now and certainly enough awareness in our society even if it is not outright approval, that if anyone experiences a desire to express a gender different than their assigned gender, they will find a way to do something about it, or certainly join forums to talk about it.

And the rest of the gender binaries will continue to go on their merry way, oblivious to it all. :p

It's fun to dream about your scenario though, but at the same time I think it would be productive to just work on doing what we can to help the mainstream understand about gender variance. The community needs to work together to change the laws, advocate for gender education in schools, and hopefully more and more people in forums such as this one will feel encouraged to go out dressed which will help to further the awareness that transgenders exist, if even on a small scale.

:hugs:

[sara.s]

I'm suggesting that we look at a variety of articles, not just the ones who refer to transsexuals as transgenders.

Professor Gilbert has also written an excellent article about what it means to be a "committed crossdresser". This link was posted in another thread by a new member, ElizabethAmy:

The Transgendered Philosopher (http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm)

Prof Gilbert writes about the meaning of transgender, the controversy, and he also acknowledges there are individuals who dress but who do not fall under the transgender umbrella: "... female impersonators who look upon dressing as solely connected to their livelihood, actors undertaking roles, individual males and females enjoying a masquerade, and so on."

The above article is well worth reading. It is one of the best articles I've read that defines the various ways of being a crossdresser, even though the bulk of it is Prof Gilbert's own story.

Hi there :wave2: we meet again :battingeyelashes:

Thanks for the link. What the professor says is actually very right and just elaborates what I have been saying all along.


Quoting from York University Professor.

'Transgendered' applied to an individual signifies some degree of discomfort, all or some of the time with one's birth-assigned gender designation.

Notice first that this is a self-evaluative notion rather than an externally assigned category; i.e., one decides at some point that being in the birth-designated pigeon-hole one was placed in is either inadequate, inappropriate, too limiting, or just plain wrong as a description of one's own gender identity. Secondly, note that not everyone who plays with gender is transgendered, insofar as the playing may not be initiated by discomfort, but, perhaps, by professional requirements, sex play, masquerade or what have you. Finally, note that one does not have to do anything with this discomfort in order to qualify as transgendered. It is the having of the discomfort rather then the acting on it that precipitates the classification, which also means that one can easily be transgendered and never so identified.

The 1st comment in red, basically talks about discomfort by one confusing their gender identity as different to the gender assigned at birth.
The 4th comment in red, we infer that this discomfort ALONE classifies one as Transgender rather than acting on it (Crossdressing in this context).
The 2nd comment in red just clarifies that one's Gender Identity is an internal to oneself and not subjective to another person's interpretation based on makeup and presentation.
The 3rd comment in red flatly says that we can wear whatever we want with full makeup or no makeup and yet not be classified as Transgendered.

[Rianna Humble]

What if society, when you were a small child, did not put you in a labeled gender... male or female. Children started with unisex clothing at first. Toys were all unisex and you got to choose what to play with. You were not forced into a male or female role. Your anatomy did not play a part in your gender identity. You got to choose your own path... dress as you wanted.

Some persons in that society might be male... some female... some might be a mix of both... some might appear androgynous... and so on.

The person... not their gender... is what is important. The society would not be dominated by one gender or group as the dominate... like today as a..."mans world."

Gender specific roles would be gone. Your talents as a person would be more important. All clothing would be considered unisex. Etc...

No, I'm sorry I don't buy into that one. I would still be a woman betrayed by a body which has the wrong configuration and the wrong sex organs and which was constantly being poisoned by testosterone (since you don't like the phrase "trapped in a man's body I had to find another way of explaining the same concept). My mind knew that before I ever learnt about "gender roles".

As I said before - all mention of bipolar disorder apart - I understand about gender not being binary, but I don't buy into it being non-existent. For those of us who are TS - whether MtF like me or FtM - it has nothing to do with the clothing and everything to do with our gender identity being at odds with our body.

[Alyla]

Another way to refer to this is a 'gender binary'. You might have read this term several times at cd.com. It describes a belief that people are either male or female, and does not allow any gender variance in between the binaries. The truth is, there are many CDers who fit somewhere in between the two binaries. They are not TS (they do not feel they were born in the wrong body), but they also don't always quite click with their male peers and they certainly wish to present as women even if it is only on occasion.


Reine and others,

I feel very compelled by this quote, I identify with it completely. It is too bad that we need as a society to define what just is. If one was allowed to experience and show themselves as a repectful and considerate person such narrow definitions would be part of our antiquity. I will not live so long as to witness this, (although I wish I would), but I absolutely believe that this will happen one day. Radical change is disorderly, but the evolution of thought is long term. I have faith and feel that those who come after, will live in a new day. Anyhow, ::smiles:: I thought the sixties was about no dress codes: I suppose we haven't arrived yet.

Peace and love to all,
Believe, the world will change,
No stopping it.
Be patient.

Love,
Alyla

[*Vanessa*]

...

I love this idea, gender as non-bipolar, especially as a bi-gender or two-spirited person as this speaks to the path I am already trying to pursue. We spend to much time trying to fit into our current bipolar gender system and trying to normalize persons. It would put the decision of one's gender back to the person. Let them express who they are and wear what feels comfortable for them.

Religious dogma might stop this from ever coming true... but I can only dream life could someday be fair. For now the best I can hope for is education and tolerance so more persons can feel free to be themselves.


Another way to refer to this is a 'gender binary'. You might have read this term several times at cd.com. It describes a belief that people are either male or female, and does not allow any gender variance in between the binaries. The truth is, there are many CDers who fit somewhere in between the two binaries. They are not TS (they do not feel they were born in the wrong body), but they also don't always quite click with their male peers and they certainly wish to present as women even if it is only on occasion.

I as many believe that when the term eliminates any reference to a single meaning a better term will prevail. Binary anything is 'this or that', Transgender is in itself more fluid. GLBT/medical/human rights/law makers at best are addressing this definition. How an individual interprets each word is meaningless. At the beginning of each 'contract / legal rit' there is a definition of terms to solve any confusion that may transpire during execution of the said document for any reason. The old Prof in T.O. is working towards this idea and personally I wish we all could do likewise.

Edit: I tip my 'bonnet' to the few that are working so very hard here to achieve this end and are enhancing their own initiatives

[sanderlay]

That's true! :)

But there will never be a way to measure the percentage of people who would wish to remain either male or female, and those who would naturally fall in the middle. I think there are enough resources online now and certainly enough awareness in our society even if it is not outright approval, that if anyone experiences a desire to express a gender different than their assigned gender, they will find a way to do something about it, or certainly join forums to talk about it.

And the rest of the gender binaries will continue to go on their merry way, oblivious to it all. :p

It's fun to dream about your scenario though, but at the same time I think it would be productive to just work on doing what we can to help the mainstream understand about gender variance. The community needs to work together to change the laws, advocate for gender education in schools, and hopefully more and more people in forums such as this one will feel encouraged to go out dressed which will help to further the awareness that transgenders exist, if even on a small scale.

:hugs:

Your right... It is an incomplete idea at present and it would be like turning the world upside down. More people would object than would be happy and it might just lead to wars over the concept. In fact... given history... and religious dogma... I could almost guarantee it. So...

... your also right again that we should use our time to educate people... help bring tolerance and understanding. It would be more productive.



No, I'm sorry I don't buy into that one. I would still be a woman betrayed by a body which has the wrong configuration and the wrong sex organs and which was constantly being poisoned by testosterone (since you don't like the phrase "trapped in a man's body I had to find another way of explaining the same concept). My mind knew that before I ever learnt about "gender roles".

As I said before - all mention of bipolar disorder apart - I understand about gender not being binary, but I don't buy into it being non-existent. For those of us who are TS - whether MtF like me or FtM - it has nothing to do with the clothing and everything to do with our gender identity being at odds with our body.

That's OK... It was just an out of the box idea. I did not mean to deny you or you struggle. I deny NO ONE their own path in order to show mine. It is yours and your alone. I can not hope to understand fully the turmoil this has caused you in your life. Can any one?

But please don't miss quote me here. I don't dis-like the phrase "trapped in a man's body" This is part of a quote from The Transgendered Philosopher... by Michael ‘Miqqi Alicia’ Gilbert which I quoted.



I as many believe that when the term eliminates any reference to a single meaning a better term will prevail. Binary anything is 'this or that', Transgender is in itself more fluid. GLBT/medical/human rights/law makers at best are addressing this definition. How an individual interprets each word is meaningless. At the beginning of each 'contract / legal rit' there is a definition of terms to solve any confusion that may transpire during execution of the said document for any reason. The old Prof in T.O. is working towards this idea and personally I wish we all could do likewise.

Edit: I tip my 'bonnet' to the few that are working so very hard here to achieve this end and are enhancing their own initiatives

Thank you Vanessa. Working to solve confusion with words and definitions is certainly a noble task. Education about these words and meanings from the past will help us to understand much of the controversy and a way forward. But it will take compromise, tolerance and respect by all concerned to achieve this goal.

Perhaps we can start here... at crossdressers.com.