Crossdressing vs Transvestism

[dr1819]

There seems to be many references to "cross-dressing" which really fall into the "transvestism" category.

I'm a lay counselor, and am intimately familiar with the DSM-IV and its entries on transvestic fetishism.

Fortunately, the DSM-IV stops there, and does not regard dressing in clothing typically intended for the opposite sex as deviant unless sexual arousal is part of the motivation.

Therefore, my dressing in heels and skirts is, according to the DSM-IV, within the bounds of acceptable behavior so far as society is concerned.

Historically, men invented heels (to keep their boots from slipping out of their stirrups), and perfected high heels among the noblemen of the French court between 1500 and the middle 1800s.

That's 250 years, folks.

It was only in the last 120 years that heels were relegated solely to the realm of women's fashion.

Furthermore, men have been wearing robes and skirts since the dawn of man, more than 50,000 years. In fact, as many as 30% of all men worldwide still wear skirts and dresses, although they're not called by those names. Nevertheless, the cut of fabric remains that of a skirt or dress.

Fortunately, a growing number of manufacturers are making their heels in larger sizes, up to 13, for the most part, so that guys can go back to doing what they've done for most of the last 400 years.

As for skirts, the good news is that times are changing here, too. I've had absolutely no problems going out on the town while wearing a long, black, ankle-length skirt. In fact, it's drawn considerable admiration for the style, as well as the fact that I have enough gall to wear a skirt!

The bottom line is that I do not consider my wear of masculine-looking heels or skirts to be either cross-dressing or transvestism, for several reasons.

First, the term "cross-dressing" has come to mean the wearing of clothing intended for the opposite sex. Since men have worn heels for most of the last 400 years, and skirts for most of the last 50,000, I fail to see how either skirts or heels can have come to be considered as "women's fashion" just in the last 100 years.

That's absurd.

And who decides? I certainly didn't.

Second, the term "transvestism" implies something more complete. For example, I would never consider my wearing a masculine-looking high-heeled boot, like those made by Harley Davidson, to be "cross-dressing," much less transvestism. On the other hand, if I were to wear a pair of hh pumps, I would consider it to be cross-dressing, but not transvestism. Were I to wear a pair of women's panties, or a bra, I would consider it to go beyond cross-dressing and to fall within the realm of transvestism.

My wife, on occasion, has worn my underwear to bed. Does that make her a transvestite or a cross-dresser?

Of course not. It's simply a case of her panties being in the wash/dryer.

One time, when all my pants and shorts were in the wash, she tossed me one of her skirts, which I wore the rest of the afternoon.

Big whoop, and that no more made me a cross-dresser or transvestite than my wife wearing my underwear.

A "cross-dresser" is someone who wears an article of clothing that is for all intents and purposes intended strictly for a member of the opposite sex. This would include women wearing jock-straps and men wearing bras.

A transvestite is someone who goes the next step, that of appearing as a member of the opposite sex.

A transexual is someone who goes one more step, that of desiring to change their sex.

All fall within the realm of the transgendered.

But a man wearing a skirt/kilt/lunghi/sarong/whatever, or even a pair of heels, is not necessarily a cross-dresser, nor is he a transvestite. In order to meet the definition of either of these two terms, there must be something more than merely wearing a skirt or a pair of heels.

Obviously, if a man wears a pair of feminine heels, or a feminine skirt, then he would meet the definition.

But theres where the line blurs.

What's considered "feminine?" Some would say that heels or a skirt themselves are feminine. I would counter that by showing you a pair of my heels and a picture of my skirt! Neither are feminine, and in fact, both are masculine enough in and of themselves that I, a man, can wear both in public without public ridicule of any kind.

I sincerely doubt I'd fare nearly as well if I were to appear in public wearing a feminine pair of heels and a feminine skirt!

Well, that's my two cents.

Anyone else?

[Billijo49504]

Sorry dear, you confused me. I guess we can all label ourselves what we want to. I choose to label myself as human. Have a good day.

[TGMarla]

Well, since it seems that most of us go in for bras, pantyhose, breast forms, wigs, and decidedly feminine styles, and do all we can to emulate womanhood in every way possible, we are all crossdressers and transvestites. Some of us are transexuals, too. Call it what you will, but we all take it the extra yard or two....or three.

When I dress, I want to be female.

[Ellaine]

Hi dr1919

Perhaps one should expect this kind of confusion from someone who is content to be (dr1819) just another number ;)

However I was sufficiently ill informed as to have no idea what you were talking about when refering to DSM-IV...... WTF???

So I had to go find out before I could read on.
Thus I found:...
DSM-IV...
Diagnostic Criteria for the most common mental disorders including: description, diagnosis, treatment, and research findings. This list is a shortened version (incomplete) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C., 1994, the main diagnostic reference of Mental Health professionals in the United States of America.

What a relief, I thought it might be something serious lol
But I cannot readily accept a word of this until I have the answer to a question.
Since Cross-dressing is a direct translation of (Latin) Transvetism, how can a direct translation bring about a crucially different meaning?

I have seen many, many attempts to distinguish the two terms. Simply put, these attempts invariably involve trying to differentiate between the "Cant help it, it's a compulsion", brigade, and the " I do it for (sexual) kicks", brigade.

So we seem to have two camps(lol), those who seek understanding for their afffliction, the distress of which can be overwhelming, and those who wish harmlesly to do as they please without criticism.
With individuals prone to moving and evolving between these two states and further into transexualism (and even back again), the two versions of the same definition, etymologicaly speaking, do not and can not work for all, or even the majority.

So long as these blinkered boffins maintain the status quo, and so long as we follow their "academic" lead, there can never be a satisfactory solution to the endless confusion. Indeed, it is the diversity of individuals of the transvestite/crossdresser "comunity" that has prevented acceptable new or variation labels being adopted at grass roots level.

As I understand it, the motivation for seeking to differentiate, stems from social prejudices that prevent us from just being who we are; with those compulsively afflicted wishing to distance themselves from fetishists. In an ever more judgemental world, only those fortunate enough to be aestheticaly pleasing, will ever gain significant acceptance in public. The rest of us are doomed to just deal with it. :(

Of course there is a lot more to it, but hell will freeze over before the likes of The American Psychiatric Association come up with anything useful.

Hugs Ellaine

[Deborah]

Hey hon
Call yourself whatever you want to that's fine with me. Labels generally don't go over well here anyway as we all have one basic thing in common anyway which is wearing female clothes.

I personally want to be female and wear the clothes as a sideline. Some call me TG (because i'm not on hormones yet) and some call me TS (because i do want a sex change) I personally don't care which i just want to be the inner me LOL.

[Toni]

I'm just an old biddy from the cold and wet part of the UK and to tell the truth I haven't got a clue what your going on about! I wear womens clothes because I like to and for no other reason - maybe the colds done something to my brain.

[Phoebe Reece]

Labels are a kind of shorthand for language. With a label of one or two words we can describe characteristics of an entire group of people. This of course is called stereotyping. This can be welcome when we like the stereotype. I know I like to identify with the Carly Simon song that says “I am woman, hear me roar....” Choosing the right stereotype can be a bit tricky.

Some of my earliest memories of cross-dressing involve putting on one of my grandmother’s old dresses, stockings, and shoes and prancing around the house. I remember even walking down the sidewalk beside the house wearing those things. One time I did this and encountered my uncle (who still lived at home at my grandmother’s house) who was out in the yard cutting the grass or doing some other yard work. On seeing me he promptly called me a “sissy”. I didn’t know what a “sissy” was, but I knew from the way he said it, that I didn’t like him calling me one. In retaliation, I told him I thought he was one too. He said something to the effect that I was the one wearing girls clothing. Well, he had me there. So, after that I avoided going around him when I played dress up. I still didn’t think I was a “sissy”, but I sure didn’t have any idea what other label I could put on my behavior.

As a young teenager my friends talked about some sad people that they referred to as “queers”. When I found out what a “queer” was, I knew right away I wasn’t one of those…. even after they became happy. One day a friend told me about a fire he had seen the night before and said there were a bunch of “queens” in the neighborhood watching it. I asked, “What’s a queen?” My friend said something like, “You know, guys dressed up as women.” That got my interest in a hurry. Then he said “Yeah, a bunch of queers in dresses.” Well, I decided the label “queen” didn’t apply to me, either.

Later, I found some books about sexual behavior and found references to the term “transvestite”. As I read about this, it seemed pretty close to describing me. But, as I continued to search definitions, the one in the dictionary turned me off of personally identifying with “transvestite”. It said that a transvestite was someone with a morbid desire to dress in clothing of the opposite sex. I didn’t think there was anything “morbid” about my desires or me. I kept searching for the right label.

In my readings I also discovered descriptions of the “transsexual”. That entire concept horrified me. I liked wearing women’s clothing, but there was no way that I would ever let anyone do that kind of surgery on me. I was certainly not a transsexual.

While on a vacation in New Orleans, I found nightclubs on Bourbon Street that had “female impersonator” acts. I soon discovered these were performed by “drag queens”. These clubs also employed transsexuals and they were often referred to as “she-males”. I enjoy seeing those acts, but they spoiled the use of several terms for me because every performer that I ever saw in those clubs was happy (gay, …whatever) or transsexual.

When I read magazines like Playboy and Penthouse I began to find more references to transvestites, but not in the negative way I had found in the clinical books. This is where I came across the first use of the acronyms “TV” and “TS” and others. Other adult publications that had advertisements for contacts could be kind of confusing until you learned the lingo…. “TV seeks bi male for B & D”…… a television is searching by mail for a broom and a dishwasher??? I eventually figured it out.

Even though the “adult” publications seemed to indicate TV’s were a wild bunch, it was through those publications that I found the contact address for Virginia Prince’s FPE (Full Personality Expression) organization. Once I joined that, references to being a transvestite suddenly took on a different aspect for me and the acronym TV no longer seemed inappropriate. I could now proudly wear the label TV…. at least as proudly as anyone locked tightly in a closet can be.

Eventually I left the closet. It was getting a bit crowded and stuffy in there. As I contacted others in the world that seemed to be like me, references to being a TV seemed very natural and no one seemed to have a problem with that. I was a TV proudly exploring the TV world.

Then I went to work overseas - for a very long time. During that time, I lost contact with the TV world and my TV friends. I wasn’t in the closet again, but I wasn’t quite out the front door either. When I finally ended my self-imposed isolation and returned to what I thought was the TV world, I found out I was no longer a TV. Unbeknownst to me, over the years I had turned into a “CD”. A compact disk???? Nooooo - a cross-dresser. OK. I can handle that. One two-letter acronym substituted for another. No problem.

But wait a minute…. As I began to reach out and explore the “CD” world, I began to find that there are those who are not quite happy with just being a CD. There are those who want to take the emphasis off the clothing and put it more on the attitude or personality traits. I now find individuals who wish to be known as “transgendered” (TG), “bigendered” (no acronym), “multi-gendered” (no acronym), and even “gender-gifted” (no acronym). Someone who is transgendered doesn’t even have to wear clothing of the opposite sex to express his or her self as the opposite gender. And then there are those who seem to want to discard distinctions between the transgendered and transsexuals by using the terms “tranny” and that all encompassing acronym “T*”. I was confused all over again.

It’s a wonder ordinary people can keep up. Follow this conversation:
Are you a TV?
No, I’m a CD.
Is that the same as a TS?
No, but it does mean I’m TG.
Do you know anything about trannies?
Do I look like I work in an auto repair shop?
Oh, sorry. I’m a Shriner.

It’s bad enough trying to figure out what to refer to yourself as, but what about your wife or girlfriend? In the old days it was acceptable to use the term “genetic girl” or “genuine girl” or “GG”. This worked fine until one day some of the GG’s decided that “girl” was somehow demeaning. “Significant other” or “SO” kind of works, except that it does not define the sex of the person referred to. In these days of “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, t*), knowing ones actual sex may have some significance – or not. The term “real woman” or “RW” seems to go pretty well with most of the former GG's as it implies that us male to female (MTF) CD’s are simply “imitation women”. That effectively shifts the demeaning aspect. Actually, I like the term the Brits use for their real women - “she who must be obeyed”. That seems to fit pretty well.

The term “imitation woman” might not be a bad idea for us – we can change our acronyms and confuse everyone all over again. Instead of being a “CD” I can be an “IW”. Hmm… perhaps not. TV is not a fashionable term anymore. I have to wear the clothes to actually feel feminine, so I guess I am only partly TG. I know I’m not TS, so it looks like T* doesn’t make a lot of sense for me either. I’ll just try to be content referring to myself as a CD and address others by their preferred terms intentionally or unintentionally and only when it’s necessary and absolutely convenient to do so. Understand that? Good, because I sure don’t.

There’s a song in a Benny Hill television skit that I kind of identify with. The song is about a medieval jester, Chirpy Chuckles, and the end of it goes like this:
“Some say he was full of humor. Others say he was full of …… wit.”

[kristine239]

DVSM-4 is so far out dated to the extent that is ignored by many professionals.

many organizations such as the International foundation for Gender Edication Inc, the Harry Benjamin International Gender Disphoria Assn have been trying for years to get the APA to up date this guideline. It took the APA 20 years before they changed the language concerning being Gay (they said it was a curable disise), it will be a long time before the DSM 4 ever gets up dated.

Cross Dressing is NOT being a transvesite. There is a world of difference. I would suggest that if you are a professional health care provider, you should consider attending the IFGE Conference and/or joining HBIGDA.

[Paula Rae]

Hey Phoebe,

RE: reply #7
I was pretty bored with this thread, until I read your outstanding reply.
Thank you, you've made the thread worth reading.

Ricki B

[susandrea]

Men still wear heels, here in the West. Everything from cowboy boots to lifts.

And around the world they wear dress-like garments every day.:)

But they aren't transgendered, of course.

What I would give to have a peek at fashion a hundred years from now. And five hundred years.... will we still be wearing clothes or will we each be in a self containing pod-like thing that protects us from all the pollution?

Sorry, just rambling.:D

However, all this labeling stuff is the "growing pains" of discovery and understanding. Eventually it will expand and change and wan and then be so familiar that we'll look back and say, "Remember those days?"

[Ellaine]

Cross Dressing is NOT being a transvesite. There is a world of difference.


At last...clarity ;) Er... which world is that then? lol


Post of the week must be No7.

Ellaine

[Rebecca Petersen]

I guess my first question would be, do your patients get an uneasy feeling dealing with a Doctor with the name 1819? Kind of like R2D2? Of course I'm just joking. The DSM-IV tossed out transvestism as an illness (even if you were sexually aroused) in the early 90's I was told. It is also my understanding that the word crossdresser was adopted by the gender community - again in the early 90's - only because it sounded less clinical that the word transvestite. But hey, "a rose by, any other name, etc."
I'm not totally sure if there is a question here or is this a brief history lesson. If in reality the question is, "Can I wear a dresss and heels?" It's really okay with me.
Rebecca

[susiej]

dr1819,

We've kicked this around some before you got here -- I'm a "veteran" member (since August), and I've seen two other major threads on it. I haven't recently seen a therapist weigh in on it before, though. Check out:

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14950

... for example. You can use the search button in the top banner to find stuff like this.

The previous bottom lines has most often been, (a) WTF? :), and (b) it doesn't really matter what we call it so long as it's legal, safe, and non-fattening.

But, I have to tell you that I (and probably a lot of other girls here) really *BRISTLE* at the implications of two of your statements. I apologize in advance if this offends you, but the following excerpt pushes my buttons more than any other I have seen here since I joined this forum.



Fortunately, the DSM-IV stops there, and does not regard dressing in clothing typically intended for the opposite sex as deviant unless sexual arousal is part of the motivation.

Therefore, my dressing in heels and skirts is, according to the DSM-IV, within the bounds of acceptable behavior so far as society is concerned.


The authors and wizards of DSM are free to label me whatever they want, but in spite of getting sexual kicks from dressing like a girl, *I* do not consider myself deviant. Nor, am I severely troubled about what the DSM manual says about it, because as previously stated, my practice is legal, safe and non-fattening. BTW, does the text in DSM-IV actually use the term "deviant"?

But much, much more importantly, I'm astonished that you would assert that DSM somehow represents the "bounds of acceptable behavior so far as society is concerned" !! As I understand it, DSM presents packages of standardized behaviors and symptoms, combined with labels like "schizoprenia", "bipolar" and "gender identity disorder", so that psychological professionals can have a common vocabulary. Acceptable? Society???

You seem to be relieved that your behavior -- wearing relatively masculine high-heeled boots and skirts (we've talked about kilts a lot here) -- does not cross into pathology as far as DSM is concerned. Very well, but as you read the posts here, and look at the pictures, you'll see that virtually all of us have cheerfully, gleefully plunged across the transvestite boundary, and many are in some stage of transexualism. These things are all *acceptable* in this *society*.

Honey, next time you put on your heels and your skirt, try a nice frilly pink blouse to match it. Underneath, maybe a black lycra bra, with something in the cups to give you a nice, round figure.

Take a walk on the wild side! You might like it. Or, maybe you won't. But please be careful about jumping from diagnosis categories in DSM to what's "acceptable" to "society".

Hugs,
Susie

[TGMarla]

Touche!

[Lauren_T]

...
I'm astonished that you would assert that DSM somehow represents the "bounds of acceptable behavior so far as society is concerned" !! As I understand it, DSM presents packages of standardized behaviors and symptoms, combined with labels like "schizoprenia", "bipolar" and "gender identity disorder", so that psychological professionals can have a common vocabulary. Acceptable? Society???
...You make a good point, Susie... let me refine that just a tad more and say that the DSM is pretty much the de facto Bible for mainstream - that is to say, Freudian - analysts. While the Freudians, very unfortunately, happen to currently dominate the Western psych world, more progressive schools don't take it's conclusions as literally. Even for adherents of Ellis (such as yrs trly), Jung, Adler, and other lesser lights, it can often be a valuable analytic tool - but I've never met anyone but an old-school Freudian who thinks the DSM is something Moses brought down from the Mount... :p

[malecynthia]

I must also be an ignoramus; I had to do a Google search to find out what a DSM-IV was. Not all of us are as versed in the technical side of being a pervert as the good doctor. Yes, I know, pervert is the word I used, not Dr.No. I wear ladies clothes from time to time because I like the feel of them and get a sexual kick out of doing something I've been taught was wrong since childhood.
I'm probably very much in the minority even here by getting a thrill from wearing some visibly feminine items when out in drab, sufficiently far from home to be reasonably sure of not meeting anyone I know. Exhibitionist? Maybe, but who cares about having a label?
I've been married for 40 years and my wife takes me shopping as Cynthia when we both feel in the mood for that sort of excitement. A 60-odd year old man wearing dangly earrings and ladies trousers may well be deviant, but I now enjoy being treated as a sissy when we go shopping for undies - as long as its only strangers who are witness to it.
The good people on this site accepted me for what I am, as I accept them for what they are. We are all varying shades of the same colour. Is there a colour called "human"?
I'll take up Toni's idea and blame the cold for freezing my brain. I live in Scotland.
Lang may yer lum reek.
Cynthia.

[knelson]

What the good Doctor forgot to mention about the DSM-IV is that while transvestism is considered to be a "disorder", it can only be considered as such if the act remains

1. Recurrent, intense, and occuring over a period of at least six months ina heterosexual male, sexually arounsing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.
2. Causes marked distress or impairment in social or occupational functioning
3. Can be associated with a degree of gender dysphoria (big word for discomfort with person's gender identity)

In general, cross-dressing usually takes place in private, and in secret and is known to few member of the family. (Davidson, Neale, Kring "Abnormal Psychology, 9th edition)

Not my words.... theirs However if it does help, I am licensed to practice counseling and I am an avid cross-dresser

;)

[KathrynW]

Historically, men invented heels (to keep their boots from slipping out of their stirrups), and perfected high heels among the noblemen of the French court between 1500 and the middle 1800s.
That was then...this is now... ;)

Were I to wear a pair of women's panties, or a bra, I would consider it to go beyond cross-dressing and to fall within the realm of transvestism.
Not sure where you came up with your definitions of crossdresser & transvestite. I've always thought of the term transvestite as having more sexual implications to it than crossdresser.

Some would say that heels or a skirt themselves are feminine. I would counter that by showing you a pair of my heels and a picture of my skirt! Neither are feminine, and in fact, both are masculine enough in and of themselves that I, a man, can wear both in public without public ridicule of any kind.
In certain parts of the country, there is absolutely no way you could get away with that.;)

[CaptLex]

However, all this labeling stuff is the "growing pains" of discovery and understanding. Eventually it will expand and change and wan and then be so familiar that we'll look back and say, "Remember those days?"

Oh, I hope you're right! All the labeling confuses me, but I keep saying I won't know how to tell anyone else what I am unless I know what to call myself. Oh well. It's still a learning process for me. :confused:

I guess I'm just a sweet transvestite from transexual Transylvania! :D

[Sarahgurl371]

WOW!!!!! I never knew that there where so many different ideas on what this all means. Crossdresser, Transvestite, crazy huh? I guess some of us have spent alot of time trying to figure ourselves out, how about the ones who initially get a sexual kick out of it, then migrate into full fledged dressing with no sexual effect? What the heck are they? Me, I guess i am a crossdressing transvestite. Sometimes its sexual, sometimes its not, How do I fit into this equation? It was explained to me by the first COUNSELOR that I went to that "its only a problem if it creates a problem in your life". What if you change you life so its not a problem anymore? Does that make you an extremist? An addict?

I think some of us have spent alot of time trying to justify to ourselves that we are not the FREAKS that everybody is talking about. We feel that we are OK, so we must justify to others that we are not THOSE kind. I think somebody better do a little looking in the mirror and asking the tough questions. Sure glad my current "psychiatrist" is up to date on all this stuff. And a good communicator too. A person could really get a complex from reading this thread. I thought we came here to help one another?

[Maria2004]

Good post dr1819. I used to obsess over what I was called until I "grew up". I identify myself as a transvestite after reading the DSM since it's technically accurate globally. Too bad you were trashed for offering your "2 cents", doesn't matter how many times the subject may have been re-hashed. Going over the "same old, same old" is a common theme here but I guess your point of view is less popular but refreshing for me, I don't care what the "veterans" (lmao) say.

[Deborah]

Yeah what she said ^^ heaven forbid the "veterans" have an opinion. OFF with their head!! :rolleyes:

[susiej]

I think dr1819's wearing skirts and heels in public, in essentially a male context, is interesting and courageous, but it's not "crossdressing" or "transvestitism". The term is not so important as the risk -- he's not taking anywhere as much of a risk as one of us who goes out in a pinafore or a frilly pink silk blouse with a 40-D bra underneath. He's not presenting as feminine. He's making a fashion statement, not exposing his personal gender orientation.

I'm not "trashing" dr1819, his dress preferences, or his general views. But, Amy and Maria, with respect, this wouldn't be much of a forum if no disagreement were allowed.

Dr1819 represents himself as a "lay counselor", and in the same post, equates DSM-IV as indicative of behavior acceptable to society. This scares me, because it's shallow and judgemental. Knelson (post 17) pointed out that even DSM-IV requires that transvestism not be considered a "disorder" unless it causes the individual severe distress and confusion about his/her gender. Dr1819 didn't seem to notice this despite his "intimate familiarity" with DSM-IV. I'm still interested in hearing if DSM-IV uses the term "deviant", or whether this is dr1819's interpretation.

Kristine (post 8) told us that DSM-IV is out-of-date w.r.t. gender disphoria issues, and many professionals now ignore it in favor of a new standard, HBIGDA. It concerns me that dr1819 doesn't consider that.

I have no problem with anything else that dr1819 said in his original post -- and he's to be commended for pushing the edges of fashion prejudice by wearing what he likes. But, sorry, those two little paragraphs seem to be elevating a clinical diagnostic tool to the level of a social moral standard, and coming from professional practitioner in this field, this is unacceptable.

Hugs,
Susie

[Helen MC]

Perhaps to put it simply, to me a "Crossdresser" (like myself) is one who primarily wears the clothing of the opposite gender to obtain a sexual thrill from so doing (and who finds women's garments more comfortable especially female underwear) and is quite satisfied with that, a "Transvestite" takes this further as their turn on is not merely from wearing the clothing but from trying as hard as they can to look like and act like a woman and when "en femme" they adopt a female persona and mannerisms. The question might be, when clothed in female garments do you consider yourself a man in women's clothing , no doubt far happier and at ease therein but still a man, or do you feel as if you are a woman?

[frilly1]

Has anyone seen the Cliffs Notes version of this thread

[KathrynW]

A major part of the dilemma here...is that many of us have different definitions/interpretations of the terms - "crossdresser" & "transvestite".
Not that it really matters, and not that everyone is ever likely to agree on any kind of definition. Let's remember that these are just labels, and they really don't mean a damn thing..."labels" don't change what's inside us.

Bottom line...we're all individuals with different goals, desires, reasons for cd-ing, etc. There will probably be few times when everyone will universally agree in these threads. But, if we can at least make an effort to understand each other, that's a start...;)

[TGMarla]

Look, the terms "crossdresser" and "transvestite" are exactly the same thing. The deliniation being made for those who find sexual excitement in it has not necessarily been given a definitive term. The bottom line here is that whether one finds feminine clothing erotic or not, we are still genetically male persons who dress up as and emulate females. If you want to get all technical, so be it. But dr1819 would have us all believe, is ACHING to have us believe, that he is different because he wears "male" high heels and skirts. Oh, please! If anything, that makes him/her/whatever very different from all the others I have seen here. Keep your silly labels, and check the URL of this site again. We're all crossdressers, whether you like that label or not. If you want to say you're different simply because you don't get a sexual charge out of it, well fine then.

[Katie Ashe]

Sorry dear, you confused me. I guess we can all label ourselves what we want to. I choose to label myself as human. Have a good day.
The point is, only about 10% of here on this site, fit into a stero-typical label set forth by society. There are infinite points on a line.... Do you know which way the train went? Neither did our gender at birth...

[Deborah]

Do you notice topics like this are always started yet the topic starter never jumps in to add anything. Almost like they planned it. ;)

[Rainbow6562005]

For Frilly: thank you!:)

My only comment is about psychiatry, where almost anything people do is labeled a disorder. Leave us alone! I read recently that even menstrual cramps are being considered a mental disorder!

I propose a new mental illness for DMV-whatever number: Labelism (also known as Pecksniff's Disease): A set of symptoms of a disorder belonging to the Obsessive-Compulsive group. Its principal sign is an overwhelming addiction to creating new mental defects. Treatment: a muzzle.

Rainbow
PS. I am no Tom Cruise! Psychiatry has some valid uses, like treating psychoses.

[KathrynW]

Look, the terms "crossdresser" and "transvestite" are exactly the same thing.
Marla-
Have you ever visited the "My Husband Betty" forum? They will set you straight in about 1 second that these two terms definitely do NOT have the same meaning. No, I'm not endorsing that their definitions at all, just telling you that there is much confusion out there.

that he is different because he wears "male" high heels and skirts
"male" high heels and skirts Do NOT exist. ;)

[KathrynW]

Do you notice topics like this are always started yet the topic starter never jumps in to add anything. Almost like they planned it. ;)
Someone should have probably picked up on it. As it turns out, this thread was classic troll bait. :mad: You'll probably never see the person who started it post here again.

[Phoebe Reece]

Kathryn,

I think you and Amy are right. I doubt there will be any more posts from this character. I suspect DR1819 is just some college student having a laugh at our expense.

By the way, I threw in my post #7 (the material there I originally wrote some 3 years ago) as a humorous attempt to show that worrying about labels doesn't really get you anywhere. I am surprised this went on as long as it did, becoming such a serious debate.

[Ellaine]

Great stuff Rainbow!! #30.. rofl

Kathryn..Capital letters or not, Marla is one of the few that has her logic intact and has not sucumbed to the pandemic confusion.

e.g. "l'automobile" and "car" cannot credibly be adopted as defining the difference between a "convertable" and a "sedan", no matter how many "disordered" people seek to repeat the error.

No such thing as male skirts? visit "Men in skirts.com"..hardly a crossdresser to be found!

Ellaine :)

[KathrynW]

No such thing as male skirts? visit "Men in skirts.com"..hardly a crossdresser to be found!
Sure, you can find anything on the internet if you look long enough. Come to the midwest and tell me how many normal men you see walking around in skirts... It simply ain't gonna happen.

[Ellaine]

Sure, you can find anything on the internet if you look long enough. Come to the midwest and tell me how many normal men you see walking around in skirts... It simply ain't gonna happen.



I don't think you bothered to look. Some of those guys eat girders by the look of them ;)

How many trannies do you see wandering about? Doesn't mean much does it?

Ellaine :)

[KathrynW]

I don't think you bothered to look. Some of those guys eat girders by the look of them ;)How many trannies do you see wandering about? Doesn't mean much does it? Ellaine :)
You're missing the point. Point is...you won't see normal everyday run-of-the-mill guys walking around wearing skirts & heels. It simply doesn't and won't ever happen.

[Ellaine]

You're missing the point. Point is...you won't see normal everyday run-of-the-mill guys walking around wearing skirts & heels. It simply doesn't and won't ever happen.




Katheryn I concede your point whatever it was, because I wouldn't know "an everyday run of the mill guy" if I sat on one! :eek:

[KathrynW]

Katheryn I concede your point whatever it was, because I wouldn't know "an everyday run of the mill guy" if I sat on one! :eek:
Really? Well maybe y'all are different across the pond. never been there, so I dunno... ;)

[jollie]

tv or crosdressers , does'nt mstter! the point is that we should be confident enough !!!
and if ur confident than nothing can fear u .

[LaceThighs]

the doc lost me on that one????:confused:
the reason i dress in womens clothes is because i like the feeling of looking like a women and feeling like a women. if im going to be labeled as something its a women;) , hot sexy women at that:doll: ... and im never going to change who i am period. for anyone!
the only difference in me as a CD and a transvestite is an transvestite takes being a women to the next level by physical transfermation such as implants, hormones, and sex change. which i have no problem with! if thats what makes you feel what you are and want to be "do it" :dom:

lace

[Kimberly]

Dr1819,

I think you'll find it is the urge behind this dressing, and not the act itself that identifies us as a group:

People who don't believe their gender matches their outside appearance... Not everyone is like this, I grant you. Yes, they are transvestites. (Those with a sexual desire to dress.) However, transgendered folk are doing it to be themselves... the opposite sex!

Hence, you're arguement is about clothing and it's transferance between the sexes during time?

If trousers were an all-female item of clothing, we'd all be wanting to wear trousers!!! My point is: whatever femininity could be, if it were not what we understand it as today, then we'd seek it out anyway! It's not just because they are skirts - the desire to dress in them comes from a desire to be (or resemble,) what is connoted with the skirt.

[Kimberly]

I read recently that even menstrual cramps are being considered a mental disorder!
A man came up with that conclusion, no doubt. ;)

[Mitzi]

If you don't want to be labeled a crossdresser/transvestite, why do you wear your heels/skirts at all? Sounds to me like you are CD/TV, but just trying to justify not labeling yourself as such.

Otherwise what's the point of your post?

Mitzi

[Marlena Dahlstrom]

Otherwise what's the point of your post?

Trolling? I don't say that lightly, but as Amy said, it's kind of interesting how she hasn't bother to say anything else.

Martina Navritolova said it a few years back... Labels are for filing, labels are for clothes, labels aren't for people.

[Miss Sherry]

As noted by some others here, it is interesting to observe how we all seem to try and label whatever it is we are.

All of this activity we are trying to label is really a continuum. It can start with thoughts of what it would be like to have the body of a woman, without even putting on any woman's clothes, and evolve into GRS, or anywhere along the way.

When we try to label human behavior, it's like trying to put the round peg in a square hole: it almost fits, kinda sorta. It's when that square hole, after we've jammed the round peg into it, is then declared a rule, or worse, a law, that we really get into trouble

Labels are convenient linguistic tools, but they make lousy cubicles.

Me? I'm somewhere between then and there, so I must be here.

Sherry:)

[KathrynW]

Trolling? I don't say that lightly, but as Amy said, it's kind of interesting how she hasn't bother to say anything else.

This thread was started by a person who set out troll bait. Plain & simple. ;)

[Miss Sherry]

This thread was started by a person who set out troll bait. Plain & simple. ;)


Even if that is true, so what? You have to admit it has become rather interesting.

Sherry:)

[Sweet Susan]

I don't know if it is troll bait. I started this thread about a year ago. I've seen it several times since then. I think it's just as legitimate as any other topic. Afterall, how many times are we going to discuss "when was the first time you wore girlie clothes?" and all of the other droll topics that pop up every three weeks. Crossdresser or Transvestite? The last time I saw this topic discussed somebody mentioned that Transvestite sounded dirty to them. Oh, well. By the way, ..............

[Khriss]

yeah.. more unnessesary "angst"
"lables" and such..
friggin .. GET OVER IT !!! ???

[Helen MC]

Like it or not, Life is full of Labels. From the day we are born we are tagged, not only the physical one round our wrist as a newborn baby , but categorised by Doctors, Schools etc, then by Employers, by the State/Government Organisations, and finally as a Corpse we are tagged again with a plastic label attached by the Morgue or Funeral Home.

We also label ourselves be that in the Religion we affiliate to, (if any) , likewise our Politics , our attitudes in general. I keep my Crossdressing a private matter and only a handful of very close friends are aware and they do not have any problem with it, but I have no problem with being labeled as a CD or a Tranny although I prefer CD in my own situation.

[Mitzi]

I don't know if it is troll bait. I started this thread about a year ago. I've seen it several times since then. I think it's just as legitimate as any other topic.

For me, it's not the topic that offends, it's the tone of the post, that somehow the poster is above us CD/TV's because his heels/skirts are masculine.:(

Mitzi

[Marla]

I just enjoy dressing up!

[Khriss]

Like it or not, Life is full of Labels. From the day we are born we are tagged, not only the physical one round our wrist as a newborn baby , but categorised by Doctors, Schools etc, then by Employers, by the State/Government Organisations, and finally as a Corpse we are tagged again with a plastic label attached by the Morgue or Funeral Home.

We also label ourselves be that in the Religion we affiliate to, (if any) , likewise our Politics , our attitudes in general. I keep my Crossdressing a private matter and only a handful of very close friends are aware and they do not have any problem with it, but I have no problem with being labeled as a CD or a Tranny although I prefer CD in my own situation.
sure ..catagorizaton I'd supose.. indexing..files..social securety??..but putting up with being "labeled" I vote :thumbsdn:

[Lauren_T]

Something I picked up on a long time ago was that when people complain about labels, what they're really complaining about is the misuse of labels.

We all know lazy-minded people who abuse labels because it's so much easier to grasp a person's category than to have to consider that person's individual characteristics. But that in itself doesn't make labels themselves bad...

The answer is - as it most always is - moderation. Use labels when it's appropriate to do so, but don't fall into the trap of automatically pigeonholing everything just because it takes less mental effort.

Think: how would you ever have joined this Forum, if the banner at the top read "humans.com"? :confused: But even that's a label, so maybe "mammals.com"? No, still a label.... So how about "somenonspecificlifeforms.com"?

See? Doesn't work out too well; we still have to use labels - all I'm saying is we should be careful not to overuse them... :)