To the CDers Who Are Contemplating Counseling

[ReineD]

If you are at all interested to know what general therapists and gender therapists are learning about the crossdressing so that they can help you, you might want to buy this book:

Google book preview: Counseling LGBTI Clients - Kevin Alderson (http://books.google.com/books?id=z4rUSsYhcd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=counseling+lgbt+clients+-+alderson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hhsNUrzDBo7PqAH3r4HICA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=counseling%20lgbt%20clients%20-%20alderson&f=false)

They've devoted Chapter 7 to crossdressers and chapter 8 to MtF Transsexuals.

It is intended to be a text book and so it draws its information from virtually all the academic, peer reviewed studies that have been conducted in the trans-area. It is a modern approach since it was published just this year, and it suggests an affirmative approach to the counseling rather than an attempt to "cure" (page 151).

The publisher is making public the entire Chapter 7 (on crossdressing), and so I thought those of you who are looking for answers for yourselves or who are contemplating gender counseling with or without your wives might be interested. I'm posting this in the MtF CD section and not the Media section because the book is not a news source to be debated or commented on, but is rather counseling for crossdressers. There are even textbook exercises for the therapists, so you can imagine yourselves back at school learning about this.

I think that we are very fortunate to have been given Chapter 7 for free:

Chapter 7 entire PDF (http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/47510_ch_7.pdf)

[Kathi Lake]

Very interesting! Thanks!

The chapter title leaves me a bit cold, however. I'll have to read the entire chapter to see if the author thinks all crossdressers are fetishistic.

Kathi

[ReineD]

Yes, the chapter title is a little off-putting, but the author is quick to point out that reasons for CDing do change over time and also, that the term 'fetishistic crossdressing' comes from the origins of the crossdressing (most times it does begin during the teenage years sexually). And also the term should be used as an adjective, which indicates that the crossdressing is only a part of the total person, rather than a label that describes all of who they are.

Over all it's a balanced approach which is refreshing, IMO.



Edit - and most important, this is what all the therapists are learning about the CDing which is an eye opener in itself.

[GaleWarning]

I skim-read it, Reine and will read it more carefully over the weekend. The approach does seem more in touch with reality than those previously published.

[Zylia]

A very good read! It's a great starting point for many of us (crossdressers and significant others alike) to learn more about our 'shared interest' and I would really recommend everyone to read this, even if you think you don't fit the mold. It's very honest, also where it cannot offer answers, and non-condenscending, although one might think it is condescending because of the word 'fetish' in the title.

It's the first time I read about the idea of 'gender euphoria'. Literally made me laugh, maybe even out of recognition.

[Courtney . J]

ive never liked the idea of going to a counseling and really dislike it when people tell me it would be a good idea ,. i know who i am and who i want to be and i dont need anybody else to tell me what is right or whats wrong or acceptable



"its my life and im the one that is going to die when i die , so let me live the way i want to " - Jimi Hendrix

[ReineD]

Courney, I did not post this to imply that you or anyone else should seek counseling.

I instead posted this for people who do not understand the CDing as well as you do, and who do want answers or who are considering therapy. There is a significant number of people here who seek counseling alone and/or with their wives.

I also thought it would be extremely useful for everyone to see what the therapists are learning in their training, about the crossdressing. It's an amalgamation of every study that has been conducted in the trans-area, all in one place.

[PaulaQ]

Skimming chap 7, and the first few chapters available as a preview on amazon, this is a very good book. I was particularly happy to see that crossdressing was treated seriously, and sympathetically. Because I can tell you - a number of professionals I've spoken with who deal with trans people don't take CD's very seriously, which is a mistake, because CD's can certainly suffer too, and many do so.

Some reasons someone should consider counseling:
1. Marital issues
2. social / work issues
3. Issues with self-acceptance (This is super common.)
4. Help determining the extent of your gender dysphoria, and finding ways to mitigate / control it. (Maybe you need to transition, maybe you DON'T.)
5. Help understanding what's really going on inside your head - hey, society has told you "YOU ARE WRONG TO FEEL AS YOU DO!!!!!", is it any wonder some of us are confused?

In general, if you are happy, and your life is OK, there isn't much point in counseling. If you are having problems because of your CD, it's worth considering.

[Beverley Sims]

A contrast to the great "sickness and cure it" course previously administered.

[kimdl93]

I am so pissed. I read the article and wrote a long and deeply insightful commentary. Unfortunately, you'll never see it because my iPad inexplicably decided to 'time-out' my log in...so every word vanished. Believe me, it was thoughtful, provocative and highly entertaining. You'll just have to imagine it.

OK, I'm at a keyboard now. I won't attempt to recreate what I lost. I would make these observations. Many of the life experiences mentioned about fetish dressers resonate with most of us. Dressing at 7-8, resumption at puberty in association with sexual awakening. But the inference I got was that CDrs are made, not born. The chapter suggested that boys exhibiting early effeminate behaviors tended to be bi or homosexual but not CDrs. And went on to suggest that those fetish dressers who expand their dressing to a regular basis were essentially training themselves to be TS. To be fair, the author did qualify this assessment by acknowledging that this might also be simply result from uncovering some underlying need or inclination. They also noted that fetish dressers typically did not experience any GD, while that was common among TS individuals.

I think what got lost in the chapter was the middle ground transgender person. I look at myself and others who dress extensively, would go full time but for life circumstances, but do not suffer deep GD as something other than fetish dressers (not that there's anything wrong with that). I Its not a horrible flaw for us to be overlooked. Perhaps we'll get more attention in Chapter 8.

Its hard for behavioral health scientists to address the developmental factors that influence gender identification and sexuality, just as its difficult for each of us to see an exact representation of ourselves in studies of this sort. The number of cases is so small that generalizations are difficult.

[Sarah Beth]

Some twenty years ago when I was in graduate school we discussed this very issue in a couple of different at length. At that time there was a huge difference of oppinion between what I call the old guard and the new innovators. The old guard was really upset about all the moves to remove crossdressing and homosexuality from the list of "deseases" that afflict the human mind. They still believing that it was "curable" I could see at that time that the thinking as rapidly changing. The professors I had were all younger and their general thinking was that it being a cd, or gay, lesbian, tg was not a desease and did not require treatment. The feeling was that what counseling was needed for were those problems associated with the acceptance or lack there of of the lifestyle. The stress individuals face from the lack of acceptance in their own minds, and the issues the face in learning to accept, and in dealing with others who are not receptive to thier lifestyle.

So its nice to see that maybe the old timers have gone the way of the dinosaurs and some more rational thinking has taken over.

[Edyta_C]

I read this chapter and while I was pleased with the tone, the phrase "Fetishistic Crossdresser" bothers me. I was raised for my first 4-5 years as a girl. I loved the bonding and rituals that my mother poured on me. There was no sexual connotation in my mind during this period. While I did have a "fetishistic" period during puberty, I do not have any connection with sexual behavior in my dressing. While I can not say for sure that I am TS, I relate closely with those individuals transitioning. The author has an interesting approach to the counseling aspects of crossdressing, I think the terminology limits the result that the counseling can help the individual. I did not choose to be this way. My development is a result of Childhood and possibly DES during my time in the womb. So these authors really upset me with the quick to label and compartmentalize their patients. WE are all individuals and while there may be some generalization possible, I believe that in general we are individuals and need to be thought of in that manner.

Edy

Thanks to ReineD for her thoughts and bringing this chapter and book to our little corner.

[CassandraSmith]

Regarding the off-putting title Fetishishtic CDing, I'm thinking that's more of what they'll see client actually come in for. I've had a therapist for years and I've only mentioned it to her once in passing (oops, I made a funny) and was more concerned with other stuff. CDing has never seemed like someone negative to me and since I not only enjoy it, I'm trying to develop it, it's not really grist for the mill in therapy.

However, I have talked to several people here who have tremendous angst about it and are in pain over it. While I've had momentary blips of this and tried purging once, I realized that it was was somehow bound to who I am and thought I should learn to be more accepting of it within myself. Others aren't so lucky. One kid at my church is obviously struggling with this because he said to me point-blank "I wish I was a woman." I'm also positive that his parents would be against it and even beat him down about it.

[Zylia]

@Edyta_C Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't fully recognize myself as well, but I certainly do see where certain things do apply to me. I guess you cannot expect a 22 page document to be applicable to thousands of cross-dressing individuals. There's also no point in writing a (very necessary) guide if you're not allowed to make some generalizations. Where it does succeed is in normalizing the cross-dressing phenomenon, acknowledging that cross-dressing behavior itself isn't damaging or something that can or should be cured.

What I don't get is why you say you "did not choose to be this way". Are you suggesting that the 'classic' fetishistic cross-dressing persons actually did choose to be this way? That really is not the case and is well explained in the counseling guide.

[noeleena]

Hi,

As has been said to be cured or not, so the old school was one can be cured . cured of what dressing , so a man wears a dress, so what , does that make every man a dresser, , of cause not okay my que Renaissance times & other times men wore dress's & skirts. religous groups have done for 1000's of years, were they dresser's. no . so why is it only in the last 100 or so years theres this change . .

Is it a mental detail some will say no wrong . its allways been mental & Psychological if not then the brain / mind is a robot or you have no thinking or any thing to think with,

Why were so many of our people put in the nuthouse's because they in the minds of certain people had them sanctioned because they acted a little different or what ever was going on , yet many of those people were sane then 1940' to 60's yet when they talked about what happened to them 6 years ago they were as sane then as before, some became insane because of what they went through , those dr's , ill not say my thoughts about them lisensed thugs , yea well you know what i think of them,.....grrrrr.....

so dressing is it then a you choose or born with, well for most its you are programed at conception , now is this the case for drag queens they may just like dressing yet it says more they take the stage & wont to show off as exibisionests, so is that a wont or wired in,

japan = actors do similar all dressed up to the nines act out thier part, get off the stage then back to thier normal life till next time, are they then dresser's as well. go back into japans history, youll see some interesting detail.

Its not just western thinking , its 1000's of years to late, when you look at Japan, maybe western thinking has still not caught up .....yet.....oh well back to the nuthouse.......

...noeleena...

[Laurie A]

Reine,
Thanks for posting this, I skimmed over it this morning, and will read in more depth later. Several people seem to be uncomfortable with the term "fetishistic crossdresser"
I copied a paragraph from p. 142. Can you help me understand? " Essentialist in nature"? And what is meant by "our behavior is
largely socially constructed" (I never took a psych class, so the terminology is unclear)
Dela

As in previous and in future chapters, although
it is simpler to write
fetishistic crossdresser, the
term will be used only as an adjective to ensure
that the reader remembers that this identity is one
of many that a person owns. Furthermore, using
it as a noun suggests something essentialist in
nature, and that is not intended because, like
most psychological phenomena, our behavior is
largely socially constructed. This does not imply,
however, that something socially constructed can
be easily changed—or changed at all, for

[Ressie]

Thanks Reine. I'm getting something out of this after a few pages. FC is what I identify with, so the term doesn't bother me.

[Courtney . J]

Courney, I did not post this to imply that you or anyone else should seek counseling.

I instead posted this for people who do not understand the CDing as well as you do, and who do want answers or who are considering therapy. There is a significant number of people here who seek counseling alone and/or with their wives.

I also thought it would be extremely useful for everyone to see what the therapists are learning in their training, about the crossdressing. It's an amalgamation of every study that has been conducted in the trans-area, all in one place.



ok im sorry ,. i misread the OP and thought it was a question of how many people thought it was a good idea or bad idea for counseling ... dont mind me i can be a major blonde pretty often .lol :heehee:

[ReineD]

That's OK, Courtney. I'm guilty of skimming through posts big time. There's a lot to read in this forum.

:hugs:


Dela, I take it that "essentialist in nature" means that it is your major identity or your major personality trait, which the CDing is not for the majority of CDers. It is just a part of their behaviors. This is why they use it as an adjective, to show that it is only an aspect of all of who you are. "Socially constructed" means that a large part of your behavior, likes, and dislikes, is learned through having lived in the environment that you lived in. For example, if you had been raised in a remote part of the Far East, you would have different cultural priorities, you would behave differently in society according to what is acceptable and not acceptable there, etc. It's the "nature vs. nurture" argument.

[Amanda M]

It seems to me that the author meant that cross dressing (amongst all our behaviors) is not genetic or an inborn trait, and is mainly due to social and psychological factors, and goes further to say that she does not imply that behavior formed as a result of environmental and social factors can be changed.

From my point of view, in most cases, socially constructed behaviors can be changed if need be. However, I do not see crossdressing as a behavior that should, or needs to be changed, unless it forms part of a psycho-pathological construct involving harm or potential harm to others. Even then, it would have to be viewed as only one part of the personality of the person affected.

Open to discussion, of course.

[ReineD]

It seems to me that the author meant that cross dressing (amongst all our behaviors) is not genetic or an inborn trait, and is mainly due to social and psychological factors, and goes further to say that she does not imply that behavior formed as a result of environmental and social factors can be changed.

I think it's important to keep in mind that TG behavior (which includes the CDing) is on a scale. There are nuclear CDers (who CD occasionally) and there are marginal CDers who CD more often and for whom there are varying degrees of feminine identity. I believe the author is saying that a fetish is born for the majority of the CDers during their adolescent years, which changes for some people to dressing for comfort, or for other people to varying degrees of feminine identity later on in their lives.

Chapter 8 is not available, but I'm guessing this is where the author would get into the various theories about in utero influences. I'm sure that many of our members will identity with some aspects of Chapter 8 as well. I wish that this chapter were also available.

... and again, whether the author mentions in utero influences or not (which, as far as I understand it is still a theory), the importance here is to see what the therapists are learning about general CDing (in Chapter 7), rather than reading the chapter to see what applies or doesn't apply to every individual CDer in this forum. Any newbie seeking therapy will now know everything about the CDing that the therapists know, which will influence how the CDers will be treated.


----------------------------------------- ~~~ -----------------------------------------


EDIT - Not to confuse everyone and although I haven't finished reading it, here is another paper from Dutch researchers. This one focuses on the fuzzy line between the more advanced CDing and the lesser advanced transsexualism (those who perhaps will not have SRS) or rather, Type IV on the Benjamin scale.

As an aside, this paper also focuses on a master self-system (initial gender identity) and a secondary self-system (feminine identity) which eventually takes over in some people, which is rather fascinating:

http://www.gendersanctuary.com/pdf/xdress/crossgenderidentity.pdf

So, the conclusion that I draw from this theory (keeping in mind that I have not finished reading the paper), is that whether or not an individual will want to feminize their body later on in their lives (late onset, perhaps Type IV transsexualism), rather depends on how well they deal with the cognitive dissonance of being a male bodied individual with strong feminine urges. Some people will integrate the feminine self with the masculine self and not wish to transition, while others will allow the feminine self to take over the initial master-self.

[kimdl93]

Despite my earlier comments, I do think there's some value in the conception that we may in some sense be rewiring our minds as we get more deeply involved in CDing. I've often wondered if the realization that I can do this has made my mind more receptive to expanding my experience. I look a this, from the perspective of a transgendered person, as realizing or uncovering something within me, rather than creating something from nothing. But hey, I could be wrong.

[Dianne S]

Despite my earlier comments, I do think there's some value in the conception that we may in some sense be rewiring our minds as we get more deeply involved in CDing.

I believe this is absolutely true. In The Brain that Changes Itself (http://www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge.com/MAIN.html), Dr. Norman Doidge shows how the brain can rewire itself, both in good ways (adjusting after a stroke or other type of brain damage) and bad ways (addictive behavior reinforcing itself.)

The book is a great read and I think we do rewire our minds the deeper we get into CDing.

[ReineD]

Absolutely true, Dawn. The brain is just as subject to biological influences (the foods we eat, the drugs we injest, the experiences we live that change our brain chemistry) as is the rest of the body. People tend to think there is a separation between mind and body, but in reality both are an amalgamation of elements and chemicals.

[Frédérique]

There are even textbook exercises for the therapists, so you can imagine yourselves back at school learning about this.

Is there any chance that one of these therapists, or therapists-in-training, is a crossdresser? If so, I might be interested in hearing what they had to say about it. If not, I wouldn’t bother seeking their opinion on anything, nor would I feel at ease accepting “counsel” from such a person…

You get this all the time in the art world. Someone will expound their overly-educated expertise about what makes artists “tick,” sometimes in an uncomplimentary manner, but they themselves have never painted a picture, or sculpted a sculpture, written a poem, or composed a piece of music. Perhaps they can WRITE and make it sound cerebral and worthwhile, but the people they seek to counsel are the opposite of that mindset, individuals to a fault, winging it as they travel through life…

If you ask me, trying to make sense of things is a rather sense-less way to spend one’s life… :hmph:

[CynthiaD]

I read part of this, and the authors make it clear that they are addressing only one type of crossdressing, fetishistic crossdressing, particularly when it causes specific kinds of problems in a person's life. They state that transgendered people are "surprisingly ordinary" and are not considered to be mentally ill. The chapter probably doesn't apply to the majority of the people on this site. It certainly doesn't apply to me.

[Dianne S]

Is there any chance that one of these therapists, or therapists-in-training, is a crossdresser? If so, I might be interested in hearing what they had to say about it. If not, I wouldn’t bother seeking their opinion on anything, nor would I feel at ease accepting “counsel” from such a person…

Really? That's a fairly extreme position to take. Would you refuse treatment for depression from a therapist who has not suffered from depression? Just because someone isn't a CDer doesn't mean he or she cannot offer valuable help, insight and advice.

[TheMissus]

'For the most part, FC is harmless behavior. But like anything, if too much time and energy is devoted to it, it may take on a life of its own (referring here to the possibility that some FC men will become transsexual or compulsive in their FC). As is often said in Buddhist philosophy, all things in moderation. Part of our role as counsel- ors is to help clients lead balanced, healthy lives.'

Thanks for posting this Reine. The above paragraph really summed things up well for me, and my H (being a FC) agrees. All things in moderation.

Of course, I think this fits most CD online but perhaps not most here? I suspect the average member here is further into the TG side of CD and probably can't easily relate. I hope Chapter 8 gives them some insight as it was actually very useful reading about my H from a counsellors POV. I always wondered what they thought of FC. I might add FC doesn't just start at puberty either - often fetish has pinpoints in childhood that are then brought through to puberty and sexualised. It can start before or during puberty, but I think they do mention that in this article.

[Brooklyn]

Thank you so much for locating this for us, Reine. I also love the term 'gender euphoria', and the paragraph about creating a bi-gendered identity for individuals with moderate gender dysphoria speaks to me. The paper by the Dutch researchers is thicker reading but even more fascinating. Can't wait to tell my therapist all about it...

[ReineD]

Hi Missus, in Chapter 7, I think they tried to give a general over-all view of several different types of CDers, or how the CDing changes over time. It does start out sexually for most all teenage boys, but it does settle in after that to comfort dressing, or dressing to relieve stress, or developing a taste for the clothes, or wanting to be beautiful, or pure, or just the best embodiment of woman that a CDer can be. And then for some people, the beginnings of a feminine identity may develop, even if it is occasionally still sexual for them. But there are men in whom the fetish sexual aspect gets worse to the point where it seriously impacts their lives in a negative way: they can't concentrate, their work suffers, their relationships suffer, etc. But, I think these extreme cases are rather rare.

If your husband cannot control the sexual aspect of the CDing, then he needs help especially if his home and work lives are affected.

As to "most CDs online", it is true there are gadzillion sites that offer dating, meet-ups, Yahoo groups focused on the sexual aspect, trans-porn, CDing fetish-type clothes, places to post racy pics, etc. And we likely have members who participate in the discussions here, but who occasionally go to those other sites too. But I think that the men who engage in this stuff do so recreationally, like people who enjoy drinking but who don't abuse alcohol. They drink frequently, but not to the point where it impacts their lives negatively. If this makes sense. Different strokes for different folks and all that.




And thank you everyone else for your comments, positive and negative.

[ossian]

Thanks Reiene for posting this. It was a nice survey of the literature. It would have been very interesting for the authors to update their article in light of the many changes that happened in DSM V that came out a few months back.

In particular I find the phrase "trasvesite festishism" is pretty offensive.

[ReineD]

Ossian, I'm not sure, but I think the book was in print before the DSM V was released?

It's true that in the US we use the term 'crossdresser' more than 'transvestite' but really they are synonymous. The latter is the latin form of the word that is often used in clinical journals (trans = cross, vest = clothing). And as for fetishism, again, the author uses this word because it is generally the root of the CDing. It begins for most CDers sexually as teenagers. But I hope you read the part where the author explained that the CDing is an aspect of the person and it is not a label that defines all of this person.

[Amanda M]

Some therapists ARE crossdressers. Like me.

[Laurie A]

That's OK, Courtney. I'm guilty of skimming through posts big time. There's a lot to read in this forum.

:hugs:


Dela, I take it that "essentialist in nature" means that it is your major identity or your major personality trait, which the CDing is not for the majority of CDers. It is just a part of their behaviors. This is why they use it as an adjective, to show that it is only an aspect of all of who you are. "Socially constructed" means that a large part of your behavior, likes, and dislikes, is learned through having lived in the environment that you lived in. For example, if you had been raised in a remote part of the Far East, you would have different cultural priorities, you would behave differently in society according to what is acceptable and not acceptable there, etc. It's the "nature vs. nurture" argument.

Reine,
Thanks for the clarification. I've read enough academic papers to know that its important to define the terms that will be used as part of the discussion. I'm still not sure why folks take offense. They have to use some term or expression, and its important to remember the definition as prescribed for purposes of the discussion.

Also, I think this an important distinction for all of us to understand.. Does CD , FCD, (or whatever) apply to your life as an adjective or a noun?

[Jackie7]

I read the chapter and thought it quite good, balanced, and not given over to horror stories. The terminology is annoying but that's generally true of psychobabble.

I'd also like to note that nobody knows what animates "most" of the folks on this site. All any of us can hope to know is ourselves and even that's a tricky proposition at best.

Also it was interesting to note that the literature doesn't contain anything useful about older CDs. I know the arc has moved for me as I've gotten older.

thanks indeed Reined for posting this.

[Taylor Ray]

From a philosophical point of view, any system of definitions and classifications can be "true" as long as the participants agree to the terms. However, certain systems and classifications, often joined with various institutions, are often used to "control" or "have power over" other individuals. (Michel Foucault)

I was glad to be able to read some contemporary literature on the subject, but it still comes off like a bunch of scientists in white coats studying some strange creatures. Which is not to say that there are a lot of people who can find value in engaging in this system of classifications.

When I was in grad school one of my fellow students had a few rough nights drinking. Not able to process the experiences, she began to identify with being an "alcoholic". She started attending meetings and telling everyone that she was afflicted with the "disease" of alcoholism.

It would be neat to go back in history and study all of the "made up" ailments people used to think they suffered from. Again, I'm not attempting to explain away any diagnosis. I'm simply reiterating the point that there is an arbitrary element to human definitions.

[Sallee]

sounds interesting I want to read but I am sure it is rather heavy but worth the read Thanks

[ossian]

But I hope you read the part where the author explained that the CDing is an aspect of the person and it is not a label that defines all of this person.

Yep, I did read that part. It was pretty good. If you find more things like this please post links! It is very helpful!

It would be nice at some point to create an online bibliography or even a sticky with links to journal articles and textbooks on TG/CD topics.

[sometimes_miss]

Unfortunately, the title itself taints the whole document; unknowledgible readers will automatically assume that the writer is an authority on the subject, and will come to automatically associate the word fetishistic with crossdressing. Mr Alderson clearly isn't doing us any favors here. For someone supposedly informed and educated, both he and the editors of his document have committed a huge problem rather than improve the situation.
Thanks for nothing, Mr Alderson.

[Zylia]

sometimes_miss, it really feels like you and I have read completely different documents. The author has made very clear that the fetishistic aspect of cross-dressing for a lot of cross-dresser becomes less important after a while. A direct quote here:

The erotic and fetishistic properties are often reported by FC individuals to subside as one ages. As the fetishistic aspects diminish, the most commonly reported continuing motivation is that FC makes the individual feel self-soothed, less stressed, and more comfortable as a result
I think the author is doing us a favor by offering counselors a balanced story, depathologizing/normalizing cross-dressing behavior, while being honest about the sexual aspect of it. I assume most counselors actually do read past the title. While 'fetishistic cross-dressing' may be a bit of a misnomer, assuming that there's no fetishistic or erotic aspect to cross-dressing at all for the majority of people is just factually wrong.

[Taylor Ray]

I believe the author is saying that a fetish is born for the majority of the CDers during their adolescent years, which changes for some people to dressing for comfort, or for other people to varying degrees of feminine identity later on in their lives.

What's interesting to me about these discussions is the underlying presuppositions that often accompany the paradigms. The definition of fetish is "an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency." Perhaps one aspect of the archetype is manifested in a more crude form as the typical high school panty raid, in which an article of clothing is symbolic of the object of desire. Many men still find this to be true, as evident in the multi-million dollar lingerie industry.

To take the leap from simply admiring the object to begin wearing the objects seems to be the point at which the psychiatric paradigm begins to label the behavior as "fetishistic". But this is only in relationship to societal norms. The unspoken rule of society is that it is proper for males and females to wear different clothing. It then becomes "taboo" to wear clothing of the opposite sex. At this point the word "fetishistic" is semantically utilized to mean "taboo".

From an alternative perspective, the moment one decides to embrace and wear what was once just an "object of fetish" can actually be a more sublimated expression. Instead of just utilizing a fetish object for auto-erotic sexual fulfillment, one begins to more fully embody the feminine archetype. (It seems that even members within the cross dressing community judge each other on the basis of whether it is "just a fetish", or if it is more mature and developed.)

The presuppositions are often hidden but still present. For many, the fact that the activity of cross dressing is a topic of discussion amongst psychiatrists is in some way inherently offensive.

[sometimes_miss]

sometimes_miss, it really feels like you and I have read completely different documents. The author has made very clear that the fetishistic aspect of cross-dressing for a lot of cross-dresser becomes less important after a while. A direct quote here: I think the author is doing us a favor by offering counselors a balanced story, depathologizing/normalizing cross-dressing behavior, while being honest about the sexual aspect of it. I assume most counselors actually do read past the title. While 'fetishistic cross-dressing' may be a bit of a misnomer, assuming that there's no fetishistic or erotic aspect to cross-dressing at all for the majority of people is just factually wrong.
I had a very long, detailed post prepared, but basically it all comes down to this: Alderson's chapter all boils down to the assumption that all mtf crossdressing is connected to sexual arousal. Even your statement that 'the fetishistic aspect becomes less important after a while, indicates that he assumes that all crossdressing starts with it. If you want, I can quote the passages in his chapter that indicate this, but it will make for a very long post. The title of the chapter, and the obvious absence of discussion about oh, non fetishistic crossdressing makes this very obvious, and it will cause problems for therapists as well as their patients, as they may very well assume this false concept is accurate. What I find odd, is, that the concept was dismissed well over 20 years ago, so I don't know why he resurrects it again; unless, of course, he is a fetishistic crossdresser himself, so he assumes that if it's true for himself, then it must be true for all crossdressers. That is a very real possibility, as many psychological theorists base many of their observations on their own feelings and beliefs.

[Eryn]

The thing that strikes me is that there are "therapists" who hang out shingles to counsel people on TG issues whose total exposure to the TG community is the reading of a couple of chapters like this and perhaps a lecture or two. That is very frightening regardless of the completeness or accuracy of the reading.

Mimi and I were at a CD party a few weeks ago. Also in attendence was a GG university psychology professor and MFCC who had been invited to socialize with us. I was introduced to her and immediately sensed that she wasn't really comfortable with me, but I let it go and enjoyed the rest of the party. Later on in the evening, after the professor had left, we were having a group conversation and Mimi mentioned that the professor had asked to "pick her brain" about her relationship with a CD husband and asked her quite a few questions. Other wives had received the same treatment. It came out then that our hostess who invited the professor to the party instructed her just to socialize and observe, not to question, yet she quickly violated this condition. It is unfortunate that this is an example of a person who is training practicing psychologists.

[Zylia]

Even your statement that 'the fetishistic aspect becomes less important after a while, indicates that he assumes that all crossdressing starts with it.

From the first paragraph after the opening reflections:

Recall from Chapter 1 that transgender individuals include those who present unconventional gender expressions (e.g., fetishistic crossdresser, transgenderist, gender bender) and/or those who present unconventional gender identities (e.g., transsexual, transwoman, transman). In this and the next two chapters, the focus is on three types of transgender individuals: fetishistic crossdressing, male-to-female (MTF) transsexual, and female-to-male (FTM) transsexual people.
The document is not about all people who cross-dress or all transgender people, it's specifically about fetishistic cross-dressing people, and yes, the author obviously assumes that most of those have urges grounded in or somehow related to transvestic fetishism. A point can be made about fetishistic cross-dressers actually being a minority in the cross-dressing universe, but I personally don't believe that, and considering the choices the author has made, he also doesn't.

[Wildaboutheels]

Unless one participates at this Forum and is BLIND and/or is quite selective in what threads they read, it's obvious the VAST MAJORITY of participants here, at some point in their lives had Os while wearing "some" article of female clothing. The evidence for this exists everywhere at this site.

The VAST MAJORITY had at least one O if not dozens, hundreds or thousands? I never cease to be amazed that so few can figure out the implications AND lasting IMPRESSIONS from those experiences. Dressing, no matter how "far" or to what extent IS a way to prolong and drag out those 6 or 7 seconds. OR, later in life [commonly reported here] serve as a "substitute". Our BRAINS do this kind of stuff daily.

The author broke no new ground at all in the entire chapter 7 from anything other than what has been posted here at these Forums or what I have read elsewhere. I do give the author Kudos for all the various references. I wish I had counted them all. BUT to cite [just one of many] "studies" that had One GG and 50 males? Oh please...

In the bit of questioning/coaching the author offered to counselors, I found it "unconscionable" that the author, in devoting an entire chapter to FC, DID NOT impress the fact to counselors that males have no control of how their vision affects them and that that FACT should be impressed upon any client.

A man's VISION is the glue that binds most all of this CDing behavior, at least long enough for the brain to lock it in. It obviously can and does proceed from there.

For a miniscule percentage.

It IS a FACT that those "other" CDing sites constitute "most" CDing sites by a wide margin.

The bottom line is that for a man to feel embarrassed or ashamed for something he has no control over shows little regard for Mother Nature if nothing else.

[ReineD]

Alderson's chapter all boils down to the assumption that all mtf crossdressing is connected to sexual arousal. Even your statement that 'the fetishistic aspect becomes less important after a while, indicates that he assumes that all crossdressing starts with it.

I discussed this with my SO and she doesn't like the Chapter heading either. She was insulted by it. And I don't blame her, she is not a fetish CDer. She fears that the public will just read the chapter title without reading the chapter in depth.

My suggestion (and hers as well) is to write the author and suggest a new chapter title for the next edition. But in the meantime, I think it would be a mistake to write off the entire chapter just based on the heading. The author does state quite clearly that the fetish aspect changes for many CDers.

Also, I don't think the average person would even think to pick up a book like this. Spouses may, therapists will, CDers will, and all of these people will not base their opinions of the CDing just on the title of Chapter 7.

[Tara D. Rose]

I don't believe in cd counseling. Maybe for others, but not for me. Never, they do not know be better than I know myself. And they want me to PAY them?

[Taylor Ray]

The thing that strikes me is that there are "therapists" who hang out shingles to counsel people on TG issues whose total exposure to the TG community is the reading of a couple of chapters like this and perhaps a lecture or two. That is very frightening regardless of the completeness or accuracy of the reading.

Mimi and I were at a CD party a few weeks ago. Also in attendence was a GG university psychology professor and MFCC who had been invited to socialize with us. I was introduced to her and immediately sensed that she wasn't really comfortable with me, but I let it go and enjoyed the rest of the party. Later on in the evening, after the professor had left, we were having a group conversation and Mimi mentioned that the professor had asked to "pick her brain" about her relationship with a CD husband and asked her quite a few questions. Other wives had received the same treatment. It came out then that our hostess who invited the professor to the party instructed her just to socialize and observe, not to question, yet she quickly violated this condition. It is unfortunate that this is an example of a person who is training practicing psychologists.

I agree and think this is a "real life" example of how theoretical paradigms always fail when confronting real world examples. My previous post attempted to demonstrate the semantic and categorical demarcations of so called "theoreticians", and how those demarcations have more to to with the theoreticians than the actual, real life participants.

At this point in time the idea of an "armchair philosopher" seems like it would be commonplace and universally viewed with skepticism. I guess the "old guard" always seeks to maintain control, no matter what the manifestation may be.

[ReineD]

Taylor, the theories do come from observation of real life participants, many of whom are desperately seeking help for themselves. They do not understand what is going on. This is empirical data, not armchair philosophy. If we left it up to forum members to define themselves, their motives, and develop healthy coping mechanisms it wouldn't happen especially since many (most?) cannot fathom anyone who is different than themselves. Have you come across any of our lengthy argument threads yet? :p

Also, who is the 'old guard', what do they control, and what do they get out of maintaining control?

[LilSissyStevie]

I have two major problems with this chapter. The first is the idea that "once a fetish crossdresser, always a fetish crossdresser." I would compare it to a banjo player (why would I think of that?!!) who starts out playing folk music Pete Seeger style and then, upon hearing bluegrass music, decides to learn that style. Then, realizing the potential of the banjo, ventures into jazz. After becoming bored with jazz, the banjo player decides to dedicate the rest of their life to transcribing the entire output for lute of Silvius Leopold Weiss to the banjo. If we were to think like the authors of this chapter, our banjo player would always and forever be a bluegrass musician. What? Our banjoist didn't even start out playing bluegrass. But since banjo = bluegrass in the minds of most people, it doesn't matter how you started or how you ended up. If you ever played a note of bluegrass (or even if you didn't) you are forever a bluegrass banjo player no matter what you might be doing now. So if you ever had an erotic thought connected to crossdressing (or not), you are forever a "fetishistic crossdresser" in the minds of these "therapists." Because crossdresing = fetish. It just does! It would seem to be a natural progression to start out crossdressing when you were 5 because you wondered what it would be like to be a girl. Then you reach puberty and wonder what it would be like to be a girl.... in bed. Maybe you get stuck there (like me) or you move on to weightier things like shopping for cute shoes at the mall en femme. Maybe you bypass that sexual "stage" altogether. Anything is possible, I guess.

The other problem I have is the idea that "fetish crossdressers" have a condition that "normal" people don't have... namely a "fetish." The fact is that all sexual arousal is fetishistic. Some fetishes are just more unusual than others. I don't know how many posts I've read here where GGs have lost sexual interest in their SO once they find out about their CDing or after they see them en femme. They need to see their man as masculine in order to be aroused. What is this but a fetishistic attraction to "masculinity?" There is nothing wrong with this BTW. It is what it is. It is the "normal" fetish. The problem arises when the GM in this case can only become aroused by thinking of himself as feminine and the GG can only become aroused by thinking of him as masculine. What we have here are incompatible fetishes, not a situation where one has a "condition" and the other doesn't but has to learn to cope (or not) with it. If they can't find some common ground, they should probably just go their own ways. Therapist would do well to stop "othering" people with minority sexual interests. If people could be honest and open about their sexual interests instead of constantly trying to conform to some concept of "normal," we would have a lot fewer of these situations where sexually incompatible people get together.

So, IMHO, this chapter is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Taylor Ray]

Taylor, the theories do come from observation of real life participants, many of whom are desperately seeking help for themselves. They do not understand what is going on. This is empirical data, not armchair philosophy. If we left it up to forum members to define themselves, their motives, and develop healthy coping mechanisms it wouldn't happen especially since many (most?) cannot fathom anyone who is different than themselves. Have you come across any of our lengthy argument threads yet? :p

Also, who is the 'old guard', what do they control, and what do they get out of maintaining control?

Some great points, Reine. I mentioned earlier that my intent in engaging in these discussions is never to undermine diagnostic systems that offer real help to humans who are suffering. In this case my point of view is from the perspective of someone studying how systems of classification have historically been used both to help people and to control them. (Big fan of Michel Foucault)

Yes the phrase "old guard" is definitely a generalization. (This is just an online forum after all!) In this discussion I would say the pharmaceutical industry is one example of a group that benefits from being able to influence diagnostic criteria. For serious mental illness medications are life saving and necessary. For some of the less serious diagnostic criteria, it could be argued that medications are overly prescribed.

Another example can be seen in how the mental health industry has changed the definition of hysteria to "conversion disorder", in order to do away with the negative connotations associated with "hysteria". I have read about instances in which the label "hysteria" was applied to women, not to help them, but to "keep them in their place."

There are countless other examples of how labels can be used to help but also to control.

[Wildaboutheels]

It's highly likely that various "health professionals" of all varieties, are almost equally to blame as Big Pharma for the push to LABEL any kind of Human "anomaly". When Human behaviors or compulsions have some type of LABEL, they can be both treated with counseling and/or prescribed some drug. This is only going to get worse, because, let's face it... Most [Americans at least, far and away above other countries] folks are just itching for the latest magic pill that will allow them, with no effort on their part, to "fix" whatever ails or "inconveniences" them.

[ReineD]

In this discussion I would say the pharmaceutical industry is one example of a group that benefits from being able to influence diagnostic criteria. For serious mental illness medications are life saving and necessary. For some of the less serious diagnostic criteria, it could be argued that medications are overly prescribed.

Another example can be seen in how the mental health industry has changed the definition of hysteria to "conversion disorder", in order to do away with the negative connotations associated with "hysteria". I have read about instances in which the label "hysteria" was applied to women, not to help them, but to "keep them in their place."

I thought you were applying the 'old guard' argument to the suggested therapy in Chapter 7, which is to follow an affirmative approach. This means working toward family acceptance and without giving anyone any medication. I didn't realize that you were talking in very general terms about the pharmaceuticals and the medical profession.

I'd appreciate anyone who wishes to discuss the pharma industry and doctors in general, to please do so in a new thread?

[ossian]

This has been a good thread.

One of the things that I'm thinking is that a chapter in a book doesn't make a good therapist much in the same way that an auto manual doesn't make a good car mechanic. It is the neuanced understanding of a wide body of literature balanced insights by the client and the therapist that make magic happen.

What goes on in therapy with a good therapist can be life transforming. Thanks again reiene for starting this thread.

[ReineD]

Ossian, I take it that the therapists who will read this book have been thoroughly trained in their field, and that this book is meant only to give them added insight into the fraction of the population that is LGBTI.

[Jamiegirl1]

thank you so much for this,I printed it and will read when I get a chance.....Jamie

[JessieJones]

Thanks for posting that. I am about halfway through it. Very interesting..

[larry]

Thanks for sharing

[Julie1123]

Thanks for posting this, Reine.

[Beverley Sims]

I am so pissed. I read the article and wrote a long and deeply insightful commentary. Unfortunately, you'll never see it because my iPad inexplicably decided to 'time-out' my log in...so every word vanished. Believe me, it was thoughtful, provocative and highly entertaining. You'll just have to imagine it.


Kim I wonder how many have written something similar only to reply with a 2 liner when they get it sorted.
It has happened to me often. The thoughtful gets tossed out with the bathwater.