Crossdressing is a transgendered act

[Frédérique]

Recently I was reading the memoirs of a famous author, and he was recounting his experiences as a student at a boys-only school in Britain. Naturally, the subject of homosexuality came up:

“It is very important to understand that ninety percent of these enthusiastic participants would have punched you in the throat if you suggested there was anything homosexual (or “queer”) about what they were doing. When I later read Gore Vidal’s distinction between homosexual persons and homosexual acts, I saw the point at once.”

Intrigued, I looked up Gore Vidal’s exact words, which are as follows:

“There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo - or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.”

What does this have to do with crossdressing? Lately there has been a lot of discussion on this forum about whether or not all crossdressers are transgendered, and I see a parallel within the ideas outlined above – is it possible that there are transgendered acts? I get the feeling that actual transgendered people want us (typical MtF crossdressers) to BE transgendered, so as to better welcome us into the makeshift bosom of the community. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the tone of this ongoing discourse (reading between the lines) is “You must be one of US,” namely TG...

Inevitably, when a male gives in to the desire to wear women’s clothing, he will begin to wonder if he is gay. This feeling is the culmination of a lifetime of influences from society, family, and religion, where one’s own sense of masculinity is questioned and tested relentlessly. It can’t be as simple as putting on the “wrong” clothes – it MUST mean something! Imagine not knowing who you are, or what you’re about, or why you’re engaged in doing things purely for your own pleasure. I may have homosexual tendencies, latent or otherwise, but that has nothing to do with why I dress in female clothing – I dress to enjoy the tactile splendors, and modify my male-ness in the process...

Your need to dress is most likely different from mine, but we are “sisters” by association. There are many individuals here who dress, for one reason or another, and all is eventually well, once we overcome those feelings of guilt or shame, or any gay connotations that are not representative of our crossdressing. But wait, there’s more – you must be transgendered! I beg to differ; in fact I have posted to this effect on numerous occasions, mainly because of the insistence coming from all corners of this communal cyber-gathering. It’s like a beating drum, but I can’t dance to it...

My friends, the prefix trans- means “on the other side of,” across, or opposed to. When you "trans-" anything, you change it thoroughly – if you are transgendered, you have changed thoroughly to the other gender, at least in appearance (TG is not TS), and you will not change back. You are on the other side now, and if you are a MtF TG, you live your life as a female. This state may or may not be transcendental, and nothing may be lost in translation. You don’t really transcorporate, but transfiguration and/or transmutation may have occurred. Keep in mind that I’m most decidedly NOT TG, I am a crossdresser, pure and simple...

The prefix cross- means intersecting is taking place, i.e. going from one side to the other, in this case from M to F. Picture, if you will, the intersection of two roads – briefly you are at the intersection, but you eventually resume your progress along the original track. You may linger at the intersection, or change your route, but, in the case of the latter, something is different. Again, picture the intersection of two roads, but this time the route you are on ENDS, and you merge into another road, perhaps changing your direction thoroughly. You are transitioning from one place to another. Unless you go back where you once were, say trans- and not cross-, OK?

Crossdressing is a transgendered act – that’s the idea I’m trying to get across here. Crossdressing may be occurring along the way towards a discovery that you are transgendered, but what if you crossdress and go no further? If I was TG I would be dressed as a female, look like a female, and comport myself as a female all day long, but I don’t. At this moment I’m dressed in drab, as I usually am, because I’m not transgendered, and I never will be. I’m comfortable to be a "mere" crossdresser. Back a few years ago, when I was living by myself, I had the opportunity to dress 24/7, but I didn’t, mainly because I didn’t feel the need to. I crossdress often, but just as often I don’t. My crossdressing is something I look forward to, and I delay pleasure to enhance the moments I am dressed. If the word act means “to do a thing,” “to seem,” to “pretend to be,” or “to represent,” then I am engaging in an act that comes under the heading of transgender...

However, I am not transgendered – I identify as a male, not as a female, so my crossdressing does not indicate a thorough change to the other gender. I take an excursion to the other side of the gender chasm, and dress in native costumes designed for the locals, but I can only manage a brief stay before I return to my drab world – this is all I can manage, or as Hedwig once said, “This is what I have to work with.” It would be highly inaccurate to call me a transgendered person, for reasons I have already outlined. Somebody could paint a picture, but that doesn’t make them an artist (trust me – I know what I’m talking about). However, most people would agree that painting a picture is an artistic act. Can you see the difference? Let’s be accurate, please...

I’m a fan of accuracy, and it rankles me to read these never-ending debates about CD vs. TG, in vs. out, or real vs. unreal (or unrepresentative of the community). Since the word crossdresser is in the masthead of this place, I, a crossdresser, was attracted to the site. Since I’ve been here, I’ve become a bit bemused by this opinion that all CD’s must be transgendered. If we go back to Gore Vidal’s comment about homosexual persons vs. homosexual acts, it states that “most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.” To me, crossdressing is an impulse, and I am impulsive by nature. A TG could be said to practice crossdressing less impulsively according to their inherent nature, since it involves definite change. By comparison, I am far less serious than a transgendered individual, and I think that’s the root of everyone’s problem, if I’m reading (correctly) between the lines...

I’ll admit that I may not be the “proper” representative for our community, but I’ve gotten used to living at the far edge of town, very close to that intersection I frequent. I wish TG’s would be more receptive to the fact that many crossdressers go back and forth between the genders, via the clothing that could be worn by the “other” side, and this is done according to one’s lot in life, or personal history. If I was TG, I don’t know if I would look down on crossdressers – I think we’re a relatively small lot, and all types of crossdressers deserve respect, even those who “merely” engage in transgendered acts. To put it bluntly, I, a MtF crossdresser, cannot function without support...

Last year I had a conversation (via PM’s) with my TG, soon to be TS, friend, who was in the process of saving up for SRS. I asked her a crossdressing question, and she bluntly and accurately replied (and I quote), “I wouldn’t know – I’m not a crossdresser.” She and I couldn’t be more different, but we got along splendidly, since she accepted me for what I am...

I’m CROSSing my fingers that this insistence on being TG will be TRANSient. Did I tell you that I’m a transvestite? Oh, never mind...:doh:

[LeaP]

Freddy,

Yes and no on the basic question of TG people wanting all crossdressers to be TG in the sense (I think) you mean. There are two factions in the discussions. The first argues from identity, that regardless of self-identification, one IS TG, but in denial. The other argues from semantics, including the "just" crossdressers under the umbrella, but grants your identity point. I tend toward the latter view, but entertain doubts.

Similarly, your artist vs. artistic activity analogy is helpful in providing a non gender-based, real-world analogy with which people are familiar, but ultimately unhelpful, as it triggers the same spectrum or boundary arguments that go round and round.

Your best point of departure, I think, may be that of personality (seriousness). Perhaps a discussion of personality profiles would help. Seriousness does engender (delicious word) identity introspection, at least for me.

Lea

[sissystephanie]

Who cares?? If we CD, then yes we are doing a TG act. But who really cares? It is another label that we can stick on ourselves, but one that we don't really need!! I dress enfemme because I like to, and not for any other reason. Buty that still is crossing gender lines, and therefore is a TG act. I really don't care what you call me, just as long as you call me in time for meals or getting paid!!

[kimdl93]

I agree with steph, we can get bogged down in semantics. Words do have meaning, but we can also obscure meaning by parsing and redefining the words to our personal preferences.

[Marleena]

Here's my take on it. Crossdressers are genetic males, dressing up does not change that. Therapists are now saying the act of dressing up is harmless, and no intervention is required at all unless the crossdresser has stress, or anxiety issues in regards to the crossdressing. Therapy is also needed with the wife at times. Crossdressing is more like role playing that many of us did when kids. We have fun with it and go back to living our male lives as required. We don't need, or want to change our sex, or live 24/7 as a female.

But falling under the transgendered category is a good thing since we are protected against a society that doesn't understand us for the most part. There are haters out there, we all see it. So I am happy to be called transgendered.

Hope that made sense.:)

[Kimberly Long]

I started out many years ago as a crossdresser. But at sometime my heart and brain starting thinking like a woman. I made the best of it but it was hard being a police officer all my working life. I did go to counseling to try to help me with the feelings but it only made my life more complicated, when I found out I was normal. After retirement and moving out of town was I able to act on my body and feelings.
I am now 15 years into my new life and love every minuet of it. I am only sorry that I was not able to start my new life until my retirement, I can only think what I missed in life. But I can assure you that my life is wonderful, thank God.
Love Kimberly

[TGMarla]

Under these definitions, then I am definitely a crossdresser, and not transgendered. However, throughout the years of my life, I have often bandied with the idea of being female rather than male. There are times when I absolutely wish I'd been born female instead. I struggled with the thought of transition and sex reassignment. And although I came to the conclusion that I would not go that route, the desire to do so still sometimes gnaws at me a bit. It is for that reason that I embrace the thought of myself as transgendered, rather than merely a crossdresser. But however you package it, for me, crossdressing is certainly a transgendered act.

[Longing2be-Trisha]

Awesome point made! Great job!

Hugs

[Sara Jessica]

I have often said that crossdressing is what someone does while transsexual (or insert other words of description such as transgender or even woman) is what someone is. As such, I find that your premise fits this rather nicely and really should go far to quiet the lingering debate as to whether crossdressers are in fact TG.

[Tina B.]

I'm not sure I understand all the difference your talking about Freddie, what I need to know, is how many TG acts do I have to do before I'm TG 1 or 101? When I grew up I was always told you are known for the people you run with, seems to me, you are also known for what you do. If I play football, is sit a act I do, or am I a football player, if I spend a lot of time doing TG acts, then I think that makes me TG, but I don't mind, after all if it didn't have a name, then there could be no legislation to protect those that do it. (so you can call me Jay, you can call me Ray, but you don't have to call me Mr. Johnson) sorry, old Saturday night live skit. But the point, call it what you will, it's not important, act TG, are TG, outsiders see it all the same, and so do a lot of us here. You are what you eat, and you are what you wear, that's life.
Tina B.

[elizabethamy]

This is a very interesting thread. Thank you, Freddy. For me, crossdressing is neither roleplaying nor practice for transitioning. I'm relatively new to it, and absolutely new to having shared it with my wife. In the days since I told her I have dressed much more than I did before, because the guilt is less. I accept that this is part of me. But the question is, what part? I know I look like a man in a dress, but I still want to look pretty, even in a room with the windowshades down and the door shut. I want to wear a bra and fill it, even though logically there's no reason.

Crossdressing is unlocking something in my brain, my psyche, my soul, whatever you call it, that I had managed to keep locked for 50 years. Such repression cost me tremendously -- in job failure, in lack of intimacy, in skittishly moving from one thing to another and wondering why I felt so depressed and anxious...that was the price of NOT crossdressing.

So I tell my wife that I am on a journey. I don't mean a journey to become a woman, though that could possibly happen -- I just don't know where the journey leads. But what I do know is that it is a journey to discover who I really am and to bring myself to completeness. That's why I crossdress. I don't know if I'm TS, or TG, and to a great extent the labels don't matter.

What matters is that I need to do this, I love to do this, I have never felt better or stronger since I started doing this, and in discovering the elizabethamy side of my personality, I am finally becoming myself. That's what this is about for me. Your mileage may vary!

All best,

elizabethamy

[LilSissyStevie]

Much of the "labels" controversy can be solved by just letting people self-identify and listening to what they have to say about themselves rather than pontificating definitions and pronouncing people in denial if they don't feel the definition applies. Gender, after all, is a fuzzy vague social construction that has no objective standard, at least not in our time. Ultimately, gender is subjective. If gender is subjective, then so is transgender. How someone can pronounce you transgender without defining exactly what gender is, I don't know. So, my both my actions and my identity are feminine if they meet my subjective standard for femininity. You may have a different opinion but that's all it is - an opinion. Sex, by the way, is also subjective. I am a woman (or man) if I say so. So if I say I'm a woman (or man) every other Sunday from 3:00 to 7:00 pm, I am. Can anyone prove differently without resorting to an arbitrary standard?

[*Vanessa*]

.
Freddie - you said "Correct me if I’m wrong, but the tone of this ongoing discourse (reading between the lines) is “You must be one of US,” namely TG..."

I am not trying to correct you or anyone else here, I trust your openness is also to validate ideas of opposing views.

I would prefer that a crossdresser remain a crossdresser. In that you live as you like dressed when and where you like for want ever reason you choose.

I would prefer Transgendered people remain transgendered so that there is no confusion when it comes to matters of the heart. We (transgendered people) may or may not be dressed but one thing is curtain and that is we are not gay. I also believe that once a person switches to ones 'sexual mind' to the opposite they then have the right to switch back and all that depends on ones mood at the time and moment to moment.

I would prefer that Transsexuals remain people that have chosen to change their birth-sex or are at some stand of that process. I would also prefer if at the time of completing their transition they (and I mean this politely) would stop calling themselves Transsexual unless of course they are planning to re-transition back to their original birth-sex.

[Julia_in_Pa]

I could not agree more with you concerning this Vanessa.

Most consider cross dressers transgendered because they wish to adopt this term.

There is a growing movement in the TS and IS community to abandon the "transgendered" terminology in lieu of their own respective terms of TS= Transsexual and IS= Intersexed.

This is mainly a reaction by the TS/IS community to law makers appeals to those that require laws of protection due to full time living be separated,

This is due to local and regional governing bodies adressing bills offered as protection asking for clarification of who's who in order to agree to pass these bills into law.

This is why you are seeing more movement by certain components away from the transgender umbrella.

Based on this I will agree that cross dressers are transgendred.


Julia





.
Freddie - you said "Correct me if I’m wrong, but the tone of this ongoing discourse (reading between the lines) is “You must be one of US,” namely TG..."

I am not trying to correct you or anyone else here, I trust your openness is also to validate ideas of opposing views.

I would prefer that a crossdresser remain a crossdresser. In that you live as you like dressed when and where you like for want ever reason you choose.

I would prefer Transgendered people remain transgendered so that there is no confusion when it comes to matters of the heart. We (transgendered people) may or may not be dressed but one this is curtain we are not gay. I also believe that once a person switches to ones 'sexual mind' to the opposite they then have the right to switch back and all that depends on ones mood at the time.

I would prefer that Transsexuals remain people that have chosen to change their birth-sex or are at some stand of that process. I would also prefer if at the time of completing their transition they (and I mean this politely) would stop calling themselves Transsexual unless of course they are planning to re-transition back to their original birth-sex.

[SuzanneBender]

Frederique you make an enormously compelling argument and I understand that you want a term that best describes who you are and does not confuse you with the actions of others. You make an outstanding argument for clearly defining terms to represent the sub groups of our greater community. Unfortunately, I have no idea what term to use for that greater community because no matter what term we attempt to apply someone takes exception. As you can see from the replies to your OP and in other threads many could care less what term they are given. However, as you point out this issue does hold enormous importance for many, but in my humble opinion there is even a greater reason why our definitions count which makes getting this right this extremely important to all...

My professional life now resides in the realm of national and international policy. I have found that policy is meant to balance interests between and regulate behaviors of groups of people or, better termed, interest blocks. It does not matter if we are talking about international issues, GLBT issues or just "T" issues the cold fact of the world we live in is the larger and more organized the interest block is more likely to impact policy on all levels including governmental and societal issues. We need a banner not only for a website, but for the entire community that shares many of our societal and governmental issues. You accurately point out that our community is quite diverse, but we have all tested the boundaries of the gender chasm (some come right back; some stay on the other side; some like myself fell in. Until we have a term and an interest block that represents the large number of us that cross gender lines, no matter which side we ended up on, we will continue to be marginalized. My dream is that one day we will figure out how to live like a sisterhood and brotherhood no matter what side of the divide we live.

Oh and BTW I think you are a fabulous representative of whatever community this is please don't undersell yourself! I love your posts.

[Veronica27]

Much of the "labels" controversy can be solved by just letting people self-identify and listening to what they have to say about themselves rather than pontificating definitions and pronouncing people in denial if they don't feel the definition applies. Gender, after all, is a fuzzy vague social construction that has no objective standard, at least not in our time. Ultimately, gender is subjective. If gender is subjective, then so is transgender. How someone can pronounce you transgender without defining exactly what gender is, I don't know. So, my both my actions and my identity are feminine if they meet my subjective standard for femininity. You may have a different opinion but that's all it is - an opinion. Sex, by the way, is also subjective. I am a woman (or man) if I say so. So if I say I'm a woman (or man) every other Sunday from 3:00 to 7:00 pm, I am. Can anyone prove differently without resorting to an arbitrary standard?

Very well put. The key words here are "just letting people self-identify and listening to what they have to say about themselves rather than pontificating definitions and pronouncing people in denial". This is all so subjective that the individual is the only one who truly knows what they are thinking and feeling, and what motivates them. If they are wrong about themselves, does it really matter to anyone? Those who say they are CD, never say that others can't be TG, but many of those who profess to be TG insist that all must be TG. The source of all the arguments is not the actual opinion of anyone, or the interpretation of any of the definitions, but rather is the "pontificating" and accusations of "denial"

Veronica

[Frédérique]

I’m pleased with the varied responses to this dissection exercise, and I am extremely pleased that nobody (so far) has written “I’M NOT ACTING!” :doh:

I’m also relieved that no one has pointed out that I’m making specific distinctions, which contradicts what I wrote some time ago, but I actually abhor generalizations that either come from without, or within our own community. It was not my intention to revisit the old “CD or TG” debate, but rather shed some light on the terms being bandied so casually…


Who cares??

I care. You should try it sometime…:straightface:


Words do have meaning, but we can also obscure meaning by parsing and redefining the words to our personal preferences.

Since words DO have meaning, I don’t see what harm it can do to break things down and examine the language we have all agreed upon, or inherited, depending how you wish to see it. I am only reporting on the definitions I find, not “redefining” the words according to a personal agenda. I just find it interesting – interesting is the key word here – that the prefix trans- is used when it really shouldn’t be, and the overall direction of THIS tide of redefinition is neither accurate, nor necessary, in my view. Crossdresser is a good word (or term), and it fits the vast majority of MtF CD’ers on this site, if two years of participation and three years of lurking on this site have taught me anything. Rather than obscure meaning, studying word origins can only enlighten the proceedings and provide something to hang on to for future reference…


As you can see from the replies to your OP and in other threads many could care less what term they are given. However, as you point out this issue does hold enormous importance for many, but in my humble opinion there is even a greater reason why our definitions count which makes getting this right this extremely important to all...

I think a lot of members see my “essays,” for lack of a better term, as a form of homework, but I’m just exhibiting my interest in words and their original (or proposed) meanings. Of course, many of these terms we have agreed upon are modern compounds, with their aggregate definitions being modified even as we read this, but I like to go back to the source and see where certain words came from. We’re living in a world (the 21st century) where “sick” means good, and “gay” means bad, so it’s no surprise that trans- and cross- have been merged together either out of convenience or laziness. Obviously, there are infinite shades of grey between crossdresser and transgendered, so no one term would accurately describe anyone to a “T.” That being said, it is useful, I feel, to at least examine the words in question, since they at least attempt to describe what we do…

BTW, I don’t mind being termed a “transgendered” individual, any more than I mind people assuming that I’m a homosexual...:idontknow:

[kimdl93]

We've all seen numerous threads debating whether a CDr is "transgendered". The debate always seems to revolve around different interpretations and definitions. There are some, and I'm not suggesting you're among them" who just seem too insistent that they simply like the clothes, while others acknowledge an intrinsic need, at least to some degree, to express the femininity they feel is inside. Maybe there is a bright stark difference between the two. I'm inclined to think they all fall within a related range of phenomena...under the same umbrella. So, from now on, I will simply assert the everyone here is "under the umbrella!"

[Michelle 51]

Under these definitions, then I am definitely a crossdresser, and not transgendered. However, throughout the years of my life, I have often bandied with the idea of being female rather than male. There are times when I absolutely wish I'd been born female instead. I struggled with the thought of transition and sex reassignment. And although I came to the conclusion that I would not go that route, the desire to do so still sometimes gnaws at me a bit. It is for that reason that I embrace the thought of myself as transgendered, rather than merely a crossdresser. But however you package it, for me, crossdressing is certainly a transgendered act.

Marla.....You nailed it on the head for me and I feel the same way as you do.It is a t/g act.It wasn't when I was younger but now it goes way deeper than just putting on the femme

[jillleanne]

I have often said that crossdressing is what someone does while transsexual (or insert other words of description such as transgender or even woman) is what someone is. As such, I find that your premise fits this rather nicely and really should go far to quiet the lingering debate as to whether crossdressers are in fact TG.

Agreed. inserting ' gender enhanced people ', as suggested. Now we have everyone included.

[Veronica27]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="black"] Obviously, there are infinite shades of grey between crossdresser and transgendered, so no one term would accurately describe anyone to a “T.” That being said, it is useful, I feel, to at least examine the words in question, since they at least attempt to describe what we do…



It was a pleasure to read your posts in this thread. I am often attacked for placing too much emphasis on language, both in my conversations with people and my posting on the internet. Some people think I am being some sort of an "elitist" by arguing grammar and definitions, but that is not where I am coming from. I was an accountant by profession (now long retired), and much of my career was spent interpreting taxation laws and their applications, as well as overseeing and editing the written communications of my staff. Various interpretations of the law were often encountered, and could only be settled by the principles of logic and grammar, often requiring debate in a court of law. The law was seldom ambiguous, but misinterpretation could be extremely costly.

I carry that same sense of the importance of language to discussions such as the ones that have been taking place here. Understanding the definitions and the source of them is key to arriving at acceptable conclusions. I have forgotten more of the rules of grammar over the years than I care to admit, and accordingly, I usually do considerable research before submitting my thoughts.

I am aware that language barriers exist over the internet, and that people do not always have the time to proof-read what they write, Spellcheck is useful to a point, but cannot distinguish between such words as "to", "too" and "two". There are only a handful of language problems that rankle me to the point of commenting. One of them is what I see as a stretching of the meaning of the word "transgender" far beyond its actual literal meaning. A few others, (to avoid getting into further arguments about that one) are:

The use of "so fun" instead of "so much fun" by many people today.

Saying they "could care less" when what they mean is they "couldn't care less"

Saying things like "I didn't see nothing". The use of such double negatives means they did see something.

The use of acronyms to create a word, when the same spelling was already a word with a completely different meaning. The word "gay" in its original sense has been rendered useless and the butt of nasty jokes by this.

Call me elitist if you want, as that is your opinion and does not create any major misunderstandings for me in life. But don't call me transgendered, as it is inaccurate and requires me to have to do a lot of explaining to everyone about the differences between CD and TG.

Veronica

[Kathy Smith]

Thanks once again for a thought-provoking epistle Freddy!
Yes, I fully appreciate your views on the correct use of trans- and cross-. After all,the language is there to be used, so why mix it up? :-)

[ReineD]

However, I am not transgendered – I identify as a male, not as a female, so my crossdressing does not indicate a thorough change to the other gender.

I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto. :)

http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm

[Jonianne]

I still think that the common understanding of the word Transgender is dependent on whether it is in the context of within the community or outside the community.

Just like the word "Yankee". Outside the States, we are all considered Yankees, but within the States, don't dare call anyone south of the Mason-Dixon line a Yankee!

Its a matter of location as to more acuterly define the term. Outside the community, we are all considered TG as a broad term, but within the community, TG implies at least the addition of a degree of cross-gender identity as well as the cross-dressing.

[Sue101]

I don't believe the majority of us begin crossdressing because we had a transgendered personality but usually it was more a case of mild gender dysphoria growing up mixed with curiosity. So most of us probably began dressing as a role-playing fantasy to escape the confines and pressures of being male. But that is not necessarily the end of the story. Since gender roles are artificial social constructs, a funny thing happens when you jump over the gender divide. You end up reconnecting with your natural femininity which all men have to some degree or another so you become a whole person again. But in the context of the gender binary world, we have become transgendered.

So although your gender ID remains a male, your crossdressing activities will have shifted your idea of what a male is. Your recognize you do not possess a transgendered personality but to anyone on the outside you are TG.

Also with regard to the idea that TG CDs want everyone else to be TG as well, I think that is largely true. But I think we must also consider that many non-TG CDs, unable to understand why they dress, are very much drawn to the TG explanation as a simple sympathetic idea that aids them to leave the guilt and shame behind and also helps with relationships. So there is a far amount of eagerness to adopt the TG explanation even though many know it is not factually true as their gender ID remains male.

[TinaMc]

I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto. :)

http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm

That's an excellent article, Reine. Thanks for posting it!

[LeaP]

I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto. :)

http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm

It was an excellent article. It does use "trangendered" in the broadest sense (in this case covering someone who, though completely out, is "just" a crossdresser).

Lea

[sara.s]

It was an excellent article. It does use "trangendered" in the broadest sense (in this case covering someone who, though completely out, is "just" a crossdresser).

Lea

Have you even read the article? From what i have read, it does not define TG in broader sense, but in a more specific manner.


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.

[Kathy Smith]

I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto. :)

http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97-03/numbers/symposion/gilbert.htm


Many thanks for that, Reine. The writer makes some very good points. I can see a lot of my own development listed there.

I guess I must be a trans-cross-whatever then. :-) I'm not a fan of labels.

[Julogden]

Freddy, I'm not buying that argument at all.

If someone consistently tells lies, we call them a liar. If someone golfs on a regular basis, we call them a golfer. If someone consistently has heterosexual sex, we call them straight. If someone consistently has gay sex, we call them gay. If someone regularly performs transgendered acts, we call them transgendered.

That's all it means, it doesn't look at why someone is performing transgendered acts, just that a person behaves in certain ways. So yes, crossdressers of all stripes are indeed transgendered according to the current definition of the word. :2c:

Carol

[SuzanneBender]

Reine that was a fantastic journal article. I saved it to my favorites so I can revisit it.

[ReineD]

Reine that was a fantastic journal article. I saved it to my favorites so I can revisit it.

Thanks, but I've got to give credit where credit is due. One of our members, Tailor186, posted the link in another thread. I've been posting it all over the forum since. :p

Here's a story about Dr. Michael (Miqqi) Gilbert at Fantasia Fair:
http://www.torontolife.com/features/naughty-professor/

[Amymonroe]

I know speaking for myself that I started out simply crossdressing nothing else. then as I grew up and started hanging out with other girls I realized that maybe I was suposed to be a girl. So I went beyond dressing I even had a relation ship with a guy. It wasn't a long one and all we did was oral sex. I did have another one night stand with another guy while in dressed in night gown, he know of my crossdressing. it was those two time i felt more like a woman than man. Later in life I got married and told the wife about my feelings about transitioning and that turned out to be a no go. I am happy to stay a crossdresser but deep inside i still wish to be a woman. oh well these are the cards that I was dealt.

[sometimes_miss]

O.K., I'm too tired right now to read the whole thread, and I did start the article, but started to doze off (I work nights, and am usually asleep right now, but an idiot doorbell ringer woke me up).
The problem is that society and medical mental health professionals feel a need to put people into categories, and have a way to define us (and, everyone else). It can't be done. Like 'normal' people, there is an infinite variety to who and what we are. Some of us are 'barely' crossdressers; liking only, say, wearing lipstick. Others go the whole nine yards with SRS and become as physically and behaviorally female (or male as the case for FTM's indicates) as we can. I know this because I'm one of those on the border of a couple of definitions, yet people continue to ask me if I think I'm a non op TS, TV, 'just' CD'er, some think I'm gay and in denial. I can't be completely defined by any of those terms, but people insist that there be some way to categorize me; I guess so they can figure out how to deal with me.

My answer: Just let us be. Stop trying to put us into categories with strict definitions, because often, you're not going to be able to do it. Some days we may feel more TS than TG. Some days we may feel straight with no 'aberrant' feelings or behaviors. It's not that we're necessarily suppressing part of ourselves; it's that we are perhaps all those things to some degree at different times, and to try to define us by what we are on one day, but not another, will not be the correct answer.

We must learn to deal with everyone on an individual basis. Yes, it's hard. It's difficult to remember who likes to wear dresses but not wigs or makeup, who likes having sex while dressed up, and who likes it while not dressed up but still feeling like a girl, who feels a need to go out in public as the other gender, and who goes out in public dressed as the other gender but doesn't go through all the work to try to pass because to them it's not important, who has homosexual feelings only when they're dressed as girls, who has homosexual feelings but disconnects while fantasizing so as to separate those feelings from actual males, who dresses as a girl and behaves like a man sexually, who dresses like a girl and behaves like a girl sexually (while still self identifying as male during the sex), who dresses like a girl and behaves like a girl and feels like a girl during sex, the list goes on and on; who will come up with a word to categorize each one of these types? After all, they all behave differently for different reasons.
No one. No one wants to be bothered to learn each and every variation of who we are. So they just want a simple way to package us into some category and be done with it.

But it doesn't work. And society, and the mental health profession is still not advanced enough to understand, and accept that. We await the next great psychologist to come up with a theory that just accepts people for who they are; distinct individuals that can't be easily defined by one small part of our lives.

[ReineD]

Intrigued, I looked up Gore Vidal’s exact words, which are as follows:

“There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo - or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.”

I never did respond to your original point, and so I will now. I don't agree with Gore Vidal's premise that we are all inherently pansexual and it is only the person that we choose to have sex with that will determine our sexuality. Perhaps Gore Vidal was flexible with his sexuality. But, most of us are simply not same-sex attracted.


Sometimes_miss, you bring up good points and I'd like to address them:



The problem is that society and medical mental health professionals feel a need to put people into categories, and have a way to define us (and, everyone else). It can't be done. Like 'normal' people, there is an infinite variety to who and what we are.

It is natural for all of us to be categorized and to categorize ourselves into major groupings. For example, I'm a woman. There's a vast array of women out there, but we are all women. To break it down further, I can say that I'm a mother (whether I give birth or adopt, or am a part time or full time mother, or my children are grown and gone), as opposed to someone who is not a mother. So, if I want to give a detailed description of who I am as regards gender and parenting, I can say I am a woman, and a mother who had natural child birth and who was a full time mother until my children grew up and left home.

People can also be grouped into the major categories of race, ethnicity, and nationality, even if there is an overlap or a mixture for some people, and again, despite there having a multitude of different personalities and preferences. For example, my kids are dual citizens, yet they are as different from one another as night and day. Or, someone might categorize themselves as a member of an organized religion, or a political party ... and an infinite number of other organizations, activities, preferences, or personality traits. Some of these groupings are based on who we are, and others are based on what we do or choose to believe in.



Some of us are 'barely' crossdressers; liking only, say, wearing lipstick. Others go the whole nine yards with SRS and become as physically and behaviorally female (or male as the case for FTM's indicates) as we can. I know this because I'm one of those on the border of a couple of definitions, yet people continue to ask me if I think I'm a non op TS, TV, 'just' CD'er, some think I'm gay and in denial. I can't be completely defined by any of those terms, but people insist that there be some way to categorize me; I guess so they can figure out how to deal with me.

Well, the one commonality between someone who wears panties twice per week and someone who wishes to transition, is a desire to knowingly cross the gender barriers. It doesn't matter to what degree, what matters is the desire, or the act of knowingly moving from a male expression to a female expression, as opposed to someone who has no such desire or need. Hence the term, "transgender" vs. "cisgender".

Apart from the blurry line, for example, between someone who dresses only once per year on Halloween for a lark, and someone else who does the same only because he dares not do it more frequently (but the desire is there and he would if he could), if we don't spend our entire discussion debating these blurries and we instead focus on the CDers who dress habitually (whether he is a male who wishes to transcend his masculinity by just wearing panties once per month, or dressing fully once per week, or a TS identifying female who dresses full time), then there is most definitely the habitual crossing of gender lines. Hence, again, the major category of "transgender". Any additional detailed definition is entirely individual.



My answer: Just let us be. Stop trying to put us into categories with strict definitions, because often, you're not going to be able to do it. Some days we may feel more TS than TG. Some days we may feel straight with no 'aberrant' feelings or behaviors. It's not that we're necessarily suppressing part of ourselves; it's that we are perhaps all those things to some degree at different times, and to try to define us by what we are on one day, but not another, will not be the correct answer.

I understand your plea to let you be, but you don't need to click on any thread that discusses definitions. There are plenty of threads here that don't, and there are other members here who do enjoy the discussion and ensuing clarification.

I don't draw and paint every day. There was a time when I felt compelled to do so, other times when I could not find inspiration and I didn't for many years, and other times when it was regular, but not daily. I still consider myself an artist. If I had only once attempted to draw something and found it wasn't for me, I would not call myself an artist. I do not sell my work commercially, yet I still consider myself an artist.

It doesn't matter how your feelings fluctuate day to day, while you are balancing your struggles to express yourself in a non-accepting world. It doesn't matter whether your gender expression includes just wig and no makeup, or just lipstick, or just nail polish, or no makeup or wig at all and just pretty panties, or whether you do go out or stay in the closet, or if you fantasize about being with men or not, as long as the reason for choosing any of these things stems from a desire to depart from the masculine and move towards the feminine ... (as opposed to a male goth who wears black nail polish for the male goth look, and not to enhance femininity). What matters is that you do habitually experience a need to express or get in touch with femininity.



We must learn to deal with everyone on an individual basis.

We do. There is a wide variety of transgender expression, and within each transgender expression, a wide variety of personalities and personal preferences. I don't think anyone here is saying that all members of this community are clones. :p

But, you do recognize the members here form a community? How would you characterize this community? The simplest, most common denominator is a desire to transcend gender lines or expression, to some degree or fully for some people. Hence the term, "trans"gender.

[LeaP]

Have you even read the article? From what i have read, it does not define TG in broader sense, but in a more specific manner.



Yes. He describes a very full range of trans ID. For me, the relevant part (re my comment) is that it "isn't that important to him", yet he includes the "committed crossdresser" in the trans category (he describes himself as in that category). This sets a VERY low bar.

Lea

[silkeze]

Always remember, The dress doe's not make the man! Quote Tammy K.

[lijdi]

Many people crossdress for many different reasons. There's a number of types, and a number of definitions.

[donnalee]

Damn, Fredrique; you don't get out much, do you? :devil:
There will always be an attempt to attach the broadest labels to any thing observed, as this will allow one to cease thinking about it in any detailed sense. I believe the reasoning here is primarily political; the larger the group, the more powerful it is, and we are so far down that scale that we need all the help we can get.
As someone who tends to look beyond these labels, I think accepting them at face value is a large mistake; things are never that simple and tossing as diverse a bunch as this one all in the same basket is doomed to failure. However, political alliances are needed if we are to achieve a common goal of having the right to exist freely recognized, so there is some use to it.

[Frédérique]

I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto.

First of all, thanks for providing the link to that interesting article. You won't debate, or you won't debate ME? :heehee:

Some time ago I read a book (actually a treatise) about crossdressing, transvestism, and all sorts of related things – this came out before the term “transgendered” was being widely used. The author, whose name I forget, was a learned doctor, and he had no sympathy for transsexuals. He thought TS was a kind of mistake, and certain individuals weren’t “trying hard enough” to make a go with their birth gender – imagine submitting such an opinion on this site! As such, I avoid “official” verbiage of this nature, preferring to hear from the insiders in our community. Luckily, the professor who wrote the article IS a crossdresser, and is therefore one of us...

I concede that the word transgendered has undergone a transformation, whereby “trans-“ no longer implies permanent change, much like “awesome” is used inappropriately to describe anything good. “Playing with gender,” three words plucked from the article, may best describe the type of crossdressing this crossdresser engages in. In other words, it’s not a one-way street...


I don't agree with Gore Vidal's premise that we are all inherently pansexual and it is only the person that we choose to have sex with that will determine our sexuality. Perhaps Gore Vidal was flexible with his sexuality. But, most of us are simply not same-sex attracted.

The only reason why I quoted Mr. Vidal is because this stated difference between persons and acts inspired me to write the OP...

I’ve read many stories where a couple of heterosexual males will engage in a homosexual act, and afterwards they will inevitably say “Does this mean we’re gay?” You can debate that all day long, but I would say they have had a homosexual experience, and they are not homosexual persons. I think Quentin Crisp would agree. Bisexuality is a word rarely mentioned, in these black-or-white times, so you either ARE gay, or you aren’t. It’s not fair, if you ask me...

In a similar way, if a heterosexual male finds enough courage to try on women’s clothing, and likes it, he will first wonder if THIS means he’s gay. This happens, but if our hero/heroine is reasonably assured as to his heterosexuality, he will start to wonder if he was really meant to be female all along (after all, there MUST be an explanation, right?). I’m sure the word “transgendered” will never cross his mind, as in “Does this mean I’m transgendered?” Instead, he will, I’m sure, think of the word crossdressing. Maybe he will come to learn he is transgendered, and go beyond “playing with gender” in this way, on the way to definite change – meanwhile, he is engaging in a transgendered act by crossdressing...

My point is that it isn’t fair to say that ALL crossdressers are transgendered. Transvestism and transgender are two different, albeit related things - one is about clothing, and one is about gender. I do the former, but not the latter, so I am not transgendered...
:straightface:

[ReineD]

First of all, thanks for providing the link to that interesting article. You won't debate, or you won't debate ME? :heehee:

Well, Sometimes_miss' post came up after I said that ... and I felt compelled to address it. :)



I’ve read many stories where a couple of heterosexual males will engage in a homosexual act, and afterwards they will inevitably say “Does this mean we’re gay?” You can debate that all day long, but I would say they have had a homosexual experience, and they are not homosexual persons.

I agree, if they tried and decided it wasn't for them. The difference between a mere act and something deeper lies in the frequency of the act. If it is habitual, then it indicates an inherent need or desire.

If your heterosexual males were to engage in a homosexual act once or twice per month for years on end, and each time they asked, "Does this mean we're gay? :eek:" I'd tell them, "Yes, if you don't have sex with females ... otherwise, you're bi".