Perhaps It May Be About The Clothing

[Veronica27]

Clothing! It keeps us warm, protects us from the elements, helps to identify who and what we are and serves to cover up our modesty. But how did it evolve into such an elaborate and vital part of our every day existence? What was the beginning of this ritual of covering up nature? If we look to the biblical references in the book of Genesis it's all about apples, snakes, sin and fig leaves. Other experts speculate as to why we didn't evolve as hairy creatures like other mammals, or they emphasize our opposable thumbs and superior intellect as contributing to our clothing "fix". Still others claim that our migratory nature necessitated a quick solution to the problems of protection from the environment and that we used our intelligence to provide solutions rather than wait for evolution. Whatever theory we examine, the biblical one is the only one that addresses the issue of modesty resulting from shame and guilt. In that context there is a marked similarity between dressing and crossdressing. The only difference is we hide our crossdressing rather than our body.

So where would we be if Adam had not eaten that apple, or none of the evolutionary forces had led us into slavery to such habilements, including makeup, jewelry and hair styling, while all other technological progress had occured as it did? This is a question that would be particularly relevant to our community which after all is based in large part upon how we dress. The answers depend upon where we sit on that imaginary scale between the extremes of female impersonation and transexuality.

Let's look at crossdressing first. Those who, like me, dress occasionally in female clothing for reasons such as adventure, excitement, escapism, curiosity, artistic expression, or giving vent to the so-called feminine side of our personality would be out of luck without being aware of it. Crossdressing for any of us would simply not exist since dressing would not exist. There would be no basis for any curiosity and our need for adventure or venting of certain emotional needs would likely be satisfied by other activities and experiences.

Female impersonation could exist, but only in a very limited form, emphasizingg things like voice, mannerisms and so on. Much of the impact would be lost without the imagery of clothing. By the same reasoning "drag" would fall flat without the excesses created by clothing.

Transexuality would still exist, as we would still be aware of the existence of the two prime sexes, and how we identify as belonging to our own genetic or assigned sex or the opposite one. Perhaps the visual images surrounding us, unimpeded by the cover-up of clothing, would increase that awareness of our feelings of identification.

Androgyny might be in a similar position to crossdressing. Regardless of our crossdressing tendencies, everyone possesses a blend of traits and characteristics that could be referred to as being either masculine or feminine. In other words, every man has his feminine side and vice versa. Cultural conditioning tries to teach men to suppress these feminine tendencies, particularly as they might apply to appearance and mannerisms. Without clothing, many of the restrictions to feminine expression would not exist. The androgynist might just be a bit freer to be himself, without thinking about it.

Finally, we have transgender people, who unlike the crossdressers, sense a degree of identification as female, but unlike the transexuals have little or no desire to make physical changes except in those cases where desired changes can be achieved by means of hormones. Would these individuals be in the same position as the crossdressers, less aware of their identity conflicts because of the lack of such visual evidence as clothing, or would they be more like the transexuals becoming more aware because of that same absence of clothing?

We often see a lot of objection to statements such as "It's all about the clothing", from all sectors of the community, but without being able to experience our behaviours in the complete absence of clothing, we cannot support that objection. In the absence of clothing, would we still pursue our need to express our femininity, our sense of gender or our rights? Would we still seek to be understood and accepted? Perhaps it actually is more about the clothing and our appearance than any of the reasons we may claim, whether we are crossdressers or transgender. I don't have the answers. What are your thoughts?

Veronica

[ReineD]

We often see a lot of objection to statements such as "It's all about the clothing", from all sectors of the community, but without being able to experience our behaviours in the complete absence of clothing, we cannot support that objection. In the absence of clothing, would we still pursue our need to express our femininity, our sense of gender or our rights? Would we still seek to be understood and accepted? Perhaps it actually is more about the clothing and our appearance than any of the reasons we may claim, whether we are crossdressers or transgender. I don't have the answers. What are your thoughts?


Whatever propelled you to cross the gender divide by wearing women's clothes, would still be there even if we all lived in a nudist colony. You would just find other ways to do this. You might adopt a woman's hairstyle, or other ways that a woman might adorn herself.

.. and adorn she would. There is overwhelming visual evidence that men and women wish to differentiate themselves and only one of the ways is through wearing different clothes. Even if there were no clothing or jewelry, humans would find different ways, perhaps some form of body painting. And if there was no body painting and no adornment whatsoever and if everyone grew their hair long, in other words everyone was completely 'au naturel', I'm assuming that men would also not shave their beards or body hair. So, you would likely want to shave your face and body to look more like the women.

[Kate Simmons]

It mostly depends upon who we are as a person I would say and just how comfortable we are with ourselves and expressing our feelings with or without clothes. If we are being intimate with someone usually clothes are not involved, so if we were to depend on clothing to make us feel "feminine" in that instance it would be a dismal failure. We can use clothes to assuage our feelings but in the end it's more about the feelings than what we are wearing, at least to myself it is.:)

[Richelle423]

Veronica, I thought we crossdressers fall under the transgender umbrella though we do it either full time or part time. JMO. Though we have feminine feelings and tendencies some of us have to OR choose to remain a male for unspecified reasons.

[Frédérique]

Those who, like me, dress occasionally in female clothing for reasons such as adventure, excitement, escapism, curiosity, artistic expression, or giving vent to the so-called feminine side of our personality would be out of luck without being aware of it. Crossdressing for any of us would simply not exist since dressing would not exist. There would be no basis for any curiosity and our need for adventure or venting of certain emotional needs would likely be satisfied by other activities and experiences.

Congratulations on a beautiful essay. It takes courage to explain differences on this site. Just ask ME… :doh:

You have described it well – some of us dress for adventure, excitement, escapism, curiosity, and artistic expression. It never crossed (pardon the pun) my mind to wear women’s clothing until the idea presented itself one day. Goodness knows I was curious, but it took me forever to realize that I COULD do that, if I was careful. Crossdressing became my little secret (and precious) world, escapism on a grand scale, yet kept within bounds for personal safety. I still “do it” like that, because I never had any ambitions outside of adventure. Nothing is as adventurous than being a boy, yet wearing girl’s clothing, simply for the thrill. I never get tired of it …

Anyway, thank you for making me feel less alone... :)

[jayme357]

What a wonderful discussion. I agonize through volumes of trivia to occasionally discover pearls of wisdom such as this. It just seems to make it all worthwhile.

[ReineD]

Freddy, if it never crossed your mind to dress before the opportunity presented itself, do you think it possible that in Veronica's world of no clothing, no adornment, and everything else au naturel, it wouldn't have crossed your mind to shave until the opportunity presented itself?

[Frédérique]

Freddy, if it never crossed your mind to dress before the opportunity presented itself, do you think it possible that in Veronica's world of no clothing, no adornment, and everything else au naturel, it wouldn't have crossed your mind to shave until the opportunity presented itself?

I HAD to shave, but I never had to crossdress. I never thought the latter was a possibility, not even in my wildest dreams, but it happened anyway. How can I, a male, explain to you, a GG, why shaving is not an “opportunity that presented itself?” Daily ablutions are necessities, not opportunities, trust me…

[Veronica27]

Whatever propelled you to cross the gender divide by wearing women's clothes, would still be there even if we all lived in a nudist colony. You would just find other ways to do this. You might adopt a woman's hairstyle, or other ways that a woman might adorn herself.

.. and adorn she would. There is overwhelming visual evidence that men and women wish to differentiate themselves and only one of the ways is through wearing different clothes. Even if there were no clothing or jewelry, humans would find different ways, perhaps some form of body painting. And if there was no body painting and no adornment whatsoever and if everyone grew their hair long, in other words everyone was completely 'au naturel', I'm assuming that men would also not shave their beards or body hair. So, you would likely want to shave your face and body to look more like the women.

I knew my hypothesis was on a bit of thin ice regarding the overall hair issue, and as I recover from my hypothermia I can only say I attempted to address that by including hair styling along with makeup and jewelry as being non-existent . You are quite likely correct in your assertion that women would adopt various hair styles to "adorn" themselves, but this could be the case with men as well. Beards and male pattern baldness are both obvious sex identifiers as well as reasons for grooming decisions.

You raise some interesting points in your second paragraph. I hadn't thought about body painting, but that is quite common in some cultures where clothing is actually minimal. It is often a male practice in these cases and related to going into battle. Would this mean that the incentive or impulse to crossdress would be stronger in women than men? Secondly, choices such as whether to grow long hair or cut it short and growing a beard or shaving, often have a basis in practicality or comfort more so than appearance. What is fascinating about this is that while a man's decision to grow his hair long is sometimes looked upon as effeminate (this was certainly the case when I was a youngster), his decisions concerning shaving his facial hair are never considered an attempt to look more like a woman. That might be reversed under my hypothesis.

Veronica

[Beverley Sims]

I think a lot of it is about the clothing.
That damn apple started it all though.

[Veronica27]

We can use clothes to assuage our feelings but in the end it's more about the feelings than what we are wearing, at least to myself it is.:)

Femininity and masculinity are abstracts and as such are highly subjective. Does our inner sense of what is feminine lead us toward putting on women's clothing, or does curiosity about and experimenting with the unusual to us nature of women's clothing arouse our innate feelings of femininity. Either way we find the sensations to be pleasurable and we are driven to repeat it.



Veronica, I thought we crossdressers fall under the transgender umbrella though we do it either full time or part time. JMO. Though we have feminine feelings and tendencies some of us have to OR choose to remain a male for unspecified reasons.

This is a somewhat controversial issue and I have outlined my views many times. I enjoy that particular discussion, but as it was not directly related to my OP, I will send you a personal message rather than sidetrack this thread.


What a wonderful discussion. I agonize through volumes of trivia to occasionally discover pearls of wisdom such as this. It just seems to make it all worthwhile.

Thank you for the kind words. I enjoyed contemplating and then writing this thread, and am happy to know I was able to relieve some of that agony.

Veronica

[Veronica27]

Nothing is as adventurous than being a boy, yet wearing girl’s clothing, simply for the thrill. I never get tired of it …



I can not understand why so many find that simple truism to be so difficult to accept. You are not alone, believe me. There are thousands more who do not speak out for the reasons you have often mentioned.

Veronica

[Debra Russell]

If clothing did not exist and we wanted to emulate / present as female -- I would need breast at least to fullfill that illusion - clothing supply's that alternative. I think it depends on our motivation of WHY ? do we want to look female or be female? clothing provides a termporary fix which could not be accomplished any other way...............................Debra

[ReineD]

Would this mean that the incentive or impulse to crossdress would be stronger in women than men?

No. lol. I'm saying that if we remove every single variable that accounts for the non-biological differentiation between men and women (clothes, jewelry, makeup, short vs. long hair, or even body painting, etc), and we construct a world where everyone is in their fundamental natural states (naked and no body shaving, no hair cutting, no extra adornment whatsoever), the only difference between men and women would be their primary sexual characteristics (breasts and reproductive organs), and their secondary sexual characteristics (beard, body hair, and male-pattern baldness in men vs. no beard, no body-hair, and female-pattern hair in women).

Therefore, I think that MtF transsexuals would still wish to alter their primary and secondary sexual characteristics to have bodies that look like women, while CDers would simply content themselves with shaving their beards and their body hair in order to look smooth like the women. And also perhaps combing over their head hair if they experience male-pattern baldness. :p


Edit ... and to take Debra Russel's answer above into account, the people who are not TS in need of transition, yet who want to modify only part of their bodies (the gender non-conformists) might want smooth bodies PLUS breasts, but keep their reproductive organs.

:2c:

[jenni_xx]

We're getting into an anthropological discussion here, but one that I think is really important in understanding the motivation of cd's. I think Reine raises a really interesting point. If all social/cultural conventions were removed (fashion, no clothing, no make-up, no "externally-applied" notions of differentiation between the sexes, then straight away the very term "crossdress" itself wouldn't even exist. Because in such an environment, the term "dressing" wouldn't exist.

Which begs the question - in terms of what motivates CD's, be it external or (more likely the case) internal (that is in and of themselves), where, exactly would the motivation stem from? I believe an answer to that very question lies in the desire of many CD's to replicate the female form, that is, to wear breast forms, to shave bodily hair, to "tuck" (and thus literally hide away the most predominant aspect of their body that distinguishes themselves from females). In such an environment (where clothes do not exist), it really isn't inconceivable to me that CD's, and transgendered people as a whole, would seek an outlet - any outlet - that would enable them to either present a inner ideal of themselves to themselves or (for the more daring) publicly.

As it stands, that is in society/culture as we all know it, clothes do play an important part. And yet clothes themselves are not enough for many CD's - for many want to take it further by changing their body shape so that it emulates the female form. And because of that fact alone, that would suggest that it isn't "all about the clothing". It goes far deeper than that.

[ReineD]

If all social/cultural conventions were removed (fashion, no clothing, no make-up, no "externally-applied" notions of differentiation between the sexes, then straight away the very term "crossdress" itself wouldn't even exist. Because in such an environment, the term "dressing" wouldn't exist.

Right. So instead, the body and beard shaving would be called 'cross-gender expression'. :) Oh, and tucking. I forgot about that.

[jenni_xx]

Right. So instead, the body and beard shaving would be called 'cross-gender expression'. :) Oh, and tucking. I forgot about that.

In a word yes. I would say that body and beard shaving could, in such an environment, be called "cross-gender expression".

In fact, I like that terminology so much, that I feel it would be more applicable today, as things stand. Rename ourselves CG as opposed to CD (for the simple fact that for most, it isn't just about clothes).

:)

[Frédérique]

So instead, the body and beard shaving would be called 'cross-gender expression'. Oh, and tucking. I forgot about that.

Reine, I gotta tell ya, it sounds like you’re talking DOWN to us MtF crossdressers. You forgot to put one of these after your post: :heehee:

In this day and age, body and beard shaving are not “cross-gender expression.” I would guess that the males are trying to make themselves more attractive to females (or perhaps each other), or at least the ones who prefer no hair, which fits in neatly with your “sexual attraction” mindset. I get the feeling you just don’t value the opinions of us ACTUAL MtF crossdressers, unless we agree with you, of course...

[Lorileah]

and once again...keep it civil people. Freddy, you seem to somehow always interpret others posts in a negative way. No one else sees that as "talking down". Frankly, it is tiring.

[jenni_xx]

Reine, I gotta tell ya, it sounds like you’re talking DOWN to us MtF crossdressers. You forgot to put one of these after your post: :heehee:

In this day and age, body and beard shaving are not “cross-gender expression.” I would guess that the males are trying to make themselves more attractive to females (or perhaps each other), or at least the ones who prefer no hair, which fits in neatly with your “sexual attraction” mindset. I get the feeling you just don’t value the opinions of us ACTUAL MtF crossdressers, unless we agree with you, of course...

The "body and beard shaving" is being posited in an environment that differs from "in this day and age". I thought that that had been made abundantly clear.

Why do you get the "feeling" that Reine doesn't value the opinions of acutal MtF crossdressers? Her partner is one (if I'm correct in saying). She spends a lot of time here giving advice to many that is genuine and from her heart. She has dedicated a lot of her time to helping other spouses (of cds) deal with cding (which is to the benefit of such partners, and to cd's themselves). She has a view, and expresses it. She has questions, so she asks them. In my opinion, the world needs more people like Reine who are prepared to help others, ask questions, express doubts, wonder and take an interest in those who embrace this particular lifestyle. The last thing any of us need is for one of us to come along with the intention of undermining such a person.

[ReineD]

In this day and age, body and beard shaving are not “cross-gender expression.”

I was responding to the OP's "what if" scenario as described in my post: the world where we all walk around naked. :)


Reine, I gotta tell ya, it sounds like you’re talking DOWN to us MtF crossdressers. You forgot to put one of these after your post: :heehee:

I'm sorry that you see it that way Freddy.

[Veronica27]

I cannot quarrel with many of the viewpoints set forward in the thread, except for the inadvertent referencing of these activities by Reine as "cross gender" expression. For those who identify as crossdressers in the cultural world we know where clothing does exist, the activities you describe in my make believe scenario would seem more correctly described as cross sex expression if done for the purpose of emulating the opposite sex. Otherwise they are just grooming choices for whatever reason. Cross gender is really no different than transgender, and is open to all the same objections against the use of it as an umbrella term. To those of us who do not self identify as anything other than male, the insistence on TG as describing everyone is somewhat of a put down, as it implies we must be told by others who and what we are. It is not the objections to this terminology that are repetitious and boring, but the insistence on stating them as applying to everyone despite those objections. Can we please accept that some people are transgender and some are not. It is about self identity after all, and nobody can make that determination for anyone else.:daydreaming:


I think a lot of it is about the clothing.
That damn apple started it all though.

I'm confused. Should I like apples for giving us those wonderful female clothes or hate them for not letting me go stark naked?:)

Veronica


If clothing did not exist and we wanted to emulate / present as female -- I would need breast at least to fullfill that illusion - clothing supply's that alternative. I think it depends on our motivation of WHY ? do we want to look female or be female? clothing provides a termporary fix which could not be accomplished any other way...............................Debra

Maybe my scenario would have led to the development of more realistic breast forms and better methods of attaching them.:battingeyelashes:

In any event the distinction between wanting to look female or be female is what the whole CD/TG discussion is about.

Veronica

[Frédérique]

I'm confused. Should I like apples for giving us those wonderful female clothes or hate them for not letting me go stark naked?

If global warming continues unchecked, going stark naked will be de rigueur...:eek:

However, I think we should like apples. My father once had a little apple orchard. I used to run around in the moonlight, eating an apple I just picked, gloriously nude, of course! For some reason I saw no paradox at work, but I was too happy to think about Adam & Eve...

[sometimes_miss]

I kind of wonder how much using clothing to 'express our femininity' is expressing it to ourselves rather than to others. To me it reinforced who I felt I was, and made it more comfortable to 'be myself' even if it was when i was all alone, where as I always kind of feel like I'm putting on an act when dressed and being sure to behave stereotypically ONLY in male ways when in public. But in the same style of 'fake it till you can make it', I'm trying to keep up the 'all male' illusion for as long as it takes, and maybe this time, it'll 'take'. One day at a time, one day at a time.........I am a crossdresser, but I will not crossdress....today. We'll worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

[Marcelle]

Hi all,

Although new, I thought I would like to weigh in on this discussion. From an anthropological POV, if the world existed where all things being equal (no clothing, no body painting etc.) but with the exception of body hair and genetic sexual differences, I still believe CD (though I do like the CG term Jenni-xx posited), would still exist. The optimal term is expression.

Even if there were no clothing, no body painting etc., we are social in nature and nature abhors a vacuum of non-order. This potential culture would still develop societal norms (places for gender - albeit they may be different from what occurred in our own history - think hunter/gatherer). By the very nature of being genetically different, the genders would still split to take on specific societal norms (who knows, perhaps males would have become more gathers and females would have gone off to hunt). In the end, the genders would still have developed their own unique expressions and sense of being. So, if CD/CG could not manifest itself via clothing, body painting etc. then I believe "expression" would be the most logical outcome. MtF CGs would try to adopt female mannerisms, societal roles etc and vice versa for FtM. Yes body hair removal might come into play but it would depend on what the society saw as a norm. In ancient Egypt and Rome, men used to spend hours removing all body hair with a metal blade because it was considered unsightly.

I don't personally believe it is about the clothes but more so the expression/sense of being. Don't get me wrong, when I am en femme, I love girly clothes and lingerie. But that is me expressing myself because our current societal norms enforced gender specific dress codes and I am expressing myself along that societal norm (expressing myself as female via clothing). However, even when I am at home (my safe zone), if I am completely male (jeans, t-shirt, two day stubble), my actions are still Isha and I still feel very much girly and femme even without the clothing and the beard. I feel that way because I am expressing myself through gestures and walk, with my sense of being ias female regardless of what I am wearing at that time.

Just my two cents . . . sorry if I rambled. I just thought this was such an interesting post as it hit home with me as I struggle to incorporate the two halves of who I am.

Isha

[Lynn Marie]

Like Freddie stated, great essay. Personally I feel that my CDing is just a fig leaf of my imagination!

[ReineD]

I cannot quarrel with many of the viewpoints set forward in the thread, except for the inadvertent referencing of these activities by Reine as "cross gender" expression. For those who identify as crossdressers in the cultural world we know where clothing does exist, the activities you describe in my make believe scenario would seem more correctly described as cross sex expression if done for the purpose of emulating the opposite sex.

I think that "cross-sex" accurately describes a transsexual who wants to adopt the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. To use the term "cross-gender expression" in this case would be inaccurate, since the MtF transsexual and the genetic female already share the same gender identity. If, however, a crossdresser identifies male, when he dresses he is presenting in a way that is considered appropriate for the other gender, so he is, in fact, crossing an aspect of the gender divide. He is not altering his sexual characteristics as does the transsexual. So in your anthropological scenario where the cis-genders do not alter their gender expression whatsoever, I think the CDer would shave (since all the other men would have long beards), and they'd also tuck. They might decide to do this in private just as many of the crossdressers keep their presentation private here. They might also, as Isha suggests, feel more comfortable hanging out with the ladies just as is often described in this forum. The transsexuals, however, would want to do what they do now, which is fully transition. And then of course there would be people who wouldn't want to fully transition, but who would just want the breasts ... the gender non-conformists.

It's interesting to think of changing the label 'crossdressing' (CD) to cross-gender expression (CG). The term 'crossdressing' is rather superficial in its description of the action.



I don't personally believe it is about the clothes but more so the expression/sense of being.

I agree with this.

As to the rest of your post, my SO is also always the same person internally no matter how dressed, although I wouldn't say that s/he is strictly feminine (girly) or masculine. I think that my SO has characteristics of both genders, which may set him/her apart from other genetic men, but s/he is also set apart from genetic women. So s/he experiences the best of both worlds. :)

[Patsy]

I like to be naked with lovers male or female. In daily life I enjoy feeling feminine and desired. If I dress in a certain way it's to get that man or woman into my bed. The clothes are irrelevant.

[Veronica27]

I think that "cross-sex" accurately describes a transsexual who wants to adopt the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. To use the term "cross-gender expression" in this case would be inaccurate, since the MtF transsexual and the genetic female already share the same gender identity. If, however, a crossdresser identifies male, when he dresses he is presenting in a way that is considered appropriate for the other gender, so he is, in fact, crossing an aspect of the gender divide. He is not altering his sexual characteristics as does the transsexual. So in your anthropological scenario where the cis-genders do not alter their gender expression whatsoever, I think the CDer would shave (since all the other men would have long beards), and they'd also tuck. They might decide to do this in private just as many of the crossdressers keep their presentation private here. They might also, as Isha suggests, feel more comfortable hanging out with the ladies just as is often described in this forum. The transsexuals, however, would want to do what they do now, which is fully transition. And then of course there would be people who wouldn't want to fully transition, but who would just want the breasts ... the gender non-conformists.

It's interesting to think of changing the label 'crossdressing' (CD) to cross-gender expression (CG). The term 'crossdressing' is rather superficial in its description of the action.





Hi Reine

What we have here is the usual disagreement about crossdressers fitting or not fitting the transgender designation. I limited my objections to your cross gender label as being not applicable to those who identify as crossdressers, and stated the cross sex term might be more applicable as they are attempting to portray the opposite sex rather than be the opposite sex. Crossdressers and transgenders do the same things, but it is their motivations for doing them that are quite different. A transgender person identifies mentally and emotionally to some extent as being the opposite sex. Since physically they are born male they refer to these feelings as their gender which is not in full alignment with their genetic sex. Wearing female clothing gives expression to those feelings and they temporarily become female by masking the male sexual characteristics and emphasizing the female characteristics. When those gender feelings are more extreme, they may be candidates for transition, wherein the characteristics are permanently changed to the opposite sex. Genetically, the sex cannot be changed, at least at the current levels off medical technology, but for all practical intents and purposes they have become the opposite sex.

Crossdressers do not experience those same feelings of gender discrepancy. They crossdress for the more mundane reasons of adventure, thrill, escape and so on. There can be many such reasons. The emulation of female sexual characteristics, such as breasts and hair styles is all a part of the illusion being created to heighten the excitement of the crossdressing experience. The crossdresser never looses sight of the fact he is a man dressing as a woman for his own personal form of pleasure. You stated that when a man crossdresses "he is presenting in a way that is considered appropriate for the other gender, so he is, in fact, crossing an aspect of the gender divide." However, the clothing is what is appropriate for the opposite sex, not the other gender. Gender is an abstract and accordingly there is no appropriate clothing for gender.

Much of the confusion about all of this is the result of the modern day conflating of the words sex and gender as being synonymous. They are not the same thing. Referring to a crossdresser as described above as transgender is very misleading and can create difficulties for that individual when attempting to explain his actions to others. The term transgender is used very inaccurately by the media as well which creates difficulties for the entire community, but especially for crossdressers.

Veronica

[ReineD]

Hi Reine

What we have here is the usual disagreement about crossdressers fitting or not fitting the transgender designation.

No, I'm saying the opposite.

Admittedly, it's a new way of looking at it, but I'm saying that the crossdressers who feel as you do, DO have a strong male gender identity and so you are temporarily moving beyond your own male internal sense of gender when you present as a woman. If on the other hand you had a full feminine identity (like the transsexuals) or a partial feminine identity (like the gender non-conformists), then you would NOT be crossing any of your internal gender barriers since putting on feminine clothes would reflect your correct full or partial feminine gender identity. If this makes sense. :p

Edit - I forgot to mention. I've not seen pictures of you dressed, but if when you dress you present fully as a man with hairy legs, beard, man hair-style, no makeup, etc and you are wearing a skirt, then in my opinion you are not moving beyond your internal male gender ID, since you are presenting as a man in a skirt. This to me is the true definition of crossdressing: A man who presents as a man wearing a dress.

[noeleena]

Hi.

So we take our clothes off what do you see, only male & female. not quite so. you for get. some of ...us... have both sets of organs inner & outer. or none at all. so how do... we.... look are ...we... male or female , so do you refer to us as male ( not this kid any way.) or female .

So how do we adorn our selfs to let you know what we are, male or female or a mix of both, so its not going to be straight forward is it, And i can graintee most people will not have a clue what some of us are, because we will give out very mixed messages,, so the joys of being who we are, i wont do the health issues because thats another detail some of us have, hormones.

...noeleena...

[Veronica27]

No, I'm saying the opposite.

Admittedly, it's a new way of looking at it, but I'm saying that the crossdressers who feel as you do, DO have a strong male gender identity and so you are temporarily moving beyond your own male internal sense of gender when you present as a woman. If on the other hand you had a full feminine identity (like the transsexuals) or a partial feminine identity (like the gender non-conformists), then you would NOT be crossing any of your internal gender barriers since putting on feminine clothes would reflect your correct full or partial feminine gender identity. If this makes sense. :p

Edit - I forgot to mention. I've not seen pictures of you dressed, but if when you dress you present fully as a man with hairy legs, beard, man hair-style, no makeup, etc and you are wearing a skirt, then in my opinion you are not moving beyond your internal male gender ID, since you are presenting as a man in a skirt. This to me is the true definition of crossdressing: A man who presents as a man wearing a dress.

Hi again Reine

That is a novel approach to what constitutes crossdressing. Whether or not it makes sense depends upon what the word "gender" means to the individual. In today's world people tend to use the words sex and gender interchangeably and thus have begun to refer to our male gender or female gender, and our personal gender identity, and our gender expression. However, the two words have two quite different meanings, and are in fact two different types of nouns. Sex is a concrete noun, or one that can be identified by one of the senses, in this case sight. Sex refers to the classification of individuals acording to their reproductive organs. These classifications are male, female or in the case of inanimate objects neutral. When modified by the adjectives male or female, sex becomes concrete as the identifiers are clearly visible.

Gender is an abstract noun which is one that refers to an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being, quality or feeling. Gender is a concept, and as such is hightly subjective. The words masculine and feminine are used to differentiate between genders. In its basic form, the word gender is not possessed by individuals, but by the words that describe individuals. It is a grammatical term, and can apply to inanimate objects as well as living beings depending on the language being used. Objects, such as a chair, can be masculine in one language, but feminine in another, depending upon the culture and norms of that language.

A man wearing an apron can be viewed as feminine by some, and masculine by others, while a woman changing a flat tire, might be engaging in a masculine pursuit by some but not by others. Nobody can know what constitutes another person's concepts of gender, or more importantly how they feel about themselves in a context of gender. Your own "Identity" is coloured by your own concepts of gender, which may have no similarity whatsoever to any generally accepted concepts, because they do not exist.

To illustrate, much artwork is abstract as opposed to the realism of prior eras. For any particular abstract painting individual 1 might say it portrays man's struggle to understand the meaning of live, while individual 2 might say it portrays man's inner conflict over who he is, but individual 3 might describe it as a load of crap.

I am a member of the male sex, and that is how I identify myself regardless of what I might be wearing. You described it as a strong male gender identity, but it is in fact my sexual identity. I have no desire to be female, nor do I attain any sense of being female when I crossdress. I am adopting some of the visible physical characteristics of the female but that is entirely different from identifying mentally as such. I do not think in terms of gender in any of my contemplative moments because to me it is a non existing concept and quite misleading.

You have not seen any photos of me for several reasons including my reluctance to frighten the daylights out of anyone. I sleep most nights in nightgowns simply because I have discovered that they are more comfortable than any male sleepwear I have ever worn. I do not consider this to be crossdressing, although I did discover those benefits as a result of crossdressing. Your description of a man in a skirt, is me quite often with a 10 or 12 days beard growth, lacking makeup etc but in a skirt. I have simply discovered the comfort of skirts in certain situations, as a result of being a crossdresser, but do not consider it to be crossdressing. It is simply clothing. I crossdress when I dress fairly completely including full undergarments and breast forms, as that is when I am attempting to emulate a female appearance. Why? Because it is fun. Being a woman, or simply feeling like a woman would involve much more than simply what I am wearing. I have no way of even knowing what that would be like. To say otherwise would be very demeaning to women as it would imply that being a woman is totally superficial.

Veronica:)

[Veronica27]

Hi.

So we take our clothes off what do you see, only male & female. not quite so. you for get. some of ...us... have both sets of organs inner & outer. or none at all. so how do... we.... look are ...we... male or female , so do you refer to us as male ( not this kid any way.) or female .

So how do we adorn our selfs to let you know what we are, male or female or a mix of both, so its not going to be straight forward is it, And i can graintee most people will not have a clue what some of us are, because we will give out very mixed messages,, so the joys of being who we are, i wont do the health issues because thats another detail some of us have, hormones.

...noeleena...

Hi Noeleena

Many of the threads and posts on this forum must seem terribly insensitive to folks like yourself. As one who has very little knowledge of the myriad of conditions that can leave an individual in that vast gap between male and female, I usually refrain from entering any discussions about it because I am unable to contribute much of value. The forum is about crossdressing, and I usually post only on threads dealing with strict male to female crossdressing issues. I found the following quote on a site devoted to the various intersex conditions and thought that it conveyed somewhat a message I was unable to put into words concerning the uniqueness of your situation:

"Is intersex part of the trans community?

While some people with intersex conditions also identify as trans, intersex people as a group have a unique set of needs and priorities beyond those shared with trans people. Too often, these unique needs are made invisible or secondary when "intersex" becomes a subcategory of "transgender". For example, people who discuss about intersex in the context of transgender often stress the risk of assigning a "wrong" gender as an argument against intersex genital mutilation, which overlooks the fact that intersex medical treatment is painful and traumatic whether or not one's gender identity happens to match her or his assigned gender. It is for this reason that intersex people prefer to have "intersex" spelled out explicitly rather than have it included in the "transgender" umbrella."

Please feel free to comment on this whether you agree or disagree, as it might help all who read this forum to better understand your needs. Despite my obvious difference from those described above, and the relative simplicity of my needs as a crossdresser, this quote did express the feelings I have often tried to express over crossdressers being included under that transgender umbrella.

Veronica

[ReineD]

OK, to make this simple:

We do live in a binary world, where women are women and men are men, at least for about 95% of the population. We may quibble about whether some women dress femininely enough for some CDers, but the fact remains that they are unmistakably women. Think of your neighbors, your co-workers, your family members. You know who are the women and who are the men. However, no one can open up a skull, look inside, and tell if someone's internal sense of gender is male or female. This means that most people can only determine whether someone is male or female based on their outward presentation and also their outward physical characteristics. So in this sense, for 95% of the population, the internal gender ID matches the outward sexual characteristics (body size, facial features, body hair, breasts, genitalia, etc), and this is how we know who are the men and who are the women.

If a male-identified (gender and sex) CDer attempts to 'fool the eye' so to speak, in other words he goes all out to present in a manner that gives others (or himself) the impression that he is emulating a woman, then he is indeed intentionally presenting beyond the gender/sex that he is. Right? Since men in our society don't usually wear makeup, breast forms, pads, shaved bodies (we don't need to get into the body-builders or the cyclists, I'm speaking of the majority). So in this sense, he is engaging in cross (he is crossing his own) standard, default, male gender/sex expression.

If on the other hand he continues to present as a man, he does not even attempt to fool the eye into believing that he is emulating a woman … if he keeps his hairy legs, hairy eyebrows, beard, no-makeup, short nails, conventional male haircut, if he doesn't wear any forms or pads, but he merely wears feminine clothes, then he is not presenting beyond the gender/sex that he is. He is, if fact, presenting fully as a male who is merely out there crossdressing. There is no cross-gender/sex expression other than just the "dressing" (the clothes), which doesn't attempt to fool the eye in terms of gender/sex presentation at all.

I combined the gender/sex together to keep things simple, but ultimately it is the transsexuals who wish to adopt the sexual characteristics of the target gender. Not the crossdressers.

[Wildaboutheels]

Pavlov with his whistle and his dogs.

CDers [the VAST majority by far at least for some time period] and their clothes.

It's just that simple. Proof of that can be found all over this site when one views with their eyes open. I started a thread in the P&V gallery for granny dresses and flats. 563 views and one response before it vanished in the night.

The difference is ONLY that the dog's [and admittedly, I am only guessing here] never felt GUILTY and/or ASHAMED for salivating and/or eating.

CDers on the other hand... It's at least possible [if not quite likely] for some, that their male brains "helped them progress" into "fuller presentation" and away from O's in an effort to relieve that guilt. The dressing w/o the O part most likely STILL allows the brain to probably release just parts of the chemical cocktail of an O.

Our BRAINS are capable of all manner of gymnastic feats to help us cope with things about ourselves that make us uncomfortable. NGC's BRAIN GAMES illustrates this concept quite well beyond any shadow of a doubt.

[LasVegasXD]

For me it used to be a lot about the clothing and it still is to a degree. The first time I tried on some girly sandals, well I've never tried intravenous drugs, but I imagine that is somewhat what it is like. A total rush, and as I've said before, I feel I come alive. Any more I just enjoy it. There's a thrill in wearing my long crochet white dress with my strappy toe ring sandals with the little flowers on the straps. But as someone said there is that dark side of shame that can ruin it. I say screw others (when possible) and just be you. As that sunscreen song from the 90s said, "The race is long and in the end it is only with yourself." Enjoy the journey, because from personal experience, you never know when will be the last time you get to do something you love. Enjoy it while you can. There are older girls on this site who will tell you that they can't really wear heels any more. Imagine that. So next time you put your tootsies in some strappy 3" heels remember to get as much out of it as you can for tomorrow you may never walk in them again.

[noeleena]

Hi,

Veronica.

I knew when i joined the many forums that most people would be ether dresser's or trans people , so how do you fit in when your different not much is known about us as people some 10,000 of us around the world, so i joined 4 intersex forums as well. there were 3 others here on this forum who are in some ways like i am though we are not the same in all aspects yet we can relate quite well. .

I dont expect others here to be able to say they understand us far from it, now there are some intersex who are trans again some differences so its not a cut & dry answer because theres so many differences i would not even try & answer for them they must if they so wish can do that & ill learn about them .

Insensitive, it may appear that way at times , okay how do you understand something youv never experanced you cant its that simple . so i dont expect others to , a converstion is then very much one sided,

i cant tell you how i think , how do i say i cant think as a male i dont have a male brain, yet should i say do i think as a female do i have a female brain ...no because my brain is nether, yet im both male & female, i cant seperate ether, i have feelings to some extent of both more towards female all im doing is going round & round my body is male / female my hormones are of both,not all of cause mixed, & some changes took place as iv said long before added synthic meds HRT, as iv found out from another intersex friend ,
I have never said im fully female i'd be lieing if i did, yet i am an intersexed female with a maleness about myself,

most of my thought patterns are female that was brought home when Jos & i lost our 4th child in a misscarage, yes it hurts & later Jos said to me you can have the next child i wheeled around & said i will.

Kaykyn gave birth to Dejarn 10y 9 m ago she is my child i could not give birth to. yes a long story there, as i write this youll see im going into more of my fermaleness as a write about us, being female is for most of us is about haveing children being able to carry ...OUR... child, so i know what it does to us who can not give birth, in the pit of our being its there we cant explain it my body langage will show it in some way as i express myself in what im saying ,

i hate writeing about this because it winds me up its very emotional its not something i can just write off or forget, its part of my makeup. & only a female can relate with other female in this way,

You know what it would be great to write about all of this & say its not true its all made up just a fantisy the fact is its too true why do i work with women because i relate to & know what its like i never wonted to be female or a woman. i had no say i was born this way through have grown into a woman as most women do.

I would rather have another write my story my detail is i have issues with dyslexia just hope this comes over well.

my intersexed friend
we talked at length so theres nothing i dont know about her, & depends on how you see her you will pick up a maleness about her as well though she has her womb as i dont,

I run into grief because im not a trans person, yes most of our issues are different i dont think like trans people partly because im female in part. & did not change from male to female or female to male,you see some of us dont change , we can grow of cause there are changes a few miner body ones our mind does not with or with out meds, thats for body maintaince so we dont have health issues,

Transgender, what do you call us = some, what gender are we because we are nether, or both, = a person, does not bother myself,

are we part of the trans community, certinly not in New Zealand Austraila dought it, in some ways not even tolerated, again im not bothered.

Im to much a part of our community of Waimate pop of less than 5,000 people well accepted a member of many groups and accepted as a normal female / woman. been a member of women only groups for some time, & most know my background theres nothing hidden its all out there, very public if any one wonted to contest this my birth certs says female at birth,

Though had they writen at birth intersex 66 years ago it would have saved a lot of issues, still thats life, does not matter now any way.

...noeleena...

[NicoleScott]

For me, it IS about the clothes. If there were no differences in clothing worn by males and females, I would not engage in any cross-gender activities, mannerisms, etc. And if there were no mirrors, wearing makeup and women's clothing would have no purpose for me. The exception might be wearing pantyhose amd high heels with no mirrors, clothing, makeup, etc. I'd still do that.

[Sonya]

OK, to make this simple:

We do live in a binary world, where women are women and men are men, at least for about 95% of the population. We may quibble about whether some women dress femininely enough for some CDers, but the fact remains that they are unmistakably women. Think of your neighbors, your co-workers, your family members. You know who are the women and who are the men. However, no one can open up a skull, look inside, and tell if someone's internal sense of gender is male or female. This means that most people can only determine whether someone is male or female based on their outward presentation and also their outward physical characteristics. So in this sense, for 95% of the population, the internal gender ID matches the outward sexual characteristics (body size, facial features, body hair, breasts, genitalia, etc), and this is how we know who are the men and who are the women.

If a male-identified (gender and sex) CDer attempts to 'fool the eye' so to speak, in other words he goes all out to present in a manner that gives others (or himself) the impression that he is emulating a woman, then he is indeed intentionally presenting beyond the gender/sex that he is. Right? Since men in our society don't usually wear makeup, breast forms, pads, shaved bodies (we don't need to get into the body-builders or the cyclists, I'm speaking of the majority). So in this sense, he is engaging in cross (he is crossing his own) standard, default, male gender/sex expression.

If on the other hand he continues to present as a man, he does not even attempt to fool the eye into believing that he is emulating a woman … if he keeps his hairy legs, hairy eyebrows, beard, no-makeup, short nails, conventional male haircut, if he doesn't wear any forms or pads, but he merely wears feminine clothes, then he is not presenting beyond the gender/sex that he is. He is, if fact, presenting fully as a male who is merely out there crossdressing. There is no cross-gender/sex expression other than just the "dressing" (the clothes), which doesn't attempt to fool the eye in terms of gender/sex presentation at all.

I combined the gender/sex together to keep things simple, but ultimately it is the transsexuals who wish to adopt the sexual characteristics of the target gender. Not the crossdressers.

Hi Reine, I actually agree with most of your views and really appreciate all your input in these kinds of threads and enjoy reading GG perspective. It is very hard to accept the concept of “It is just about clothes” when you see most members here use breast, and hip forms and tuck their private parts to make themselves look like a GG. But what about all of the non sex depended activities and clothes which are only socially acceptable for female sex to wear or use. If it is not about the clothes can you please explain why man can not wear (without being ridiculed or made felt uncomfortable) make up, high heels, panty hose, dresses, skirts, lace, pretty jewellery and use nail polish on their fingers and toes, remove body hair and also have styled and coloured long hair and the rest if that is what they want.

I think most of us here only start our cd journey with just a few key items, for me the two significant items were pantyhose and high heels. Now I like dressing fully and it really gives me great joy. I do not dress to become a women, I now that biologically I am a man and I am completely okay with that. I guess what I am really trying to say is if from birth we weren’t influenced so much about how man and woman should look different in our society maybe I would not have the desire or the need to try to look like a complete woman.

[Veronica27]

OK, to make this simple:



Good advice. The simplest way I can think of explaining the situation is that crossdressing is an extremely masculine activity. It encompasses many of the qualities that society likes to think of as manly. It takes determination to learn all about clothing, cosmetics, sizes, how to walk in heels, how to apply makeup and so on when you are raised in an environment that stresses the ignoring of such things rather than teaching you by osmosis to be fully aware and capable of them.

Crossdressing involves risk and facing up to the challenges presented by taking chances. In this respect it is no different than many other so called macho activities. It requires a thick skin and the ability to take abuse without flinching. A crossdresser has to be assertive, courageous and bold. Other words used to describe masculinity include: decisive, dominant, forceful, independant, individualistic, self-reliant and adventurous. All of these qualities can be found in most who identify as male, heterosexual crossdressers.

In short it takes guts for a man to wear a dress. To think of such an activity as being feminine and an expression of one's inner female gender, seems rather demeaning to women, as it implies that appearance is what they are all about. Women are much more than what they are wearing, and this is illustrated by the fact that they can be dressed in a very manly way without anyone questioning their womanhood.

So why do men crossdress? One could ask why we do anything. We never agonize over our reasons for liking to watch sports, read, cook, build models, sew or knit, sky dive or any other of a multitude of pastimes.. except crossdress. Crossdressing is a taboo in our society and although this is totally irrational, it creates feelings of guilt and shame for its participants. The search for reasons is a search to justify what might otherwise be looked upon as perverse.

There are individuals of both sexes, as well as those who do not fit into either category, who feel genuine ambiguity as to their sex and or gender. However, I think that much of what we have seen as a growing population of those who identify as "gender enhanced", "gender gifted" or transgender is the adopting of a legitimate sounding reason(or excuse or justification) for those who cannot accept like a man that they are simply men who like to wear female clothing. This might sound harsh, and it is not my intention to attack anyone for their opinions, but it is my opinion that I am a non gender related crossdresser that is being questioned continually. But worse, relying on the TG justification tends to marginalize those who do have genuine concerns in this area.

Heterosexual men are by nature interested in women. Their sexuality is strongly governed by their vision. They like to "girl watch" and are fascinated by the female form and in many cases how that form is clothed. The internet is loaded with images of nude, or partially nude women. It is perfectly natural that for many men, a desire to try on or wear some of the more unusual or unique to women items that they observe would develop if for no other reason than curiosity. They do not necessarily want to do so to be women or feel like women but simply to enjoy an experience that is much different than the norm to which they are otherwise subjected. The same applies to such adornments as using forms. Just as Freud's penis envy theories did not translate to meaning the woman wanted to be a man, there are now a number of psychology of breast envy theories to be found if you google it. Crossdressing is fun. Why spoil it by reading more into it than is actually there?

Veronica

[ReineD]

In short it takes guts for a man to wear a dress. To think of such an activity as being feminine and an expression of one's inner female gender, seems rather demeaning to women, as it implies that appearance is what they are all about. Women are much more than what they are wearing, and this is illustrated by the fact that they can be dressed in a very manly way without anyone questioning their womanhood.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

First, both women and men exhibit courage in a variety of ways in their lives. Having guts is not only the providence of men. :)

Second, the expression of femininity for a male who solidly identifies as a male is NOT an expression of his inner female gender, since he doesn't have a feminine gender identity. I'm saying that if he is male, then he crosses his OWN sense of internal male gender ID by presenting in a manner that 95% of the people on this planet see as the feminine gender (which for 95% of the people on this planet matches their biological sex) if he, in fact, does try to emulate a female in appearance. This can be done in various ways: long hair and makeup, the appearance of breasts, clothing bought in women's stores, etc. I don't have to spell it out. In no way do I feel that this is demeaning to women. Do you? Women have breasts, many women have long hair and wear makeup, and most women do buy their clothes in women's stores. This speaks strictly of their appearance, which is what we're talking about here and which is what males who engage in cross-gender expression do when they emulate the appearance of women. Of course both men and women are a lot more than just the way they look. :p

And yes, I know there are birth males who do not have a solid male identity like you do, but who instead have a gender non-conforming identity (the birth males who do feel a combination of male and female) or the transsexuals who have strictly a female gender identity. We are only talking about the male-identified birth males here, who do cross their own sense of male identity when they attempt to emulate (more than just wearing the clothes), a member of the opposite sex/gender. The other birth males are not crossing any gender barriers when they dress, since they are expressing a part of (for the gender non-conforming) or totally (for the transsexuals) the female they feel they are.

[Veronica27]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

First, both women and men exhibit courage in a variety of ways in their lives. Having guts is not only the providence of men. :)

I totally agree. I did not say it was strictly male. I stated that :
crossdressing is an extremely masculine activity. It encompasses many of the qualities that society likes to think of as manly.


It is society's views of masculinity that make crossdressing a masculine activity.


I'm saying that if he is male, then he crosses his OWN sense of internal male gender ID by presenting in a manner that 95% of the people on this planet see as the feminine gender (which for 95% of the people on this planet matches their biological sex) if he, in fact, does try to emulate a female in appearance.

Other people, regardless of their numbers, have no idea what I am thinking or feeling or why I am doing whatever I do. It is purely speculation on their part. I thought we were about fighting stereotypes, not encouraging them. If an individual dons a Mr. Spock outfit and attends a Trekkie convention, should we label him a transalien? If another puts on a batman costume and attends a comicon convention, should we assume he has a super hero identity? Judging by their presentation would lead to such obviously erroneous conclusions.


This can be done in various ways: long hair and makeup, the appearance of breasts, clothing bought in women's stores, etc. I don't have to spell it out. In no way do I feel that this is demeaning to women. Do you?

I didn't say that dressing fully was demeaning to women. I said that thinking of it as expressing an inner female gender was demeaning. as such assumptions tend to imply that appearance is what the feminine gender is all about.

I crossdress for my own pleasure. I realize that others have no way of understanding my motivations and that their only basis for drawing any conclusions about me or my behaviour are the false myths and stereotypes that are constantly being perpetuated by the media and the rest of society. This is why my crossdressing is kept pretty much private, and why I am so adamant in attempting to show that the type of groupthink that pervades our community is not always the case.

Veronica

[jillleanne]

Right. So instead, the body and beard shaving would be called 'cross-gender expression'. :) Oh, and tucking. I forgot about that.

If you let me shave my pitters also, we could call it," transgender expression " Can I, can I, pleaseeeeee?

[ReineD]

Other people, regardless of their numbers, have no idea what I am thinking or feeling or why I am doing whatever I do. It is purely speculation on their part. I thought we were about fighting stereotypes, not encouraging them. If an individual dons a Mr. Spock outfit and attends a Trekkie convention, should we label him a transalien? If another puts on a batman costume and attends a comicon convention, should we assume he has a super hero identity? Judging by their presentation would lead to such obviously erroneous conclusions.

No of course people can't open your skull to peer inside. They have no clue whether you identify as a man or a woman. But, it does appear to them as if you identify as a woman since you are presenting as one. My SO and I go out all the time. S/he is not transsexual. Yet I'm sure that the people who know her (who don't know him in guy mode) think that s/he is TS. It's just an assumption that people make based on the manner of presentation. So if the people who see you take it that you are TS, then they will believe that you are presenting in a gender that is who you are internally and you are not crossing any gender expression.

The only time that a person crosses into a different gender expression is when they present in a gender/sex that they do not identify with internally.

As to transaliens and such, there are a lot of people who are into the Anime/Manga culture and who go to all these conventions dressed as their favorite characters. It's a lifestyle for them. Here's a google image search:

https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn=26&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=anim+conventions&pq=mange+conventions&cp=5&gs_id=i&xhr=t&q=anime+conventions&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM&biw=1062&bih=626&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=qvYnUtmZFcOYqAG-4IC4AQ

They immerse themselves into online games as their characters and they do take on the persona. So yes, I'd say that these people are crossing over into Anime-land too. :)

[Marcelle]

Hi all,

I know I posted earlier but I just wanted to throw my two cents in here again. Not trying to invoke an argument or insult anyone. If I have done so inadvertently, please accept my apology and PM me.

While I believe that clothing is an important part of what I do, I don't think it is why I do it. Specifically, it is not all about the feminine dresses, lingerie, shoes and make-up. Don't get me wrong, I love it but it is a guise that allows me to explore the feminine side of my psyche. Which leads me to . . . What about this feminine vs masculine traits/persona/psyche debate?

Let's be honest, feminine/masculine (genetic differences aside) are truly societal contrivances plain and simple. This goes right back to the hunter/gather times in our own evolutionary history. Men due to body size and strength hunted, women due to childbirth and rearing stayed close to home and gathered/nurtured the family which in turn made the tribes strong, and both saw the survival of our species.

I am sure even then there were women who by nature of their size and strength would have been great hunters (who knows perhaps they did - not thinking Clan of the Cave Bear here, but similar). As well, I am sure there were men who were not strong enough to hunt for various reasons. They most likely took on a more gatherer nature. The point here is that this core societal division, split the genders long ago into neat albeit required jobs (for lack of a better descriptor). This ensure the survival of humans as a species on this planet.

If we move this core belief through our history, it only becomes more engrained. Men are strong, providers, protectors whereas women are weaker, demure, need to be protected, nurturers . . . yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyone with half a brain can figure out this is not the case. I have worked with some pretty hard core women and they don't need any protection. In the same bane, I have seen a lot of men who are great dads (nurturers) and tend to be more demure. Is that right or wrong? Nope, this is normal and should be encouraged if we are ever going to mature as a species. However, these societal traits associated with what is female and what is male are still carried by society like some bad luggage we just can seem to throw away. Think boys rough and tumble, girls sugar and spice. For a man to explore the sugar and spice side contravenes societal norms to the point where it is considered weird.

It is an interesting observation that as humans mature (emotionally) as a species, we are more accepting of women expressing what would have been considered male traits (confidence, strength, Alpha) but no so much the opposite way (although, that too is beginning to change, albeit slowly). But, I posit that when we split the genders, we actually robbed ourselves of being whole. Women are already beginning to take that wholeness back (i.e., moving away from the stereotypical "gatherer" role and taking on the "hunter" role). Whereas most men are not moving in that direction (good or bad for them).

Okay, I'll jump off my soapbox and bottle this tempest.

In the end, I believe we are all capable of expressing the qualities of both genders. Some men may not chose to embrace their feminine (if you want to put a label on it) side and this may be fine for them (who really knows). Others, like myself have discovered through years of seeing the worse humanity has to offer, have found something lacking in my very soul. Is it wanting to be a woman . . . No. It is a deep seated desire to bring a gestalt to my psyche and make myself whole. This means integrating what society has classed as "girl" into my "boy" psyche. Hence bringing the "hunter" and the "gatherer" back into alignment.

Does that mean I do not dress girly . . . No. However, while I try to present as female as possible (at home), it is to help me explore what society has deemed female appropriate. It is not about wanting to be a woman.

The clothing is sensual and society does not afford a man the ability to feel sensual or alluring (handsome, manly, attractive yes . . . sensual, alluring, sexual . . . No). I get it, just semantics, but there is a subtle differences and we would be naïve not believe that.

So is it about the clothing . . . to some degree as it allows me to fully explore society's definition of feminine . . . Yes. But when I present in public I am fully male and enjoy it. That does not stop me from presenting societies definition of feminine (loving, caring, nurturing) anymore than is prevents me from presenting along societies definition of masculine (outgoing, strong, confident) all of which can be considered feminine traits as well.

So you see, all the traits, feminine or masculine are just societal norms in an effort to categorize gender into neat little packages. Trying to decide amongst ourselves what is male and what is female in essence is only applying labels and I would argue that is serves to create more confusion.

If a man or woman truly believes they are in the wrong body there is a large biological component here. Call it what you will, but this person because a chromosome wandered off or in during gestation ended up assigned to the wrong gender. They are not trying to just complete a sense of wholeness in a spiritual sense but a physical sense as well. These individuals still need to bring clarity to their identity (male/female) but they also need to bring clarity to their genetic identity (woman/man). For those of us who identify male, whether we present only male while en femme (hairy legs/ beard) or as female as possible (make-up, hair removal, wigs, breast forms) I argue we are just employing the tools differently to bring balance to our identity.

If a woman acts very Alpha masculine in the business world, while some older men may see here as outside the typical feminine mode, most don't even bat an eye . . . she is an ambitious and strong business woman regardless of whether she is in a dress or a smart business suit. Does it stop her from being feminine . . . No. However, if I was to show up at my job in a sundress, heels and get all touchy feeling . . . well I would have to hand in my man card. If I present at work in male attire but express certain feminine qualities in my leadership role . . . guess what . . . I am both masculine and feminine and I can keep my man card squarely in my wallet.

Perhaps one day society will change but in the end, as I integrate Isha into my gestalt she/I do not change if I am wearing a sundress and lingerie or if I am in combat fatigues. I am still male (genetically) but as we integrate more my personality is becoming both feminine and masculine (labels applied) and that is making me a whole and happy person for the first time in a long time, en femme or boy mode.

So why worry about whether you are presenting male/female or if you are transgender, CD, or transsexual? Is it not about accepting who you are and learning to bring all aspects of your personality into alignment so you can be the best possible person you are capable of being?

Sorry to ramble.

Hugs

Isha

[NicoleScott]

Interesting essay, Isha. Society gets blamed for the uneven treatment of feminine males and masculine females. True. But it's not as if one day a human jumped up and said "New rules: men act like men and women act like women, with stricter enforcement on the men". Society evolved along with the species, and is one of the things that enabled the species to survive in a world where extinction is the rule and survival the exception. There are reasons why things are as they are, whether it is walking upright or the rules of society.
A male lion's takeover of a pride will kill existing cubs. That's not nice. But there's a reason that seems to work for the lions. A peacock could be a better flier without those tail feathers, but they serve a purpose that seems to work for the species. Perhaps human society evolved so that the males who don't provide or protect are discouraged from breeding and passing on those undesirable traits.
The wolves are laughing. Humans ruined some of them, making them into domesticated dogs by substituting their idea of artificial selection of desirable traits for nature's natural selection (sorry for the rudundancy). It seems that along with those desirable traits came undesirable ones, like breathing, eye, or hip problems and more.
Likewise, we have artificially tinkered with the rules of society, where everyone gets a trophy, everyone receives without the responsibility of contributing, and everyone wants to be who they are instead of what their society needs them to be.
I'm a CDer, and I love my dog. I'm just suggesting that expectations of how men and women behave is complicated, and won't suddenly change just by starting gender diversity education in kindergarten.

[Marcelle]

Hi Nicole,

Agree 100 percent that survival of the fittest at the raw evolutionary basis helped shaped the way gender is perceived today. However, my point (albeit probably more of tirade :battingeyelashes:) was to illustrate that in doing so, we (the collective human we) have come to accept what should be feminine and what should be masculine. In essence it can be seen as outdated much like we once use to have tails but do not now (evolutionary wise).

Men do not need to be protective all the time or Alpha if that is not their thing, anymore than women need to be shy or demure or let men take the lead. With regards to attire . . . perhaps that is bridge too far for society to accept men wearing dresses and heels but who knows, someday we might get there.

Tolerance what a wonderful concept :)

Thanks for reading and replying . . . I sometimes (okay) always get a bit verbose in my response.

Hugs

Isha

[ReineD]

I'm just suggesting that expectations of how men and women behave is complicated, and won't suddenly change just by starting gender diversity education in kindergarten.

I would love to see the topic, gender and sexual diversity, included in the Health curriculum for middle and high school students. It doesn't have to be elaborate for the younger students, but an awareness that there are people whose inner gender ID does not match their biological sex would certainly help these students accept those among them who are not cis-gender. We do see more and more such children in the news every day.

Veronica, it occurs to me that you may think that "cross-gender expression" and "transgender" mean the same thing. They do have opposite meanings. I recognize that many people believe that "transgender" means a gender ID that is between male and female (although I personally believe in the umbrella term description). And of course the media uses the term interchangeably with "transsexual" because they want to distance themselves from any sexual motive for transition (since most people outside this community do confuse gender ID with sexuality). But "cross-gender expression" is simply what it says. It describes someone who does solidly identify as one gender/sex, who then chooses to present as the other gender/sex. They literally choose to present in a gender that in their culture is accepted as the gender presentation of the opposite gender/sex, to the vast majority of people who see them. I don't know if you're getting this or if you do equate the term with being transgender as the term is used more and more in the media.

But as I stated much earlier above, if a man chooses to not alter any of his male characteristics and presents unmistakably as a full-on man who is wearing a dress, then this man is crossdressing in the classic sense.

[Frédérique]

I didn't say that dressing fully was demeaning to women. I said that thinking of it as expressing an inner female gender was demeaning. as such assumptions tend to imply that appearance is what the feminine gender is all about. I crossdress for my own pleasure. I realize that others have no way of understanding my motivations and that their only basis for drawing any conclusions about me or my behaviour are the false myths and stereotypes that are constantly being perpetuated by the media and the rest of society. This is why my crossdressing is kept pretty much private, and why I am so adamant in attempting to show that the type of groupthink that pervades our community is not always the case.

I didn’t wish to paticipate in this discussion anymore, since certain individuals A) don’t care what we crossdressers say (or think), B) insist that there is only ONE explanation for crossdressing, and C) I don’t see much point in beating my proverbial head against the proverbial wall. I wish I could traipse on over into other sections and spread my so-called male expertise around, but they would hand me my head, and rightly so. Here in MtF, however, the ones we allegedly emulate often spoil the porridge, and nobody comes to our support…

I wish to say BRAVO to your statement (quoted above)! You’ll find out, over time, that your “normal” crossdressing opinions carry ZERO weight around here, and, even when they are carefully expressed (with eloquence), they will be summarily undermined and ignored. It takes true courage to submit what you wrote, and I admire you for it. If you infer some frustration in my words, you would be absolutely correct. I’m in the process of losing my “religion,” you know…

How can we have genuine discussions if people won’t at least CONSIDER other viewpoints? :idontknow:


But as I stated much earlier above, if a man chooses to not alter any of his male characteristics and presents unmistakably as a full-on man who is wearing a dress, then this man is crossdressing in the classic sense.

Case in point...:hmph:

[ReineD]

Freddy, I think you will find that you and I agree on most things. It's just that the "gender" word seems to be so frightening to the CDers who do identify male, that I suspect it is hard to see the true meaning behind the term "cross-gender expression". Instead, I get the impression that you, Veronica, and other male-identified CDers perhaps, take it as meaning "transgender". It doesn't.

[Veronica27]

I would love to see the topic, gender and sexual diversity, included in the Health curriculum for middle and high school students. It doesn't have to be elaborate for the younger students, but an awareness that there are people whose inner gender ID does not match their biological sex would certainly help these students accept those among them who are not cis-gender. We do see more and more such children in the news every day.

Veronica, it occurs to me that you may think that "cross-gender expression" and "transgender" mean the same thing. They do have opposite meanings. I recognize that many people believe that "transgender" means a gender ID that is between male and female (although I personally believe in the umbrella term description). And of course the media uses the term interchangeably with "transsexual" because they want to distance themselves from any sexual motive for transition (since most people outside this community do confuse gender ID with sexuality). But "cross-gender expression" is simply what it says. It describes someone who does solidly identify as one gender/sex, who then chooses to present as the other gender/sex. They literally choose to present in a gender that in their culture is accepted as the gender presentation of the opposite gender/sex, to the vast majority of people who see them. I don't know if you're getting this or if you do equate the term with being transgender as the term is used more and more in the media.

But as I stated much earlier above, if a man chooses to not alter any of his male characteristics and presents unmistakably as a full-on man who is wearing a dress, then this man is crossdressing in the classic sense.

The word gender comes from the Latin word genus, meaning kind, type or sort. Its original use was for grammatical categories, and it was not used as an identifier of human nature until the mid 20th century. In fact it wasn't until the feminist movement of the 1970's that it became more or less synonymous with the word sex. When applied to the human condition, it is purely abstract, and as such is highly subjective. There is no way to provide a finite definition of what constitutes gender and even less of a way to define its individual components of masculinity and femininity. They mean whatever you want them to mean.

Any meaning that can be attributed to the word transgender, is totally dependant upon the meaning one gives to the word gender. When you use it as an adjective to describe an individual, you are using a descriptive adjective which provides the complete description of a certain aspect of that individual; namely his identity with regard to his gender. It is like saying his eyes are blue or his race is Caucasian. It does not change from time to time, but is a constant. The gender feelings might be fluid, but he is by strict definition and grammatical logic always transgender.

Cross gender expression is an equally ambiguous term because it is still dependant upon the meaning of the word gender. It is also dependant on the meaning of the word expression. Clothing is just a small component of expression. We have to look at behaviour, activities, interests, instincts, and more to have a more complete picture of expression. Is a man who is feeding a bottle to his infant child in the middle of busy mall indulging in cross gender expression? What if he was wearing skirt? Where does it begin and where does it end?

I do not agree with the way the term transgender is used by the media, nor do I agree with the conflating of sex and gender, which is just one more reason why I reject the current usage of these terms. Others may feel comfortable using this gender related terminology, but I don't. I object to its use as an umbrella term as it is extremely misleading, is open to many false stereotypes and imposes the above mentioned complete description of what I am.

I do not think that crossdressing is the greatest term in the world, but it is descriptive, does not peg me as being anything other than someone who indulges in a certain activity, and can be used as an adjective, verb and noun, just like golf, swim or walk.

I am not aware of any classic sense of crossdressing. Wearing a single item of underwear could be construed as crossdressing, depending upon motivation. Similarly, dressing to the nines, complete with makeup, forms, wig and jewelry is also crossdressing according to he basic definition of the word, which is the wearing of clothing intended for the opposite sex. Why does it have to represent the expressing of anything more than the love of the thrill of being adventurous, or daring or curious?

Veronica

[Lorileah]

c'mon ya'll lets not beat that freaking definition of transgender to death again...we get it there are a dozen people here who don't like the definition as used by the majority. OK don't use it as the dictionary uses it. Make your own definition, we don't care anymore...you want to redefine other words in the dictionary too? Sure makes it difficult to communicate then.

[ReineD]

You're right. *sigh*

No need to bore an entire forum with what finally amounted to a private conversation. I didn't feel bad though since we had the OP's full participation.

To Veronica, you just don't understand what I'm trying to say if you think this is a debate about the meaning of the word "transgender". But that's OK.

:hugs:

[jillleanne]

Good for you Reine. I was just getting ready to ring the bell and hopefully end the round. I would think a PM is in order here.
Hugs

[DebbieL]

This is such an interesting thread. We almost need to go back to "before clothes".

Let's leave the story of Adam and Eve, which may describe an event in human evolution, aside and consider the whole evolution.

When we lived in trees, and had fur, we didn't need much protection. We picked the fruit from the trees, and the Alpha males would simply rule the roost. They would be the only one with breeding "rights". The beta males would have survived by being submissive and avoiding conflicts. They would also assist with rearing the children. This would allow them to get with the other females and "sneak" a little sex. We especially see this behavior when an Alpha male loses his dominance because of age. He will often become the "omega" because all of the males he bullied as an Alpha will want to attack him, even gang up on him. Normally, he will leave the group he dominated, and go to another group as a beta. He will care for the children, and gain the trust of the females, and occasionally "sneek" a little sex.

Female apes often deliberately mate with multiple males, to prevent the males from killing her children. She doesn't know who the next "Alpha" would be. As a result, multiple males will bond with her children, giving her extra baby sitters.

When we came to the ground, we began walking upright. But we also needed protection from thorns, insects, and smaller animals, especially as we began to lose our fur.

Over time, males evolved as hunters, seeking prey, killing animals, and warding off predators. The women became gatherers. They would gather seeds, berries, and fruits which could be shared with the males for meat. However, if a male were born with health problems, was injured, or crippled, he would join the females in gathering. He would learn which fruits were safe to eat, which were dangerous. He would learn how to harvest the fruits, and how to grind the seeds. This would have enabled him to trade gathered goods for meat. These might have been the earliest transsexuals. These transsexuals may have also used their knowledge of dangerous and intoxicating plants, seeds, insects, and reptiles to protect himself. If an Alpha tried to hurt him, he could put a bit of henbane or foxglove into his meat, making him sick, possibly even killing him. Even though the women might know the secrets, they would have less reason to protect themselves. The hunters would believe that the transsexual was somehow "magic" and would stop picking on him.

Clothing also extended the range in which one could hunt. One could leave the grass-lands and move into hardwood forests, and conifer forests. Clothing would be needed for protection from the cold, as well as protection from the more unpleasant plants, insects, and animals. If you've brushed against poison ivy, been bitten by ants, or got fleas from your cat or dog, you can see why you would want to wear clothes.

However, moving north also meant seasons. There would be long periods where there was little to do. The game would be scarce, there would be few grains or leafy vegetables. There would be more need for squash, gourds, and root vegetables. The cold weather, smoking, and salting, would be needed to prevent food from spoiling. The side benefit would be spare time. Time that could be used for creating and improving weapons for the hunters, but for the gatherers, there would be more focus on creating objects of art. The hunters would probably take souvenirs, such as teeth, horns, and bones of the animals they killed, and would want to show them off. The gatherers would have the patients and fine motor skills to make thread, drill very small holes in the tokens, and combine them into necklaces and clothing, similar to what we see in Africa and many Native tribes of the Western Hemisphere.

This is probably when clothes moved from pure utility to status. A man with many bones, horns, or feathers on his clothes would be considered a great hunter, and those with the most would become the leaders of the smaller groups. As the men collected the trinkets, they would begin to give them to their favorite mates, giving them a bit of rank (but not too much) - the first Jewelry.

The male gatherers, again usually the small, sickly, or limited, would probably be learning more "medicine" and deadly arts, capturing snakes, frogs, and insects, learning how to tip a rodent bone with snake venom, or wipe someone with poisons that could kill slowly. We see this behavior with the Vodoo and "witch doctors", who will disable someone, making them appear as if dead, by simply wiping a poison onto their skin. It wouldn't seem like an attack, but soon, the hunters would respect the weaker man, because he could bring sickness or suffering without warning. He might also know how to heal. His ability to form needles from small bones would help him perform minor procedures, such as closing a cut.

Clothing would also begin to differentiate as well. The men, who needed more protection as they ran through forests, trees, and rocks, would need the thicker and denser hides of an animals back, haunches, and thighs. The women, who needed less protection, would make due with the thinner skins of the inner loin, belly, and neck. Over time, the women might have started tanning the softer leathers, to make them softer, more pliable, and easier to work with. The male gatherers would also have worn the softer leathers - the first transvestites.

Over centuries, clothing would become more decorated, and more functional. As tribes began to clash with each other for territory, hunting, and women, they would become more organized. They would also want more protection, using thick leather, perhaps reenforced with bone, to protect their arms and legs from the blows of invaders, as they defended the tribe. Tribes would tend to dress similarly so that when there was a skirmish, they wouldn't accidentally kill a friend and ally, leaving themselves to be killed. This would have been the first armor, and the beginnings of uniforms.

Women, on the other hand, would want no such markings, because they would be killed immediately if they were identified as "enemy". As "neutral", they would have been taken captive by the victors. They would have been assimilated into the new tribe. The smaller and weaker males might quickly be killed, to make sure they didn't avenge their fathers. On the other hand, a boy who could appear as if he were a woman, would have a much better chance of survival. When combined with his knowledge of magic, healing, and primitive technology, he would have quickly proved to be a valuable asset to the tribe, and a dangerous enemy. He would also have learned the arts of cooperation and collaboration, and might have been a negotiator, helping his tribe to avoid all out killing and destruction (war). Because he was small and weak, he would not be considered a threat, and because he was able to propose solutions that did not involve killing many men in both tribes, he would have been considered wise. He wouldn't be a chief, or an Alpha, but his place in his tribe, and the places of the other beta males, would be secured by their ability to provide the tribe with peace, medicine, and technology. The beta males would also have continued to cooperate, and would have formed alliances to become powerful for their magic. So long as they kept their secrets, and only told other beta males, others who were weak and effeminate like them, they could hold power as priests. In Egypt, the priests even challenged the power of the Pharoh.

Even as the stone age moved to the bronze age, as men began to wield weapons of metal, the beta male would have been an important player. He would have observed how to melt the metal, how to produce repeatable results, and how to craft the metal into harder and sharper weapons. He would have learned how to shape a weapon to give it the maximum striking power, how to make it pierce leather armor, and how to extend the range of bows, arrows, spears, and bladed weapons.

Women would become prizes of war. And younger and weaker men, would be considered play-things. They would have become slaves to the warriors, and they would have become very loyal to their protectors, doing things that even their women wouldn't do. They would be submissive, and would probably spend time with the women. Though they would also reproduce, it would be done in secret. However, as soon as it was clear that the boys were able to reproduce, they would have been castrated, becoming eunuchs. The eunuchs would serve the master, sexually as well as politically. They would also advise the wives in the specific tastes of the master, teaching them the skills that the master would have enjoyed most. Since a master could have several wives, they would value the advice of the eunuch and would often try to get special coaching on the side, her goal being to become the favorite wife. At the same time, it would be important NOT to create too much rivalry between the wives. By keeping them nearly equal among each other, there was less risk that the mother of the heir would have her son kill all of the other women, and all of their children. The power of the eunuch would have been significant, especially if he managed it well.

Over the centuries, the older men, often successful as soldiers, would give up fighting and war. They would become politicians. We see this among the Greeks and the Romans, with the rise of the Greek Democracy and the Roman Senate. Yet even here, creating the ability to cooperate and to gain the cooperation of other players was as important as the ability swing a sword on the battlefield.

During the Roman Empire, war was a regular and routine occurrence. Young boys would aspire to become soldiers, and would begin practicing as soon as they could hold a stick. The problem is that most new soldiers are put on the front line where their life expectancy is only a few minutes. The survivors were those who learned how to stay further to the rear, often by serving higher level commanders and generals. Caligula was known as "Little Boots" because he never really fought on the battlefield, but he had learned how to predict the actions of military leaders, and anticipate their actions. He survived by letting Tiberious have his way with him, while other more accomplished boys would resist, find, and end up being thrown back into the sea with the other "minnows" - from a 200 foot cliff.

Ironically, it was men, not women, who first started shaving their legs (and their arms). The soldiers wore leather armor on their shins to protect their legs, but the leather would pull their hair. The best way to reduce the irritation was to shave the hair off completely. Usually, by the time a soldier had served in the military for 15 years, he didn't need to shave, every root had been destroyed.

Likewise it was men not women who first started wearing heels. As women started wearing their hair higher in France, the men needed to wear heels to appear as tall, or slightly taller than their wive with their up-dos.

It was also men, not women who first started wearing silk stockings. They were quite popular in France, as well as the Southern United States, where warmer climates made woolen socks too uncomfortable and itchy. Women wore long skirts, rarely if ever showing even their ankles. Men on the other hand, wore their britches buckled at the knee, which made riding horses easier. The softer and gentler fabrics were also popular in the warmer parts of Europe and America, again because the more traditional and thicker woolen or heavy cotton threads tended to collect sweat and cause rashes, bleeding, and even deadly infections.

However, there were also benefits to being transgendered. John Adams suffered terribly for his aggressive and argumentitive tactics while in France. He was later sent to England "Where they don't mind being insulted". Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a bit of a dandy, and had learned from Franklin that making friends with the ladies was an excellent way to pass information between himself and officials who would not dare to meet openly for fear of starting a war between France and England. Franklin was famous for his enjoyment of the ladies, but in letters to Jefferson, he explained the importance of gaining the trust and confidence of the courtesans who regularly met with the King of France as well as other ministers and leaders. To be effective, Jefferson had to, in effect, become "one of the girls". Since Jefferson's wife had died before he went to France, he was much more able to gain their confidence and cooperation. Some of the letters of advice between Franklin and Jefferson were very interesting reading, and perhaps even a bit titillating as well as informative. For example, "One should not kiss a French woman of court on the lips, it would muss her lipstick. Kissing her on the cheek would result in a face covered with light powder. No, the proper place to kiss her would be on the breast, just below the collarbone, where there is only cologne or perfume".

Benjamin Disraeli was unusually fashionable, and was often considered effeminate. Much his power was the influence he held with Queen Victoria, who considered him a dear and close friend after her husband Albert died. He could treat her as a woman, and she could treat him as her equal.

Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill wore both kept in dresses until they were around 3-4 years old. The dresses made diaper changing much easier and quicker. Both men had other health issues, for which they were taunted as children, and each turned those issues to their own advantage, each becoming extraordinarily powerful men.

J. Edger Hoover and Herman Goering were also both known to wear dresses. According to the movie, J Edger wore his mother's dress to channel her spirit. However, it also suggests that she suspected his "Daffodil" nature and didn't approve, something which make have aided him in discovering and protecting the secrets of the rich and the powerful for decades, from 1935 to 1972, even in the face of a number of people who challenged his authority.

Even the history of the Internet, especially the modern commercial internet as we know it today (as opposed to the research network created for and by ARPA) has a rich history of transgenders and transsexuals as key players. Victoria Prince, founder of the Tri-ESS, communicated with transgenders - cross-dressers primarily, across the United States, via the usenet newsnet on usenet newsgroups such as net.women, net.motss (members of the same sex) and net.motts (members of the third sex). Many of the early BBS operators provided relays for those seeking information about gender identity issues. Several of these contributors were "out" as cross-dressers or transsexuals, others were covert, often maintaining multiple identities.

And of course, fashion itself has thrived on designers who were either transgendered themselves or were inspired BY transgenders, drag queens, and cross-dressers. It's no accident that so many designs seem to be created for 12 year old boys.

Transgenders and transsexuals also fueled much of the gay rights movement. It was the "Drag Queens" who started the Stonewall riots, and they weren't the first. Transsexuals especially, because of their gender confusion, are often magnets to homosexual men who are hoping to meet someone sympathetic. Even though many transgenders are not gay, they are often approached, and it doesn't take long to figure out that they can introduce some of the different guys hitting on them - to each other. In my own high school, I became the "Social Director" for the gay community, because so many jocks and gender conformant gay men would come onto me, assuming that I was gay. I'd often say "I AM gay, I'm a Lesbian", but I think I might know someone who would LOVE to meet you, is it OK if I give him your number? The answer was almost always an enthusiastic YES! The benefit to me, is that these boys would protect me in the locker room and in the halls. For the first time since first grade, I felt safe.

[NicoleScott]

Over time, males evolved as hunters, seeking prey, killing animals, and warding off predators. The women became gatherers. They would gather seeds, berries, and fruits which could be shared with the males for meat. However, if a male were born with health problems, was injured, or crippled, he would join the females in gathering. He would learn which fruits were safe to eat, which were dangerous. He would learn how to harvest the fruits, and how to grind the seeds. This would have enabled him to trade gathered goods for meat. These might have been the earliest transsexuals.

So, health problems turned hunters into gatherers and eventually, transsexuals. I didn't know that.
Or is it that transsexuals are not capable of hunting and must become gatherers?

[Tamara Croft]

So, health problems turned hunters into gatherers and eventually, transsexuals. I didn't know that.
Or is it that transsexuals are not capable of hunting and must become gatherers?I think she's not on this planet... and needs to gather something else :eek: I've never read anything so daft in all my life... seriously... :wtf:

[Asche]

Even as I write this I'm debating whether I want to post this. The prevailing view here at CD.com is that wearing "women's clothes" is inherently a form of female gender expression. While I don't see any reason to disagree with people who feel that way about themselves, it isn't true for me. But when I try to explain that, I get instructed that I obviously don't understand myself and I should learn the Received Wisdom About Transgenderism(tm) from those here who know more about me than I know myself. It doesn't help that those of us who don't have any interest in "presenting as female" are treated as freaks on the rare occasions when we're not ignored completely. The old "nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf." At CD.com, I'm allowed to admit I might like to wear a dress, but, much like Frédérique, I don't feel like I'm all that welcome to show who I really am.

For me, wearing skirts, dresses, petticoats, etc., is about the clothing. They look pretty, and I feel prettier and freer wearing them than when I am wearing the male uniform -- or at least, I look less un-pretty to myself. Is it about more than the clothing? In a sense, yes. In the same sense as when I go out in a sunfish on Lake George, it's about more than just being in the sailboat -- it's also about feeling time take another shape, about being at one with wind and water. But unless I wear something unusually frou-frou, I don't feel in any way more "feminine," and even that fades once I've worn it a few times and not seen anyone weird out about it. Mostly it's about coming home from work and taking off the uniform and persona required by my job, the way my father would take off his coat and tie and shoes, and putting on something that feels both physically and psychologically comfortable. Or making an elegant or pretty dress for a dance and hoping someone will say, "I really like your dress." I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not wearing "women's clothes," I'm wearing my clothes. If other people want to make it into something else, that's their Spinose, and not my problem.

All my life, "gender" (whether masculine or feminine) has been something external to me: a cage, a set of arbitrary and uncomfortable and at times perverted rules that society has tried to beat into me and everyone around me. It never succeeded in getting me to internalize them, and finally I've discovered that I can simply ignore them and dress and live as i like (most of the time) and get away with it. I'm aware that some activities, characteristics, and objects (such as clothing) are tagged by society as "masculine" and some as "feminine," but that matters to me only insofar as I might catch hell from people around me for picking stuff out of the "feminine" column. Mostly I don't care. I don't have a "feminine side" or a "masculine side," just "my side," and if I'm not always the same in all situations, it has more to do with what I'm allowed to express than what I feel I am.

So for me, it is about the clothing; to the extent it's about anything beyond that, it's also about being able to express myself as I am, and not as others insist I have to be.

[ReineD]

Asche, do you just put on the clothes? Or do you present full on as a woman with breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, long nails, etc, in other words do you try to look like a woman?

If you don't alter yourself in any way and it's just about wearing the clothes for you, then IMO you're a classic crossdresser. :)

... so, what's wrong with being a crossdresser? :)

[Asche]

If you don't alter yourself in any way and it's just about wearing the clothes for you, then IMO you're a classic crossdresser. :)
OK, according to your definition, I'm a "classic crossdresser" (beard, male-pattern baldness, and all).

But now I have another question:

What do you call all these people who sport breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, female names, female voice, etc., and insist they are expressing their "female side", who seem to compose the overwhelming majority of posters in this forum?

Chopped liver?

[Melissa in SE Tn]

Thank God for lingerie and heels. I don't want to question the origin of women's clothing, but want to enjoy wearing them.

[ReineD]

But now I have another question:

What do you call all these people who sport breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, female names, female voice, etc., and insist they are expressing their "female side", who seem to compose the overwhelming majority of posters in this forum?

Chopped liver?

No. lol. They are crossdressers too, but who also engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male. Like it or not, it is the women in our culture who wear makeup, who have breasts and hips, who have female names, female voices, etc. You, on the other hand, present as a male who simply is wearing women's clothes.

In other words, the clothes alone do not give anyone the impression that you are attempting to present as a woman if you do nothing else to alter yourself. But, people who do transform themselves in the way that you describe, are most definitely engaging in a behavior that gives the impression they wish to pass as women. Hence the term, cross gender "expression" (and not cross-gender "identity").

Please know that I answered this because you asked me specifically. I really don't want to start another debate on the meaning of the term, "cross gender expression". :p If you do want to discuss this more, we should do this via PM.

[PaulaDallas]

Veronica, I thought we crossdressers fall under the transgender umbrella though we do it either full time or part time. JMO. Though we have feminine feelings and tendencies some of us have to OR choose to remain a male for unspecified reasons.

I believe we fall under the "Gender Nonconforming" agenda. I don't know if it is a new category, but it's been in the news lately. It covers a broad range of issues, but those of us who live in the world as males and privately as females are definitely included.

[ReineD]

To PaulaDallas,

Re your statement: "I believe we fall under the "Gender Nonconforming" agenda. I don't know if it is a new category, ...."

The term is used in the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf), to differentiate between transsexuals and people who are not transsexual (who do not need to transition). I love the term since it is not ambiguous, it clearly means what it says while allowing for a wide range of expression, and it steps away from the tired debate of what "transgender" means, whether it is a gender identity of its own as often is used in the media, or whether it is an umbrella term for non-cisgender persons.

[Asche]

No. lol. They are crossdressers too, but who also engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male.
"Crosdressers who engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male."

Boy, that's a mouthful to say every time you are identifying someone!

If CD.com ever had to change its domain name to this in order to more truthfully reflect the majority of participants, I'd worry that we'd have people dying of old age before they could finish typing in the URL :)

(Enough procrastination. Back to working on my Techno-Contra dress.)

[NicoleScott]

Gender Nonconforming

I like it. Have we finally found the term for those who feel they are "more than CD, less than TS" and describe themselves as TG? Let's go with GN and allow TG to be used as the umbrella term.

[ReineD]

Boy, that's a mouthful to say every time you are identifying someone!

If CD.com ever had to change its domain name to this in order to more truthfully reflect the majority of participants, I'd worry that we'd have people dying of old age before they could finish typing in the URL :)

I agree, it is a mouthful and someone wouldn't say this to every causual muggle who wonders why he dresses. Too complicated for them to grasp. But if you're trying to explain who you are to a partner? The extra effort is worth it. We all know that the variety of cross-gender expressions AND cross-gender identities is wide among the members of this community and it really does take more than one word for a person to describe themselves. For example, if I were to describe myself I'd use a variety of words that describe my various personality traits, my preferences, my physical self.

The idea that there should be just *one* word to describe a condition that is complex given all the permutations is rather idealistic? :)


Nixole, I agree with you! :) This forum is made up of four major types of people, other than SOs:

1. Male gender ID who crossdress (they present as males wearing a dress)
2. Male gender ID who engage in cross-gender expression (they present as females in addition to wearing a dress)
3. Gender non-conformists who have varying degrees of feminine gender ID, or masculine ID for FtMs (can also be described as cross-gender identity)
4. Transsexuals (MtFs and FtMs who were born in the wrong bodies)

(2) & (3) can overlap depending on the individual's personal definitions.

[Lucy_Bella]

This forum is made up of four major types of people, other than SOs:

1. Male gender ID who crossdress (they present as males wearing a dress)
2. Male gender ID who engage in cross-gender expression (they present as females in addition to wearing a dress)
3. Gender non-conformists who have varying degrees of feminine gender ID, or masculine ID for FtMs (can also be described as cross-gender identity)
4. Transsexuals (MtFs and FtMs who were born in the wrong bodies)

(2) & (3) can overlap depending on the individual's personal definitions.

I agree,

I would also like to add without a p!ss!ng match..That if members would stop looking at how other members who define themselves as "dressers" for reasons other than being feminine or wishing to be the opposite sex born as...There are various other reasons why members here dress the opposite of sex born as and sometimes gender has nothing to do with it other than being socially un-acceptable..

[MonctonGirl]

So where would we be if Adam had not eaten that apple


I just can't resist this:

In Genesis 3:17 , God did not punish Adam for eating the apple. God punished Adam for believing a woman; specifically his wife.
She lied to him and convinced him the fruit was not from the forbidden tree and as such it was ok for him to eat it.
The interpretation is that she was too weak to exercise self-control when tempted by both the serpent and the desire for something forbidden.
Hence, women were deemed "the weaker sex" ( has nothing to do with physical strength )

Not my idea ... I did not write the Bible ...

Lately, shoes are doing this to me.

EDIT: I suppose then I am a part-time Gender Nonconformist.

[Veronica27]

I would also like to add without a p!ss!ng match..That if members would stop looking at how other members who define themselves as "dressers" for reasons other than being feminine or wishing to be the opposite sex born as...There are various other reasons why members here dress the opposite of sex born as and sometimes gender has nothing to do with it other than being socially un-acceptable..

Thank you!!

[Veronica27]

I just can't resist this:

In Genesis 3:17 , God did not punish Adam for eating the apple. God punished Adam for believing a woman; specifically his wife.
She lied to him and convinced him the fruit was not from the forbidden tree and as such it was ok for him to eat it.
The interpretation is that she was too weak to exercise self-control when tempted by both the serpent and the desire for something forbidden.
Hence, women were deemed "the weaker sex" ( has nothing to do with physical strength )

Not my idea ... I did not write the Bible ...

Lately, shoes are doing this to me.

EDIT: I suppose then I am a part-time Gender Nonconformist.

I guess the Devil made you post it!:devil:

The Bible has some hilarious symbolisms and metaphors if you take things literally.

Veronica