Unfortunately, we are backwards

[Tina_gm]

For many women, the ideal man is likely to be strong and rugged on the outside and have a tender caring heart and be compassionate on the inside. CDers are often backwards. We end up being softer on the outside, or wish to be, and make ourselves to be. At least part of the time anyway. Because of this not socially accepted behavior, many of us I believe are stronger on the inside. We sort of have to be to deal with the social rejection we would or do get, and to deal with not being able to be ourselves, to be different. I know I can often be very cold inside at times. I wish I was more like the ideal man for my wife, especially on the inside. I am a very passionate person, but I also have a certain cold interior do partially to being TG.

[Annaliese2010]

Very well put gendermutt. I can identify with that except....I carry the double indemnity of being at once warm insecure on the Inside same time too. Maybe that means I shall wind up in jail? The weak get used in this world. Geeze I dunno...hope not. OMG!

[Krissyrotogirl]

I can relate, I want to be the good husband but seem to be withdrawn from the world especially my wife.

[Rachelakld]

I'm still strong and ruggered on the outside for my 5'10" frame and by Friday my stubble can be used as a sanding machine. I still muscle up when required. I'm a sensative girl on the inside when I switch personalities

[PaulaQ]

Most of us on this forum are one type of gender variant or another. Whether you are "just a CD", or are full-on TS (like me), we just find ourselves not being quite like all those other guys. (OK, in my case, I finally accepted I'm just not a guy at all on the inside.)

The problem isn't us - how can you be wrong for being who you are? Did you ask to be made this way?

Think about gay folks for a minute. There are very effeminate gay men. There are gay men who you'd never know were gay, for all you'd know they were straight dudes. There are super-masculine gay men. There are lots more variants than these. Why do you see all these gender variants? Because the gay community accepts them.

Gender and sexuality may be intertwined, but they are not directly related. If so, then it stands to reason that gender variants exist amongst straight guys too. (I don't mean to be sexist in this - the gender variations occur in women too.)

The trouble is - in the straight world gender = sexual orientation (the only exception is if you are gay). The two concepts are so intertwined into a single "ideal guy" or "perfect woman" that most of us don't even have a mental framework where we can try to tease these things two apart. Most heteronormative folks don't even understand how gender and orientation could possibly NOT be the same thing.

So most men and women simply expect us to be the only thing they recognize "regular guys" (who don't really exist by the way), and if we deviate too far from that, they don't know how to handle it.

I think these rigid categories of gender in the hetero world cause a lot of woe out there, from guys who don't know how to fix the dang car ("WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!!!! MEN KNOW HOW TO DO THAT!!!!!!") to the more extreme cases of those of us on this forum.

So what do we do about it? Damned if I know.

[Beverley Sims]

Nothing wrong with being warm and considerate.
Maybe you can adjust the warmth factor also.

[Michelle789]

First, there is no such thing as a "perfect man" or "perfect woman". There's no such thing as a "regular guy" or a "regular girl". There's no such thing as normal. Everybody's weird.

I think a lot of forces from our past combined to create the mythical heteronormative cis-genered world we're living in today.

* Survival instincts. In survivalist days, we developed gender roles and gender behavior out of a necessity to survive, and most conformed to a significant degree, but not necessarily perfectly. Those who deviated far (e.g. who were transgendered) were typically allowed to either live and socialize as the opposite gender, or were promoted to priests or shamans.

Think about this. You're part of a tribe of 50 people. 25 are male, 25 are female. One of the males behaves like a woman, and internally identifies as a woman and therefore is really a woman born with a male body, and I will refer to her with female pronouns. If we force her to live as a man, go on hunting trips with us, I guarantee her feminine behavior, and lack of masculinity, will bring down the entire tribe. She is a woman, and is not designed for man's work.

If we decide to banish her from the tribe, we just lost 1 out of 50 people, a significant chunk. With so few people, we cannot afford to lose any, as the intrinsic value of a human is extremely high. So we must find a role that best suits her in society. She may work well as a woman, raising the children and cooking means and gathering berries. She may also do well as a priest, shaman, or spiritual leader of the tribe. She will not do well as a hunter.

Sometimes the transgender person identifies as something in between, or other than male or female, and an alternative role such as priest or shaman might work better than either a typical male or female role.

In tribal societies, where there are few people and the entire population can die with one mistake, all people must be assigned a role that best suits their individual personality. In most cases, the men will be hunters and the women will be gatherers. But there's always that 1 person who is better suited for the opposite gender role or even a special role like spiritual leader. In a tribal society, we simply cannot afford to make the mistake of forcing a MTF to "man up" or banishing her from society for being different.

* More people = more expendable
Now in the modern world, we have 7 billion people. Even 5000 years ago when we first started forming civilizations, we had far more than 50 people. As society grew, the intrinsic value of a person decreases, and we become more expendable. IMO, and strictly IMO, I'm no expert, this is the root of all our prejudices not only towards transgender people, but for racism and sexism as well.

When civilizations were being formed, the leaders decided that they needed a structure to keep order and control the masses. Sadly, they formed the family structure, rigid gender roles, divided us into social classes, and created racism. Why? Dividing us on things we have no control over is an easy discriminator. If they chose to divide our roles in society according to the color shirt we wear, with red shirt being in higher position and blue shirt being lower position, everyone would just buy a red shirt and there would be no one doing the blue shirt jobs. It suck, trust me, I wish life could be more fair. But this is how it is. You can't change your race, or who your father is, or your gender. So it's easy to divide us according to these things. Most conform to a degree enough to be accepted.

The few that don't conform to the gender role of the assigned birth sex face a pass or die situation. You can either "man up" or be excluded from society or dead. If you successfully "man up", great, and many can do so successfully for a long time before their true gender identity breaks through. If you fail, and you bring down a group of people along with it. What's the big deal, "it's only 10 people" out of a million (or billion, or 7 billion today). We can replace them. If you exclude the gender non-conforming person or allow them to die, "it's only one person" we can replace him.

Also with the dawn of civilization, we didn't die as easily. We were no longer at the mercy of the saber tooth tiger, and we had some level of protection from weather or natural disasters. And even if a disaster or disease killed off 1/3 of the population, what's 1 million out of 3 million. 2 million still survive. The human race isn't going extinct.

I hope my explanation makes sense. It seems as if more people = more expendable, and expendibility is the root of most of our modern day problems. In fact, it's the same reason why you're just a number in our society. Think about this. Tribal society = you're a valuable contributing member. Modern society = you're just a number. It doesn't even matter if you're TG or cis-gendered, we're all just numbers in the end of the day.

I sincerely believe the "you're just a number" thinking which has been around for the past 5000 years has a lot to do with prejudices towards transgender and gender non-conforming people. What's 10 million out of 7 billion, really?

* Religion. Religion was put in place to control the masses. Rules like a man shall not wear woman's clothes, or a man shall not sleep with another man. Otherwise you're going to hell. And religion did a great job scaring us that hell is this real place and we're gonna burn their for eternity. A really scary thought, right. And then people won't associate with you because you're guilty by association, so if you hang with a hell-bound cross-dresser or homosexual, you're going to hell to simply by association. The reality is society wanted to keep everybody in their birth-assigned gender, racial, and socio-economic class roles, because it was easier to control the masses that way, and once again, what's 100 out of 1 million, really?

* Hollywood. One of my two least favorite aspects of living in Los Angeles, the other being our dreaded traffic. Hollywood created false ideals of how we should live our lives. Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best. Husband with 9-5 job, happy stay-at-home housewife. Son, daughter, and dog.
How about how it always manages to snow on Christmas Eve in the movies, even if the movie is set in a climate where it doesn't snow?

The perfect male: hardworking, muscular, tender heart, chivalrous, earns a 6-figure salary, will protect you and your children from all harm, has good sense of humor, likes football and beer, and a regular churchgoing Christian. How much nonsense is this.

How about the man who lacks muscles?
How about the man who works really hard but lives below the poverty line.
How about the man who hates football?
How about the man who lacks a sense of humor?
How about the man who likes wine or girly drinks instead of beer?
How about the man who doesn't drink due to religious convictions.
How about the man who is an alcoholic and cannot drink beer?
And god forbid he likes to wear women's clothes. God forbid he really is a woman trapped in a man's body, and therefore a she.

The perfect woman: Skinny, dresses in skirt, high heels, and hose all the time, with heavy makeup, does all house chores perfectly, has a career, makes a lot of money, spends time with children, is fun, a good churchgoing Christian, and drinks an occasional glass of wine, and is a shopaholic.

How about the woman who is moderately or seriously overweight?
How about the woman who can't afford to dress glamorously? Or doesn't have the time for it?
How about the fact that most women, even if they had the time and money to do so, dress casually and don't glam it up very often?
How about the woman who works a low-paying job at Burger King to make ends meet?
How about the woman who has to play both mom and dad because hubby walked out on her?
How about the woman who actually likes beer instead of wine?
How about the woman who is an alcoholic and cannot drink an occasional glass of wine?
How about the woman who doesn't drink for religious convictions?
How about the woman who is very masculine. God forbid she's really a man trapped in a woman's body, and therefore a he.

The movies and what we see on TV are fiction. It's not real. You can make anything happen in a movie. You can even defy the law of gravity in a movie.

I think reality is much closer to nature and to our survival instincts. We're animals in the end of the day. We were designed for survival under harsh conditions, not this so-called life of luxury which sets us up with high expectations and then leaves us disappointed when we don't get everything we want. And I do believe that survivalist tribes were by far the most tolerant of gender non-conforming individuals, as was necessary for survival of the tribe.

Tolerance is human nature. Acceptance of diversity is human nature. Prejudice and bigotry is socially constructed.

We need a change of consciousness that will adapt to our technologically advancing civilization.

[Kate Simmons]

Quite honestly GM, I don't "deal" with anything. I'm who I am as a person and change for no one. Others have to "deal" with that. ;):)

[jenni_xx]

First, there is no such thing as a "perfect man" or "perfect woman". There's no such thing as a "regular guy" or a "regular girl". There's no such thing as normal.

I disagree. On an individual level, the notions of "perfect", "regular" have a lot of credulity. Only in a broader sense are such notions diminished. That doesn't however automatically render the broader view correct.



I think a lot of forces from our past combined to create the mythical heteronormative cis-genered world we're living in today.

There's nothing mythical about it. It is what it is for a reason. There will always be deviates from the "norm" however. Transgendered folk are one such example.


Survival instincts. In survivalist days, we developed gender roles and gender behavior out of a necessity to survive, and most conformed to a significant degree, but not necessarily perfectly. Those who deviated far (e.g. who were transgendered) were typically allowed to either live and socialize as the opposite gender, or were promoted to priests or shamans.

Were they? I mean typically? Or were they rather shunned, as opposed to being "allowed"?


Think about this. You're part of a tribe of 50 people. 25 are male, 25 are female. One of the males behaves like a woman, and internally identifies as a woman and therefore is really a woman born with a male body, and I will refer to her with female pronouns. If we force her to live as a man, go on hunting trips with us, I guarantee her feminine behavior, and lack of masculinity, will bring down the entire tribe. She is a woman, and is not designed for man's work.

The sounds quite misogynistic. A view that ascribes a specific role to a specific gender, and one that is suggesting that anyone who deviates from that role will result in downfall (of such a small community). Is that how tribes (either today or many generations ago) actually operate(d)? I don't think it is.


Sometimes the transgender person identifies as something in between, or other than male or female, and an alternative role such as priest or shaman might work better than either a typical male or female role.

No. A transgender person does not identify as something in between. A transgender person will identify with the opposite sex.


In tribal societies, where there are few people and the entire population can die with one mistake, all people must be assigned a role that best suits their individual personality. In most cases, the men will be hunters and the women will be gatherers. But there's always that 1 person who is better suited for the opposite gender role or even a special role like spiritual leader. In a tribal society, we simply cannot afford to make the mistake of forcing a MTF to "man up" or banishing her from society for being different.

Read up on the work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas. An entire population will never die with one mistake. And transgendered people should never (or never need be) regarded as a mistake. In tribal environments or in societal environments that we see today. What you label a mistake, others will label an obstacle, one that is not, nor ever has been, insurmountable or ultimately detrimental to the tribes ability to survive as a collective. Nature simply doesn't work that way. It rather works by picking off the weakest members, or which there will always be, in order for the tribe to remain strong. That transgendered people still exist today is tantamount to the non-detrimental effect they actually had upon the human species and it's ability to progress.


More people = more expendable

Or rather more people = greater affect.


Now in the modern world, we have 7 billion people. Even 5000 years ago when we first started forming civilizations, we had far more than 50 people. As society grew, the intrinsic value of a person decreases, and we become more expendable. IMO, and strictly IMO, I'm no expert, this is the root of all our prejudices not only towards transgender people, but for racism and sexism as well.

We become more expendable as a collective, and the sums make up the whole. The fact that there are more cisgendered people than transgendered people, more heterosexual people than homosexual people, only serves, in such an environment of expansion, to make the cisgendered and heterosexual people to be at a greater risk of being expended, but at a much smaller risk of those who identify as such becoming less significant.


When civilizations were being formed, the leaders decided that they needed a structure to keep order and control the masses. Sadly, they formed the family structure

There is nothing sad about the formation of the family structure.


rigid gender roles, divided us into social classes, and created racism. Why? Dividing us on things we have no control over is an easy discriminator.

A comment that history tells us is true. But nevertheless a comment that presupposes the fallacy of causation equating correlation. Conforming isn't a weakness, it's a trait of human nature. The idea of wishing that life could be more fair is nothing but an illusion. Life doesn't suck. It never has done. No one owes anyone else anything. Which, conversely, is completely at odds with the idea of society, no matter how big or small the numbers that make up such a society are.


The few that don't conform to the gender role of the assigned birth sex face a pass or die situation. You can either "man up" or be excluded from society or dead.

Clearly not. The worst will simply be ridicule. Transgendered people do not face exclusion. We function just as well as any other person who operates within society. Conforming to such a society has many facets.


I hope my explanation makes sense. It seems as if more people = more expendable, and expendibility is the root of most of our modern day problems.

That's simply the way it's always been, in humans and in animals, be they social creatures or not. Every living creature is, strictly speaking, just a number.


Religion.

No, let's not really go there.


The movies and what we see on TV are fiction. It's not real. You can make anything happen in a movie. You can even defy the law of gravity in a movie.

A truly enlightening comment.


Tolerance is human nature.

No. Tolerance is merely something that humans are capable of, but also something that many chose not to embrace.

[ReineD]

For many women, the ideal man is likely to be strong and rugged on the outside and have a tender caring heart and be compassionate on the inside.


This is a sweeping generalization, Gendermutt. There is a wide spectrum of men, just as there is a wide spectrum of women, that runs the gamut of all possible permutations of exteriors and interiors. And most everyone eventually finds a partner with whom to form a relationship. There is no universal "ideal" man. There's only the guy that rocks your boat, wherever and however he may be.

Are you trying to figure out why society in general or women do not accept the CDing all too well? It's because it breaks a sacred covenant that has held true since time immemorial .. that the vast majority of men are men, the vast majority of women are women, they are biologically opposites, and this arrangement is crucial for the propagation of our species.

To say that CDers need to become tougher internally than men who do not crossdress is rather insensitive to the different trials and tribulations that non-CDers experience?

Have you ever considered the idea that you would be the same person internally even if you did not crossdress? :)

[Desirae]

There are plenty of CDs, transsexuals, gays, lesbians, etc who know how to fix cars. Likewise, there are many women who hunt, fish, shoot guns, etc. I don't understand why these gender stereotypes are still being disseminated? I, especially, can't understand how these stereotypes of "typical" behavior are still being used in discussion from members of our own community? I just don't get it. This hunter / gatherer stuff doesn't hold water anymore. Look at all the single mothers out there who do the job of both parents when raising their children. Likewise, there are plenty of single fathers who also perform the roles of both parents exceptionally well. In order for us ALL to move forward, IMHO, this "kind" of thinking needs to be curtailed and eliminated.

[Michelle789]

jenni_xx

You completely misunderstood what I posted.


The sounds quite misogynistic. A view that ascribes a specific role to a specific gender, and one that is suggesting that anyone who deviates from that role will result in downfall (of such a small community). Is that how tribes (either today or many generations ago) actually operate(d)? I don't think it is.

Regardless of gender, it's in our own best interests to let people do what they're best at naturally. Under circumstances which are less urgent, we can teach people to learn what they can't do naturally, and if they can learn it, then they can perform it as well. And it's always in the best interests to let a transgender person live and present as the gender they identify as, whether it's opposite to their birth sex, or outside the gender binary.


No. A transgender person does not identify as something in between. A transgender person will identify with the opposite sex.

Transgender people do identify outside the gender binary. You're going along with the media's portrayal of transgender, which says transgender = transsexual. A transsexual is a specific example of a transgender person who identifies as the opposite gender to their assigned-at-birth sex, and typically receives medical treatment to bring the body in alignment with the mind. Under the transgender umbrella term, it does include people who identify outside the binary completely.


And transgendered people should never (or never need be) regarded as a mistake.

I never said that transgender people were a mistake. I said it's a mistake to force someone to be something they're not, that is a mistake that could be very costly to both the individual, and the entire group. Forcing a transgender person to conform to the role of their assigned birth sex is a mistake, and can lead to catastrophe - both for the individual TG person, and for the tribe as a whole.

I'm transgender. I would be a big hypocrite if I said that I was a mistake.


Were they? I mean typically? Or were they rather shunned, as opposed to being "allowed"?

We will never know for sure. Everything I wrote is simply a theory. We weren't around back then, so we have no way to prove what life was actually like. We might think our next door neighbor has a happier life than we do, and on the surface it may appear to be that way, but they could be no happier than us or even more unhappy. No way to know for sure.


There's nothing mythical about it.

There are plenty of myths. Reread what I said about the white Christmas. My question for you is, how many times did it snow on Christmas Eve. I mean that snow actually fell from the sky on Christmas Eve from sunset until midnight? Some of us live in climates where it never snows, or in the southern hemisphere where Christmas comes during summer.

Stay at home wife myth - try telling that to every woman who works a low paying job to support their children, and to every woman who plays double-duty of mother and father. Even those women who are stay at home wives aren't necessarily happy.

Do you really think mythical ideals of the 1950s were reality. Think about all the women who worked low-paying jobs in the 1950s. Think about all the men who worked two or three jobs to support their families in the 1950s. 9-5 isn't reality for everyone, not all jobs are 9-5. I will say there are enough 9-5 jobs to create rush hour traffic daily, but not everyone works that kind of schedule. Think about all the secrets families had in the 1950s. Families have had secrets since the beginning of time.


There is nothing sad about the formation of the family structure.

I went too far on this one.


The idea of wishing that life could be more fair is nothing but an illusion.

Life's not fair, but we don't have to contribute towards making it more unfair. We can start listening to other viewpoints, and help those who are less fortunate in any way we can.


Life doesn't suck.

I never said that life sucks. I said that it sucks that we have to keep on perpetuating unfairness in life.


No. Tolerance is merely something that humans are capable of, but also something that many chose not to embrace.

Intolerance is learned behavior.



The few that don't conform to the gender role of the assigned birth sex face a pass or die situation. You can either "man up" or be excluded from society or dead.

Clearly not. The worst will simply be ridicule. Transgendered people do not face exclusion.

Try telling that to every transgender person who was beaten up, murdered, fired from their jobs, lost their spouses, and got disowned by their families. Not a single one will call that merely ridicule.

Mere ridicule is being called queer, fag, tranny, sissy, and even that can be deeply hurtful to many of us.



To say that CDers need to become tougher internally than men who do not crossdress is rather insensitive to the different trials and tribulations that non-CDers experience?


Agreed. All humans have trials and tribulations. Everyone of us faces hardships and challenges. To say that one group of people has it easier than another denies the fact that the other has any problems. I'd like to say that some people have it harder than others, but no one has it easy. Some groups are at higher risk for serious problems, sometimes significantly higher risk.

[docrobbysherry]

"Man on the outside, woman inside." "Dressed like a woman, but feel like a man inside." It's all gibberish, to me.

I'm the same inside and out. Quite simply? I'm a jerk!

[Jaymees22]

"Man on the outside, woman inside." "Dressed like a woman, but feel like a man inside." It's all gibberish, to me.

I'm the same inside and out. Quite simply? I'm a jerk! Now this I understand and I enjoy being a jerk too.

[jenni_xx]

Hi Michelle

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote. I merely countered what you wrote.

You say yourself that what you wrote is merely your own theory. And to be fair, I think it's an interesting theory that you put forward.

Anyway, to respond to some of your points...

Transgender people do not identify outside of the gender boundary. They (we) simply identify with the opposite gender. This forum is tantamount to that. We don't use pronouns outside of "he" or "she" to describe ourselves or others. The men here refer to themselves and others by using female terms. So the men here identify, or want to be identified as, female. They (we) don't wish to be identified as something that falls outside of "male" or "female".

On another note, there are transgendered people who have suffered horrific attacks for no other reason than they are transgendered. The fault/problem (as far as society overall is concerned) doesn't lie with them, but those who carry out such attacks. Thus, it isn't the victim (in this case the transgendered person) who is excluded from society, or functions outside of it. It is rather the person/people who carry out such attacks. Look at it this way. A transgendered person walks down the street and encounters numerous people. The majority of the people that the transgendered person will encounter will not react in such a brutal way. The majority will either simply not notice, not care, or if they do notice, will do no more than snigger to themselves.

I agree with you when you say that we don't have to contribute to making life more unfair. The word for that is simply consideration. But my point in this respect was simply that life will only ever be what we ourselves, as individuals, make it. My point was also to draw attention to what the term "society" actually means. Those who have been persecuted in the past (and are still persecuted today) have fought for their own acceptance and right in belonging to the society in which they exist. They have neither allowed themselves to be excluded, or to be regarded as a group who is unable to function within society. That relates to women. To ethnic minorities. To homosexual people. And yes, to transgendered people. We belong, because we are. Because we exist. We are not weaker because we don't confirm to the norm, or are put down by those regarded to be more accepted. We simply fight against such a view, and as a result, become accepted ourselves as part of the "group" that makes up society overall.

[Michelle789]

Transgender people do not identify outside of the gender boundary. They (we) simply identify with the opposite gender. This forum is tantamount to that.

Jenni, please read this thread

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?162497-Some-Common-Trans-Related-Definitions

You can find it in the sticky on Male to Female Crossdressing forum.

After you read it please tell me if you still stand by the quoted statement.

[jenni_xx]

Transgender definition:

Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member of the opposite sex. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

(Psychology) of or relating to a person who wants to belong to the opposite sex. (Collins English Dictionary)

a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser. (Kernerman Webster's Collage Dictionary)

of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth (Miriam Webster's Dictionary)

[UNDERDRESSER]

There is no point arguing about definitions, just try to understand where the other person is coming from. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia.
--------------------
"The precise definition for transgender is changing but nevertheless includes:

"Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these."[2]

"People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."[3]

"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[4]
--------------------------
If I take that to be accurate, I am transgender. I don't myself feel that way. True, I wish to display certain characteristics that are traditionally, (in this society) regarded as feminine, but I see that as a fault with society. I'm trying to push back against that in a little way.

I feel that the current generally accepted expectations of the male/female roles, and the pressure to enforce them rigidly, is behind a lot of society's ills. Some places worse than others, Some are moving towards a more enlightened stance.

[ReineD]

:iagree: There are all these different definitions for "transgender"!

This must mean that it truly is an umbrella term that covers anyone who is not cis (cis = someone whose gender identity and gender role/presentation matches their sex). :)

[jenni_xx]

In regards to how we identify ourselves, we need only take a look around this forum. And we need only ask ourselves a handful of questions

Such as

If you don't identify as male, or female, but somewhere in between, then why:

1) Have you chosen a female name for yourself?
2) Why don't you dress in gender neutral clothes?
3) Why do so many (here) refer to each other (and themselves) by using female pronouns?

I've just read a post on here, written by a MAN who has an accepting wife. The responses are telling: "You go girl"; "you're such a lucky girl", and such like.

Even Michelle in this post, with whom we are discussing this very thing, has chosen to have a female name, and chosen a female avatar.

So if transgender really is all about falling between the two (binary) genders, then where are the gender neutral names? The clothes? The pronouns?

Sometimes, the answer is staring us right in the face, but some, who engage in debate, or wish to prove a point, simply become blind to it.

[Michelle789]

:iagree: There are all these different definitions for "transgender"!

This must mean that it truly is an umbrella term that covers anyone who is not cis (cis = someone whose gender identity and gender role/presentation matches their sex). :)

It can be very confusing sometimes defining what transgender really means.

Jenni,

I think you're assuming everyone identifies as 100% male or 100% female, and transgender people identify 100% opposite of what their body is - that's a transsexual. I will explain using RGB colors we use to define colors on the computer screen. I promise you no hex.

Male and female are the building blocks of our gender identity. Just like red, green, and blue are the building blocks of colors on our computer screens. Some of us are completely male, completely female, just as some colors are solid red, green, or blue. Many of us are somewhere in between male and female, just as colors may be some mix of RGB. You can set the amount of red, green, or blue to varying values of 0 to 255 and create new colors.

Let's assume that male and female are our two primary building blocks, and each can have a value of 0 to 255. 0 means not present at all, 255 means completely present.

For this discussion, I will assume you're born with a male body and have some degree of female gender identity. This logic can be applied to those born with a female body and some degree of male gender identity.

1. Some of us are completely female on the inside, and need to undergo transition to correct the body and bring it in alignment with the mind. In this case, I set M = 0, F = 255. This is called a transsexual.

2. Many of us have a partial female identity. We choose to present as female sometimes with female pronouns, female name, female clothing, etc... Male is more dominant than female, but female exists to some degree. So I might set M = 215, F = 105,
or M = 255, F = 75,
or M = 200, F = 100. This is called a cross-dresser.

3. Some of us identify as gender fluid, that is we alternate between male and female in presentation.
In this case, male and female are both highly dominant. So M = 205, F = 195.
Or I might set M = 185, F = 200.
Or M = 170, F = 180.
This is sometimes called dual gender or gender fluid.

4. Some of us identify as both male and female at the same time.
Let's say M = 130, F = 125;
or M = 115, F = 120.
This is sometimes called androgynous, or bigender.

5. Some of us identify as no gender at all, although it's very rare.
M = 0, F = 0

6. Some of us present as guys in dresses, with completely male names, male pronouns, and some degree of female clothes.
M = 255, F = 32

7. Finally, a cis-gendered male identifies as M = 255, F = 0.

Go into Paint or Photoshop, and try mixing and matching different amounts of red, green, and blue, and tell me what colors you get. I bet you'll not only discover colors that are not solid red, green or blue, but some completely new colors, like orange, yellow, or purple.


Many of us choose to present as female part of the time, male others. Some of us only partially in female clothing. And yes, there are some who do present androgynously.

[jenni_xx]

Michelle

Just to be clear, I'm not assuming that everyone identifies as 100% male or 100% female, or that transgender people identify 100% opposite of what their body is. I'm saying that a transgender person will assume the identify of either male or female, depending on their mood, and present themselves, again depending on their mood, as either male or female. Not as something that can't be defined as either - a third sex so to speak. A transgender person will embrace notions that are traditionally assigned to the opposite sex - a transgender person will never shun such identifiers, in order to favour a description (about themselves) that falls outside the binary gender definition.

Of course, a transgender person will live a percentage of their life presenting as their birth gender. Of course, a transgender person will live a percentage of their life presenting as opposite of their birth gender. The extent to which any individual transgender person will do so will vary from individual to individual, but the intent of every transgendered person will remain the same - to present as/identify with those of their opposite birth gender, at least some of the time. If I dress 3 times a week and you dress 4 times a week, that doesn't make you MORE transgendered than I am, and it's for that reason that your RGB colour analogy breaks down. For the personal habits of the individual merely show us, not whether they are more transgendered or not than someone else, but rather the extent they are willing to go to in order to embrace their femininity (in the case of male tg's) or masculinity (in the case of female tg's). And we all know that this "extent" (intent) varies for the individual at different points in said individual's life (referred to here, for example, as a "pink fog" moment). Meaning that one individual can be at one time completely satisified with not dressing, or simply underdressing, but at another time wants to dress the whole nine yards. Which is again, why your RGB analogy breaks down.

In regards to androgynous people, that's a completely different ballpark. For the very definition of androgyny is not to identify with or present oneself in anyway as either male or female, but as something that is both suitable to men and women.

[Tina_gm]

This is a sweeping generalization, Gendermutt. There is a wide spectrum of men, just as there is a wide spectrum of women, that runs the gamut of all possible permutations of exteriors and interiors. And most everyone eventually finds a partner with whom to form a relationship. There is no universal "ideal" man. There's only the guy that rocks your boat, wherever and however he may be.

Are you trying to figure out why society in general or women do not accept the CDing all too well? It's because it breaks a sacred covenant that has held true since time immemorial .. that the vast majority of men are men, the vast majority of women are women, they are biologically opposites, and this arrangement is crucial for the propagation of our species.

To say that CDers need to become tougher internally than men who do not crossdress is rather insensitive to the different trials and tribulations that non-CDers experience?

Have you ever considered the idea that you would be the same person internally even if you did not crossdress? Reine- I know what I am trying to say, but it doesn't appear that I am doing a good job of it. I am not actually attempting to put women in a box or make them to be shallow, predictable or mundane when it comes to their choices and preferences. Perhaps I am not making the best of posts lately as my mindset has not been the best when it comes to CDing. Overall everything is ok with my marriage. I guess it is just that right now we are in a pro longed moment of stress from other sources. In answer to your ?? about how I would be if not for CDing, I would be the same guy either way.

For the GG's, I apologize if my recent comments on this or other posts have sounded negative. They were never meant to be. As for this thread, as for the backwards part about being tough on the inside, I guess I kinda screwed that one up as well. I meant that we as CDers end up being tougher on the inside because of the amount of society rejection and that CDing does pose a challenge to many relationships and marriages. Not that we are cold on the inside.

[Maria in heels]

I have to disagree with you...my wife loves that I am soft and tender on the inside, and this comes from Maria

[Marcelle]

Wow, quite the thread and quite the debate.

Not being a big fan of stereotypes or what constitutes a perfect man or woman (perfection is in the eye of the beholder and seldom survives first contact), I believe in one truth . . . we should all strive to be kind, considerate, compassionate, self-confident, strong, tough, good to ourselves and to others. That is the mark of good person and has nothing to do with gender, sex or states in between. The minute we try to dissect what belongs to men and what belongs to women is when we forget that people are the same deep down. There are good people and there are bad. We all need to co-exist and that is what makes life interesting.

Hugs

Isha

[ReineD]

Gosh, Gendermutt .. there's no need to apologize. This is a discussion thread and it certainly was not my intent to insult you with my comments. People disagree all the time in this forum. It's all part of the fun! :)

[LaraPeterson]

215867

A very popular sailor from days gone by said, "I yam what I yam and tha's all what I yam." That's still true. Being yourself will always be a challenge, especially when you are trying to fit into a society that doesn't understand nor like what/who you are. Your strengths and weaknesses are yours and yours alone. Whether you wear stilettos or combat boots, a skirt & blouse or a 3-piece suit, you are still you.

I am often amused by the declarations of the experts (an expert, BTW, is anyone who speaks to a subject more than 25 miles from where they live) who give us definitions penned by people who don't have a clue what it's like to live as a CD/TV/TS/TG yada yada. When you present yourself as a CD with a warm heart or a cold heart (it really doesn't matter which), the fact that you are "different" causes a schism. And not a schism of your making. You are who you are. PaulaQ probably said it best, "The problem is not YOU; it's everybody else.

"To thine own self be true" said Polonius in Hamlet. Do that, if you can, dear one.

[Valarie]

Native Americans had the term double spirited, these were individuals that identified more with the sex that they were not born with or had attribute of both genders. When looking at the diaries of White Europeans we see that they were perplexed by this, not because the society had individuals like this, but because the Native tribes embraced it. It was a taboo for Europeans to see a woman hunting with other men, and even women involved in agriculture (a traditional male European job, where we get the term husband from husbandry). People that associated as the opposite gender or sex existed in the old world as well, but were stigmatized by a Christianity and a patriarchal systems of authority. For a man to act like a woman is to be considered wrong, women were associated with wickedness and sin. In the Malice Malificarum written in the 1300s by male witch hunters, that were given authority by the Holy Roman Church, women are constantly put down as "the wicked and sinful sex" witchcraft was associated with a woman's sexuality, therefore a man that acted effeminate was sometimes considered to be possessed by a demonic spirit or by a witch. Women that had more masculine attributes were considered to be the same. Western society has put down women, and anyone different from the standard laid down by the early church, which is why Native Americans were considered inhuman for a time, because theologians in Europe could not place them in any point of the bible.
We are at a point in our human history where it is becoming more acceptable to challenge these norms, without fear of being set on fire or run out of town. We still face stigma for not projecting ourselves a certain way. Yet we can redefine what it means to be masculine and feminine, I know who I am, and as my wife had told me before I came out to her, "I'm not attracted to macho guys, I think they are annoying that's why I fell in love with you."

[Michelle789]

Jenni, can we reach a compromise in which
1. Gender identity follows the RGB analogy (different degrees of male and female)
2. Gender expression can either be male, female, or androgynous

[jenni_xx]

Jenni, can we reach a compromise in which
1. Gender identity follows the RGB analogy (different degrees of male and female)
2. Gender expression can either be male, female, or androgynous

I think that there is a difference between gender identity and gender expression. I don't agree that gender identity follows the RGB analogy, but gender expression can, for how we express ourselves can vary from one moment to the next, and to varying degrees. To put this simply, a person who identifies as transgender can spend the day presenting themselves in alignment with their birth gender, but that doesn't mean that for that day they cease to be transgendered.

We can certainly present ourselves as male, or female, androgynous, or differing from androgyny somewhat, incorporate elements within our appearance that are traditionally associated with the opposite sex. To extend on a point I made earlier, if person A prefers to present fully as a woman when they dress, and person B prefers to mix-and-match male and female clothing when they dress, that doesn't make person B any less transgendered than person A is.