Not trans? Huh? I don't get it.

[Nadine Spirit]

While reading a different thread a member stated that they were "not trans." I will make the assumption and fill in the end of that as "not transgender." This is an idea that I have read from many members actually. If we look at the definition of transgender given from WPATH it states "Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth."

I m not quite sure what the aversion to identifying as transgender is? But further than that, if you do not identify as "trans" why do you think you do what you do? Is it just a passing fancy? An interesting way to spend some time?

Like you had a list of various things to do: go bowling, fix up an old hot rod, dust the house, dress in women's clothes... and today you thought, hmm... yeah... today would be a good day to play dress up? But it does not mean anything about me and my gender.

I take the definition of transgender to include anyone who "crosses or transcends culturally defined categories of gender." So yeah, if all you ever do is occasionally put on some lipstick, you are transgender, if you only ever put on a pair of women's underwear and pleasure yourself, you are transgender, if you are a cross dresser, you are transgender, if you transition you are transgender, etc.

You all can debate whether or not you want to be labeled or defined or categorized til the world ends, but that is an integral part of language and culture. Things are defined, and that is kind of how the word transgender is defined. So um... yeah... sorry to break it to you... but... yeah you are transgender.

[Rhonda Darling]

I agree. If such a simple definitional concept isn't embraced by those to whom it applies, it's like a decree striking the letter "M" from the language -- utter nonsense.

[Lisa760]

I agree I think we all fall in the category of transgender.

[kimdl93]

Two possibilities. One- The individual may be referring to Transexual rather than Transgender. May not know the difference or maybe careless in word choices.

Two - some CDrs don't like being included among the transgendered, and will come up with a variety of exceptions. I don't agree with those exceptions, but its not worth arguing about it.

[Krisi]

That only works if you decide that WPATH has the right to define the word. I think common usage would be a bit different.

[Jackie7]

@Nadine, as Kim notes People do confuse transsexual with transgender. If "trans" means transgender, then sure, all of the crossdressing men in this site are trans. But If it means "transsexual," then only some of us are. I am transgender but not transsexual, and if I were to write that I am "not trans", I would be meaning that I don 't contemplate having sexual reassignment surgery nor casting aside my male aspect to live full-time as a woman.

[Leahann]

I agree with Jackie7

[Keri L]

I don't think people should say I am/am not "trans," because that's not a word; it's a prefix. If I said I am "anti," would that make sense, or would I need to clarify, eg antiestablishment, antisocial, etc. Seems like it is just a vague slang term that just causes confusion.

[Marcelle]

Hi Nadine,

Exactly why I don't like labels as a way to neatly define who people are. As Jackie noted I do find a lot of confusion even among members who confuse Transgender (the umbrella term) with Transsexual and hence they say I am not "Transgender / Trans". Personally I don't like the term "Cross Dresser" but that is me so I prefer to refer to myself as Transgender . . . at least until I get "Jeopardy Screen Saver Mode Stares" from people then I iterate "What you know as a cross dresser" then the lights come on.

I think we are all allowed to determine who we are and how we want to define ourselves. If some prefer not to be lumped under the Transgender umbrella, it might their way of coping with a very confusing moment in their life. Heck when Isha first came crashing into my life and I was early in counselling I denied emphatically I was "transgender" as it seemed so definitive and I preferred to refer to it as "that thing I do". Some may never accept the moniker of Transgender as it may be a bridge too far for them. Just my two cents.

Hugs

Isha

[natcrys]

Apart from the GG's and GM's on this site.. all of us are transgender.. not all of us are transsexual.. that's how I see it.

[LilSissyStevie]

It's an identity and you can't force an identity on somebody. Just because a bunch of "experts" come up with a definition doesn't mean one has to accept it for themselves. (Besides, this country is run by experts - 'nuff said.) There are people born with penises and XY chromosomes that don't identify as male despite the fact that that's how experts define maleness. Why can't they just accept the edicts handed down from above?

[Michelle Deere]

I recently did a fare bit of reading about the meaning and usage of the word transgender and its shorter form trans for my blog. I found that there is a move afoot to use an asterisk * to regain the inclusive definition of transgender. The term "trans" seems to, through no fault of it's own, have become synonymous with transsexual, where as "trans*" would be the sort form of transgender. I now use the asterisk when ever I write trans*.

[Kate Simmons]

Dang and just when I thought I had it all figured out too. Dad burn it. :heehee::)

[Jenniferathome]

...The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth."

...

Nadine, this is the part of the definition that does not apply to me. I would vehemently argue that I am not "trans" as I identify as male and I have never questioned my sexual identity. I'm a cross dresser and that is weird, for sure. It also crosses normal gender boundaries without question. I also agree that from the outside world, I MUST BE trans of some sort but I don't think of myself that way. I'm just a normal cross dresser;-)

[Katey888]

Nadine - I agree with your interpretation of the WPATH definition as it fits us... It is a very broad umbrella, I agree, but some definitions are like that, and it's barely different to being categorised in other ways.


Nadine, this is the part of the definition that does not apply to me. I would vehemently argue that I am not "trans" as I identify as male and I have never questioned my sexual identity.

Jennifer - Aren't you confusing and mixing gender identity with sexual identity? Your sexual identity is physically fixed, as for most of us - but your gender identity is not just (or even) your physical form; it is what goes on in your persona and is about who you are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you struggled with an internal conflict regarding your dressing for many years until you just had to come out your SO and you also had a real need to take your feminine side out into public... if that isn't a sign of even mild gender dysphoria, then I don't know how else you'd explain it? :)

I don't think there's anything wrong with that - most of us have that need or desire to a greater or lesser extent, the only exclusions from the trans* category would be the purely fetish-dressers, who are possibly just as difficult to categorise.

I honestly don't think there's really a benefit in the category unless you got to a point of requiring some form of legislation, but I think that would be quite tricky to get acceptable definitions for.

Katey x

[suchacutie]

Jennifer has a point. There were two parts of the "definition" initially presented. If we focus on the latter part for a moment:

The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth

then the whole notion of being able to categorize someone as transgendered, from an outside perspective, becomes difficult. Looking at Jennifer's avatar, someone from the outside looking in would certainly see someone who appears to be transgendered (Jennifer, that's your fault for looking so wonderful en femme!). However, she says that her gender identity is male, so her internal view of (notice the feminine pronoun) is male!

So, I look at this as a two-prism situation. Those looking on from the outside see what we present, and when we present our feminine selves, we look to be transgendered. Our own opinions of ourselves might be quite different!

[Sallee]

I would say if we cross dress in private for a bit or full time all the time we are transgendered to one degree or another. It is a level of being trans some are more trans than others. We are all different in all the things we do.

[Isabella Ross]

My take is simple: I dress in women's clothing, therefore I am transgendered. And I'm proud to be transgendered...it's a badge of honour and a great source of pleasure in my life, not something I am ashamed of or a label I try to avoid....

[Melanie B]

...the only exclusions from the trans* category would be the purely fetish-dressers...
Exactly what I was thinking, but you said it first!
I suspect there are quite a few non-TG men for whom looking at / touching/wearing female underwear or shoes is a means of achieving arousal (as a male). Their CDing is sexual thing rather than a gender issue.

[Renee Elise]

Interesting thread. Physically, I am a man, and to the outside world (for now ;)) I present as a typical man. I've come to realize that there are aspects to my personality that are considered to be feminine. Sometimes I enjoy expressing that femininity by dressing up...and when I do I feel very different. An enjoyable experience, special. I have no desire at all to give up my masculinity or transform physically on a permanent basis. When I feel feminine though it is quite amazing to be able to look like I feel inside, especially after suppressing it for so long. I agree that places me on the transgender spectrum / circle...

[Jenniferathome]

...Jennifer - Aren't you confusing and mixing gender identity with sexual identity? Your sexual identity is physically fixed, as for most of us - but your gender identity is not just (or even) your physical form; it is what goes on in your persona and is about who you are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you struggled with an internal conflict regarding your dressing for many years until you just had to come out your SO and you also had a real need to take your feminine side out into public... if that isn't a sign of even mild gender dysphoria, then I don't know how else you'd explain it? :)

...

Hi Katey, I identify male in every way. Gender, sexuality, whatever, there is only one, me. A male me, both between my legs and between my ears. I am beginning to think I may be unique.

Now, regarding the conflict prior to telling my wife, none of it was gender related. It was deceit, shame, embarrassment, etc., related associated with having to admit I was a cross dresser. That even though I was a dude, through and through, she would see me as less of a man. I'm happy to state that has not been the outcome. Going out in girl mode, as I have written many times, is like a public admission of this long held secret. Screaming from the mountaintop, metaphorically, without saying a word. After decades of hiding, the need to not hide was paramount. Cross dressing is not a symptom to me. One may be dysphoric AND cross dress and others are not but also cross dress. It's not cause and effect. Just like there are gay cross dressers but cross dressing does not make you gay. Again, I am feeling unique.

[ReineD]

The word "gender" can bring to mind several different things: gender identity, gender boundaries, gender roles, gendered activities, gender presentation, etc.

I think that a lot of crossdressers feel they are solidly male and they focus on the identity meaning of the word, and so anything that hints they may have an alternate gender identity is not acceptable to them.

If the word was "Trans-gender-boundaries" or "Cross-gender-presentation", for example, it might be more palatable since it would more accurately describe someone who transcends presentation or boundaries on occasion by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, without saying that their innate male gender identity is impacted. But even then, some members here make no attempt at crossing the gender lines with presentation and looking female. They just like the clothes and they go out or appear as males who wear clothes that are traditionally worn by females.

[Katey888]

Hi Katey, I identify male in every way. Gender, sexuality, whatever, there is only one, me. A male me, both between my legs and between my ears. I am beginning to think I may be unique.


Jennifer - thanks for replying... I think we're all unique of course.. :) and while you may not be the only one to experience what you feel, it does appear to be quite unusual, or at least, few others are actually talking about it.

One question still bugs me though - if you identify as totally male, how do you explain that this identity is not subverted when you exhibit publicly as a female? As others have noted, and you yourself admit, you put a great deal of effort into looking as feminine as possible and yet you maintain that the reason you choose to express as a female is nothing to do with gender, but you must also admit that being a 'dude in a dress' as a choice of pastime is choosing a hugely stigmatised and potentially damaging way of simply... doing fancy dress...? If you specifically had no gender need to reflect feminine, wouldn't you just go out wearing a cowboy outfit or biker gear...? Even something that might be non-conformant but reinforced your 100% male identity...?

It just seems really unusual... :)

Katey x

[CONSUELO]

I see these sorts of discussions appearing on this site a lot. Sometimes passions are aroused as members assert that such and such a definition does not apply to them at all. Or, they dislike being categorized as it seems artificial and somehow does not describe them properly.
i wonder if some of our difficulty comes from perspective. These terms and definitions come from psychologists and others who are trying to create a useful terminology that they can use within their profession and in communicating to other related professions. So they are looking at many subjects from the "outside", whereas we are looking at one subject, but from the "inside".
A long time ago, a transvestite friend of mine told me that I was a transvestite. I strongly disagreed as I firmly believed that I just had a fetish and nothing more. He was right and his assessment was more objective than my subjective view of myself.

[Allison Chaynes]

I agree, it's a spectrum. But popular use of "trans" has come to mean transexual as most people understand it.

[Lorileah]

That only works if you decide that WPATH has the right to define the word. I think common usage would be a bit different.

OK I don't get this. So because someone says something enough it overrides what is considered correct? "I could care less" is the common usage of the actual phrase "I couldn't care less" The word "Aks" as in "Let me AKS you something" is incorrect, so we should throw out the correct usage because it is common?

Why does WPATH get to define the word? Because in the world of science we need words and phrases that everyone agrees on to communicate. WPATH is the group who is foremost in the Trans (oops..sorry...that slipped out) world. When they invented cars someone called the piece that sucks air and mixes it with gas a carburetor...so every mechanic could communicate that instead of saying "that sucky thing". Who if you don't think WPATH has the right, does have the right to make a word that will define the gender dysphoric community? Just because a word is used commonly...doesn't make it correct.

And why should we start excluding sections ( ie fetish dressers)? You start with one group ten it makes it easy to exclude others

[docrobbysherry]

Probably me, Nadine. But, I'm old and you'll often find me trying to pull my foot out of my mouth here!

What I probably meant was; "I'm not TS, I'm a CD." Or; "I don't feel like I'm transgender."

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to be more specific in the future!

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Again, I am feeling unique.

You're unique here, on this forum, which leans quite heavily toward the gender dysphoric side of life than others, even some of the other GG support forums I've frequented where you'd expect the worst cases. Instead, most of the husbands were like you. They don't bother to join forums like this one because there's no internal conflict. Crossdressing is a weird compulsion that they secretly enjoy and it's the wives who struggle with the contrast of masculine husband wearing women's clothing.

Whether these men fit under the transgender umbrella is almost irrelevant as I doubt most of the 'hobby' dressers (who I suspect make up the majority) care much for labels. It's a private matter and they just get on with it...much to their wife's annoyance, lol. I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. If this also means they're TG, I guess that just makes y'all a very big and very diverse group. :)

[DebbieL]

Generally someone who says they are "not trans" would imply "not transsexual".

I have been to cross-dresser meetings where members referred to dressing as "an expensive hobby" and were "all man under this dress".
Others have even referred to it as a "kinky fetish".
I was actually a bit put off by the attitude of some of the men at these meetings.

At transgender support meetings, most have the desire to present as female as often and as effectively as they can, and may or may not have the desire to transition.
I tend to see more transsexuals and people who are gender dysphoric at these meetings.

The term transgender was created to describe the entire spectrum, from those who are "type 1 - fetish dressers, wearing only a few specific items, often for sexual pleasure, to type 6 - Transsexuals who are so dysphoric that without treatment they will try to castrate themselves, mutilate themselves, or commit suicide if forced to live in their birth genders - often before they are 30. The Hijri of India submit to castration and emasculation without anesthesia. Many come from across the country to join, knowing the procedure required.

[reb.femme]

...The Hijri of India submit to castration and emasculation without anesthesia. Many come from across the country to join, knowing the procedure required.

In Britain, we call that becoming a politician. :heehee:

I always identify initially as Transgender and will then use the 'TG' or 'Trans' tags when talking to people about my identity. This was the standard grammatical construct taught at school, full word first, abbreviation in brackets, so I tend to follow it in life. If it needs further clarification, I give it. Common, all garden CD - that is moi!

Oh yeah! Crochety moment from the old girl - "I blame it all on the winterweb, all that on the line chat stuff....innit" :devil:

Rebecca

[natcrys]

For the mathematicians/engineers/other scientists among us, perpaps this makes it clearer:


crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and


transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS. :)

/geekmode off

[Anna H]

i'm a trans*y CD girly TG/etc/* --and pretty pleased about it!

i just got really lucky, i guess! lol!

[Seana Summer]

For the mathematicians/engineers/other scientists among us, perpaps this makes it clearer:


Thank You! Now I understand:lol:

Seriously, that is as good of an explanation as there is.

"•crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and

•transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS"


I have never been offended by someone calling me "transgendered" but I suspect there may be a few who might be offended by me calling myself "transgendered". I guess they will just have to get over it

[Jenniferathome]

...One question still bugs me though - if you identify as totally male, how do you explain that this identity is not subverted when you exhibit publicly as a female? As others have noted, and you yourself admit, you put a great deal of effort into looking as feminine as possible and yet you maintain that the reason you choose to express as a female is nothing to do with gender, but you must also admit that being a 'dude in a dress' as a choice of pastime is choosing a hugely stigmatised and potentially damaging way of simply... doing fancy dress...? If you specifically had no gender need to reflect feminine, wouldn't you just go out wearing a cowboy outfit or biker gear...? Even something that might be non-conformant but reinforced your 100% male identity...?

It just seems really unusual... :)

Katey, I see why you see this as incongruous. I like your your last examples, cowboys and bikers. As I have noted many times, my genetic alteration is for cross dressing, not biker dressing;-) Now, when I am dressed, I am still male me. I like all the same things as when I am in pure male mode. No change whatsoever...except for the way I look. As to why the effort, I am the type of person who when doing anything, goes all in. I started riding bikes and now I race. I was tennis player when I was younger. Ranked nationally in college. I don't do anything half assed, so that is part of the explanation. The other is that i do not want to be embarrassed when out and I don;t want to disturb the "wa" or harmony of the group. So the more I blend in, the better off I am in both circumstances. Regarding this comment, "...but you must also admit that being a 'dude in a dress' as a choice of pastime is choosing a hugely stigmatised..." would be correct if I chose it but I do not choose. It is in me. I do not know that I have a "gender need" to be expressed. And for that reason I have no need to express my masculinity and more than just living. Perhaps for me it is purely visual, I never really thought about it too much. I don't question my gender identity any more than I question why I am right handed. It just is. I often wonder if I am unique or if others are trying so hard to explain this to themselves that they fall into gender explanations because it makes sense but is it real? I don't know. I'll stick with I am unique. Take care,



... I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. ...

Great statistic Tink! Yeah, I suspect this is right. The silent majority as I have often referred to it.

I was telling my wife the other day how frustrating this forum can be at times and she asked why I don't just drop out. I easily managed an answer: I'm here to help a few and to shout down the noise. Purely my self-appointed task, much to the consternation of many, I'd bet. Perhaps in this area, we are quite similar;-)
take care,

[Beverley Sims]

This one is easy,
I just don't agree with you.
Read on from others comments they may have more useful arguments to add.

[Nadine Spirit]

crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and


transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS. :)


I love it! Makes sense to me!

Very interesting responses so far folks. Good discussion. I do find some of your responses to be a bit off though. Maybe one of my strange analogies might help clarify how I think about it:

Imagine the following conversation"
"I like red."
"Oh I like that color also."
"Red is not a color."
"Um... yeah, red is a color."
"No red is not a color."
"Yeah, the word color means "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."
"Well I disagree with that definition."

Where do you go with that?

Some things in life need some sort of common definitions. But then again, on this forum people always disagree with definitions. Just take a look at the many threads with many members who consider themselves heterosexual unless _______.

[Alana Lucerne]

I am with you Jennifer, and thank you for expressing it so well. I always feel male, even when dressed. I make no attempt to "fool" people into thinking I am a woman.... I couldn't anyway. When I wear women's clothing, I feel comfortable, but it does not change what I think, like, or do one iota. I am still male, and when I talk to someone while dressed, I make no attempt to sound like a woman, change my vocabulary, or talk about what I think a woman would talk about.

Although it sounds crude, the phrase "guy in a dress" is apt. I am a guy, wearing a dress.

Now back to the question of whether this makes me transgender. I don't know. It comes down to some pretty fine distinctions based on definitions of gender that are not all that clear. I think the imprecision of these definitions make it pretty hard to make a forceful argument in either direction.

Alana

[charlenesomeone]

I was just reading a booklet from Tri-Ess that uses the term " Bigenderist"
A person who is both genders.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Katy, I think, from observation of my own H and chatting to many wives over the years, that the reason many of these non dysphoric dressers put so much effort into passing is exactly what Jennifer explained: it's a guy thing! Men are HUGELY visual so if this compulsion to crossdress enters a boys head one day for whatever reason - genetics, brain wiring or whatever - it makes complete sense that eventually this boy will become a man who wants to perfect his craft. My H is like this with everything in his life. I also think many here are as guilty of needing to rationalise the behavior as the general public is, and it's expected that because a man dresses as a woman he MUST want to be female on some level. Otherwise, why bother? But it doesn't always work that way, and my H says he has never, ever once considered himself female. Not once!! Crossdressing isn't rational, like much of human nature. It's just a weird variation in male behavior and shouldn't need to be explained as a gender issue just because it makes people feel better.

But back to the original post. I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who regularly pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??

Shouldn't TG mean how you feel on the INSIDE, not how you present on the outside? Or does it literally encompass anyone who crosses the line, meaning I'm TG right now as I sit here wearing my H's tee shirt?

[flatlander_48]

They don't bother to join forums like this one because there's no internal conflict.

As I bisexual crossdresser, I do not have an internal conflict. Perhaps some do, but I don't. I understand the various identities that I claim and that isn't a problem. The reason that I am here is to get a sense of what's happening in the community at large, discuss various aspects of dressing and to offer whatever support I can. It is not driven by any sort of internal conflict. I dress because it shows a side of my personality that is usually hidden, for various reasons. It pleases me to have the opportunity to do that, but I'm not conflicted by it. I just don't try to change it or suppress it.


Crossdressing is a weird compulsion that they secretly enjoy and it's the wives who struggle with the contrast of masculine husband wearing women's clothing.

It is the secret part that is the problem. If there is internal conflict for people, that may be the root of it.


Whether these men fit under the transgender umbrella is almost irrelevant as I doubt most of the 'hobby' dressers (who I suspect make up the majority) care much for labels.

Building model trains is a hobby, but I can't put dressing in the same context. For people who dress, it satisfies a deep, and perhaps sunconscious, need. That takes it out of the realm of a hobby.


It's a private matter and they just get on with it...much to their wife's annoyance, lol. I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. If this also means they're TG, I guess that just makes y'all a very big and very diverse group.

Odd that only a handful felt that they had gender dysphoria. Most people don't have a clue as to what it is, so to me it's more of a surprise when people say that they have it.

However, as a community I think it is up to us to be clear in out usage of the terms discussed here. I would ask that we NOT use trans and trans*. Use transexual or TS and transgender of TG.


Shouldn't TG mean how you feel on the INSIDE, not how you present on the outside? Or does it literally encompass anyone who crosses the line, meaning I'm TG right now as I sit here wearing my H's tee shirt

No, unless it satisfies some particular need for you, wearing the t-shirt doesn't mean a thing.

[Christen]

I've never thought that the term transgender applies to me. I've described myself as a plain old crossdresser.
However, and as much as I dislike labels, transgender is very probably the term that applies to me.
I said to my wife very recently, if you put Male on the left and Female on the right, I'm somewhat to the right of Male.
But labels are funny, and I'll be calling myself a crossdresser when I talk to my two daughters about it tonight.

Christen x

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Flatlander, I actually hyphenated 'hobby' (see, did it again, lol) as it's obviously not a hobby in the way that golf or cooking might be, as it's a strong compulsion that does fulfil some psychological need. However, for many men, it's also fun, exciting and has little to do with an internal female gender but rather relates more to their masculinity. I guess this is very hard for those who dress to fix gender incongruence to understand. I didn't for the longest time either, until counselling and talking to my H. He actually couldn't believe I assumed he must have a female side! Well, yeah, of course, why else would he do it?!? Turns out, he's just a self confessed weirdo, lol.

So with that in mind, given there's a need fulfilled by crossdressing but it's not correcting gender, more aligning a masculine urge, does this belong under TG? It LOOKS like it should, but underneath all the dresses and make up is a man. A happy man, lol, but still a man nonetheless. This is where the labels become murky for me, but if no one minds including everyone, then it doesn't really matter. The more the merrier!

[flatlander_48]

To me, if you are trying to fix something, that falls towards the transexual end of the spectrum. That is where people are dealing with incongruence. With fixing, it is saying that the current situation is not good and there is a desire to move to a different situation that is more appropriate. That also tends to be permanent.

With crossdressing, at the other end of the spectrum, it is allowing oneself to experience a previously hidden part of the whole. It's not fixing, it is allowing it to be. Further, it is temporary. I would posit that the vast majority of crossdressers do not desire to live as females 24/7.

[Nadine Spirit]

I also agree that from the outside world, I MUST BE trans of some sort but I don't think of myself that way. I'm just a normal cross dresser;-)


would be correct if I chose it but I do not choose. It is in me.

You do know I feel similar to you, right? I think you and I just disagree about the definition of the word. I see cross dresser, of any sort, as existing under the broader term of transgender. I do not take transgender as necessarily meaning that one does not identify as their birth gender. It could be, but does not have to be.

But after doing a bit of research, it is generally accepted that being transgender is something that is self identified. Thus it is obviously not accepted by all to be an umbrella term.

Sometimes I just feel on this board that many of us have conversations that go like this:

"I like those shiny red or green or yellow skin fruits with the white flesh inside."

"Oh you mean apples?"

"No, not apples. Those fruit that you sometimes cutup into slices and can put into pies."

"Oh you mean apples?"

"No not apples. You know, the golden delicious ones, the granny smiths, the fujis?"

"yeah, you are talking about apples."

"No, I am definitely not talking about apples."

Talk about frustrations on these board huh? I have said this before, without universally accepted definitions, we often talk ourselves in circles.

Oh and Jennifer, many people's definition of cross dresser is far different than yours. You know the ones, who dress up, stay in their bedroom, and have some private fun? Yeah, if you look up definitions of cross dresser, most of them include some sexual aspects. When you and I had dinner, I know for a fact no sex was involved. This is part of the reason I don't really like identifying myself as a cross dresser when, as of late, I have been coming out to my friends.

Just food for thought I suppose!

[flatlander_48]

Who's On First?!?!

[Jenniferathome]

...

Oh and Jennifer, many people's definition of cross dresser is far different than yours...

... When you and I had dinner, I know for a fact no sex was involved. ...

Yeah, I appreciate that my definition is not the norm. And I really have no problem with someone labeling me as "trans" or "trans*" I just don't see myself that way. Now, as for sex at dinner, I can't remember the last time I has sex while eating dinner! That actually seems quite challenging. makes you think;-)

[paulaprimo]

so if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's NOT a duck!
i think i got it now... :)

[flatlander_48]

Yes, it is something that flies and quacks, but I don't know what the Hell it is...

[AletaHawk]

I'm confused enough as it is. Threads like this just make it worse ;)

While I'm not that big on labels, at some point I'd like to figure just what the hell I am because every time I think I know I find out I have no clue. Maybe this is why I don't like onions?

[AngelaYVR]

I'm failing to see the point. What is to be gained by hammering into someone that they are something that they say they are not? I know many idiots but I'm quite sure they would disagree with the term.

Angela

[Zylia]

I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who regularly pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??
I think we're belittling the TG cause (if there's such a thing) by including everyone who wears clothing commonly associated with the opposite sex. I don't consider people who cross-dress for practical reasons (e.g. actors who portray a certain character, people who wear something of their partner because it's the only clean/warm thing around the house) transgender and one could argue that you're only a cross-dresser in the strictest sense (and the subject of this website) if you cross-dress to fulfil a psychological need.

In my opinion, any psychological need or want that a person has that can be fulfilled by crossing gender boundaries (e.g. presenting as the opposite sex), must be the result of some psychological gender-related incongruence and that makes that person technically transgender. Additionally, people who get a sense of normalcy out of cross-dressing or who get turned on by it aren't the 'norm', and that's what makes them transgender as well. They're not cisgender, therefore transgender.

[Laura J]

I think you are TG if you identify as TG, you aren't if you don't!

I am definitely TG!

[Michelle Deere]

I have never follow a whole thread before, but this one has me intrigued. And, as others have said, just when I thought I had things figured out :doh:….. I am though taking a number of points away from this discussion.
Firstly, I will endeavor not to use the term trans or trans*. It will be the full word so as not to leave any question as to what I am talking about. Secondly, why do we need to use labels? Is it something we do for ourselves or for others in an attempt to answer the question “why do we do what we do”? A justification?
I agree with Jennifer and Tinkerbell on the majority of what they have said. When I have the opportunity to dress, I am still a male through and through, I’m still a husband, a dad. There is no girl trying to get out, but for whatever reason, I sometimes want to portray a woman and be seen as one. I have taken a page from Isha’s book and will not waist time anymore seeking the answer to “why?”.
If someone were to ask me again if I considered myself “trans or trans*”, I would now say “I’m just an average guy who, every once in a while, just happens to enjoy dressing and (hopefully) passing as a woman. As such, that makes me a crossdresser. Crossdressing happens to be just one of many aspects of the transgender spectrum, which in its self, is contained within the LGBT community.” Not exactly an answer to a simple question, but rather a long winded statement (but a concise one) to describe this small part of my being. :2c:

[Katey888]

I'm failing to see the point. What is to be gained by hammering into someone that they are something that they say they are not? I know many idiots but I'm quite sure they would disagree with the term.


Angela - I don't believe Nadine or anyone is trying to hammer a definition into someone else... I'd be amongst the first to say that Jennifer (or anyone else) has an inviolable right to define themselves how they see fit and how they choose - the point of accepting that a particular definition may apply to yourself as well as a larger group, may just make it easier for others to be educated and enlightened as to what our 'community' is about. I believe it's a useful debate if it gets us all closer to accepting terms that can be used usefully to describe to muggles particularly, why we are driven to do this female presentation thing, and that it is not always sexual, which I can imagine is a popular belief (and if you browse the vast majority of sites out there, that is actually the case). And for me it also helps me develop an understanding of myself and what I feel about what I do - and yes, some will say we overthink and over-analyse and that's fine, nobody has to read this stuff, they can just move on to the Clothing section... ;)

Jenn - I think it's super of you to be accepting that you can be categorised as "trans" or TG.. :) I can also completely accept that you and others (me included) continue when dressed, to feel male in every way but presentation - I think there is still a lot of concern that being this way and wanting to dress and look like a woman means that you ultimately want to be a woman, and I would strongly assert that this is not the case for those of us at the non-TS end of things. I'm also aligned with your opinion that you consider this to be something genetic (although not necessarily hereditary) that is within you and drives you to do this - I feel the same way. The reason I believe this to be gender-related is exactly for that reason.

We accept that something innate drives us to present as female - but that presentation of gender is not something that is innate or instinctive. A hairy chest is innate for (some) men; a different hairline to men (non-receeding) is innate for most women; wearing high-heels, or a summer dress, or mascara is not innate or genetic - these things are a societal construct: a fashion thing. They are as man-made as astroturf... We recognise them as feminine because of conditioning, learning, media, our society, our parents. We understand as children that these portrayals of gender stereotypes are what defines us in society. More than that, those of us from a slightly older generation have experienced very rigid adherence to those stereotypes, which I think is partly why some of us suffer so much guilt and feel stigma over needing to do this.

If there is something in us - small or large - that triggers a need to express that feminine aspect; the genetic trigger - then that is why we go to such lengths to transform and embrace what are society's archetypal visions of the female gender. It is the boldest and most obvious way to express that inner feminine, and it is because we have that inner feminine that doesn't appear to be there in 90-95% of other men (or at least require any sort of overt outlet) that I would say the term transgender is appropriate for what most of us are.


Men are HUGELY visual so if this compulsion to crossdress enters a boys head one day for whatever reason - genetics, brain wiring or whatever - it makes complete sense that eventually this boy will become a man who wants to perfect his craft. My H is like this with everything in his life.

Tinks - this is hugely simplistic and flawed - not every man is a perfectionist by any means and your H's example is not universally applicable.


I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO ? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??


This is why I find it difficult to include purely fetish dressers - the sexual content adds another complexity: is it because it's women's lingerie or is it just associated with the nature of the fabrics used to manufacture lingerie? That's a whole other subject... :)
And I understand what you mean about the TG cause (although I think 'cause' might be a tricky one to define as well) - I often feel guilty that I can appear to present well but have no desire to dress more - that may sound strange but I've said before that I feel a bit of a fraud although I know I'm not. I believe we strengthen any cause by being more inclusive - if there are more of us, wherever on the spectrum we reside, then that must at least be a better foundation for TS issues to draw some support from. Perhaps that's where the long standing mix up of 'TG must be TS' comes from... but I don't believe that's really any different than someone who's hetero supporting someone's right to be bi - we just have a lot more affinity between TG and TS, at least in a fashion sense! :)

I do continue to think it's an important and useful debate.

Katey x

[Marcelle]

Wow . . . quite the discussion and who would of thought one "word" would have sparked such a grand debate. I think in the end we can all agree that how we (i.e., each individual) chooses to define him/herself is a personal choice. If I prefer to call myself "Trans, Trans*, Transgender", "Cross Dresser", "Master/Mistress and Grand Overlord of the Universe (I personally like this one :battingeyelashes:)" that is a personal choice which allows the person to put themselves in a comfortable area in order to bring congruence with their psyche. However from what I read here I don't think anyone is debating that right . . . n'est pas?

As I stated early when I dress the Isha identity is strong and I try to emulate a close approximation of a woman to help express that identity. Is it perfect? Do I pass? Absolutely not. I know in my heart of hearts below the make-up, clothing, mannerisms, voice my core identity is still male. However, a part of me (Isha) is driven to present female because that is who she is. If she cannot express herself when she needs to things get "noisy" and I find it hard to function (I get moody and sullen). Is this GD? Most likely. However, while I am presenting as Isha there are times where the reverse happens and my boy self needs to express himself to the world and you know what . . . things get "noisy" again and Isha has to disappear for awhile or I find it hard to function. This is why I will never transition because both sides need to coexist in order for me to function as a whole person. Not sure if that makes me unique (I doubt it) but it does make things very difficult to explain where I neatly fall on the spectrum. :confused:

Does the above make me Transgender? If you take the textbook definition then yes as there is an incongruence between my birth sex (male) and one of my identities (Isha). However as some pointed out since I never loose site of the fact that I am male (my personality does not alter) then a prima facia case could be made that the male identity is in tact and hence I am not Transgender. Goodness sounds like badly worded stereo instruction "Take cable A insert into bracket B after looping through junction A attachment A1 with the red cable running contralateral to sub-junction C . . . finally install cable B to the sub-junction of amplifier housing ensuring the green cable is seated in the housing port and D - press play and you are now have a stereo. " . . . This is why I abhor labels as they try to pigeon hole things into neat little categories which are constructs of one person's idea of something.


Yes, I get the need of some to be able to define themselves, find a place to belong "I am (fill in the blank) and I am part of a group!". But continually trying to make sense of where on a spectrum you belong and why you should be on one end or the other or points in between can drive a person stark raving crazy IMHO :silly:. Personally I prefer to exist as a person . . . yes quirky in that I like to dress like a woman now and then but I am still 100 percent me regardless of how I present. If someone asks what I am, I say "Transgender" or "Cross dresser" not because I think it defines "me" it is just easier for that person to understand when I use that definition vice "I am mostly a guy but there are times when I like to be a girl in order to bring harmony and balance to a chaotic mind. However when I am girl I always know I am a guy although I appear to act and dress like a girl and may even alter my voice to sound like a girl but in the end I am still a guy as defined by internal core identity which by the way is very guy . . . now take cable A loop through junction B over to the contralateral housing port, insert in the green port 1-A . . . Oh heck . . . Cole's Note version . . . I am Transgender." :battingeyelashes:

Hugs

Isha

[Karen kc]

I am a crossdresser. I look like a man, act like a man, think like a man,{ my wife says thats the problem} I dont think of myself as trans-gendered. BUT, if my peers consider me as trans-gendered, than I'll accept that

[sometimes_miss]

While reading a different thread a member stated that they were "not trans." I will make the assumption and fill in the end of that as "not transgender." This is an idea that I have read from many members actually. If we look at the definition of transgender given from WPATH it states "Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth."
So how about for those who don't agree with everything that wpath states? Just because it's considered as a reference for a lot, doesn't mean that what they say applies to everyone.

I m not quite sure what the aversion to identifying as transgender is? But further than that, if you do not identify as "trans" why do you think you do what you do? Is it just a passing fancy? An interesting way to spend some time?
And there you go. You're assuming that everyone who crossdresses does it for the same reason that you do. And that's very common; I don't remember the term for it, but it has something to do with the desire to fit it, that you want everyone to be like you, so that you feel normal even if you're the most bizarre person on earth. It's a natural desire to feel this way.

Like you had a list of various things to do: go bowling, fix up an old hot rod, dust the house, dress in women's clothes... and today you thought, hmm... yeah... today would be a good day to play dress up? But it does not mean anything about me and my gender.
It depends on why you are wearing the clothes. If you are doing so to display yourself as a female, or to help your self identify as female, then sure, that's transgender. however if you are doing so to oh, help get into the character of being a female so that you can reprise the role in the latest version of 'Tootsie', then no, your not transgender. Also, there really are normal men who actually might wonder what all the fuss is about when women take ten times as long to get out of the house, so perhaps an inquisitive one such man just might take time to try on all the different parts of clothes, make up, jewelry, heels etc. to find out whats the big deal. Again, not transgender.


I take the definition of transgender to include anyone who "crosses or transcends culturally defined categories of gender." So yeah, if all you ever do is occasionally put on some lipstick, you are transgender,
How about colored and scented chapstick? Or the ones with sun protection factor in it, that might taste or smell like yummy fruit, obviously geared towards girls? Maybe you've had skin cancer and like the spf and figure, why not get some that smells good too? Does that make you transgendered? I can see how a fat kid who likes to eat candy all friggin' day might also like chapstick that smells really delicious that is obviously made for girls, to use instead of boring old plain stuff, but not be transgendered. I'm not talking about lip smackers, the lipstick that tastes good and is clearly designed to make guys want to kiss you if you're a girl wearing it, but plain old chapstick brand that comes in lemon lime, orange, cherry, berry scents but does not really change the color of your lips?

if you only ever put on a pair of women's underwear and pleasure yourself, you are transgender, if you are a cross dresser, you are transgender, if you transition you are transgender, etc.. You all can debate whether or not you want to be labeled or defined or categorized til the world ends, but that is an integral part of language and culture. Things are defined,<snip>
Ah, yes but it apparently depends on who is defining them. Just because some people want us all to fall under the great big TRANSGENDER UMBRELLA doesn't mean that we actually do.
BTW, I am transgender, but unlike say, Isha, I don't even try to go to any lengths to "emulate a close approximation of a woman" in order to try to pass or express a female personality to the rest of the world when I crossdress, perhaps because I feel no need to try to separate the female things about my personality from the rest of me.

But even I can see that not everyone who wears the clothes normally 'reserved' for the opposite sex is transgendered, even though you and wpath and whoever might feel the need to believe so.

[satinnsilk]

A very controversial topic for sure. Just as we are all unique our personal definition of ourselves is not always the same just because we have similar interests. I gave up on trying to pigeon hole my gender expression and now simply align with the term gender fluid. Again, just my personal preference although the terms transgender, transvestite, crossdresser, etc. have never bothered me.

Elizabeth

[NicoleScott]

If transgender means anything or everything then it means nothing. Words have definitions to enable clear conversation.

[Stephanie Sometimes]

When I dress it is because I am expressing a distinctly feminine part of me that has been too often repressed and hidden. And I am happy (thrilled maybe even) to be considered transgender because of that. I am with Isha in that I don’t particularly see a need to pigeon-hole people into a specific definition of some group identity that they may not agree with or be comfortable with.

But definitions are important and useful for scientific study as well as for understanding and attempting to make sense out of human behavior. To me it would seem that crossdressing should certainly be considered to be “transgender” behavior whatever the motivation behind it might be. That’s the fundamental difficulty with this discussion: we just don’t have a good understanding of the various causes of MTF crossdressing behavior.

Certainly some of us have a strong feminine identity somehow incorporated in our male physical being that needs to be freely expressed. Others may just enjoy role playing and find fulfillment from acting out as a member of the opposite sex. As crossdressers, I think we should be open to understanding and accepting folks for what they say about their own identity and what group they feel like they are part of.

So when Jenn does not want to be labeled as “transgender” I am fine with that, Jenn can come up with her(his?) own group name and definition to belong to. But I am not OK with the label that Jenn is often prone to slap on every other CD’er on this forum as a “dude in a dress”. I personally find that somewhat demeaning, however accurate it may or may not be in describing my sometimes appearance, LOL.

Interesting and worthy discussion for this forum
Hugs,
Stephanie

[Jenniferathome]

...In my opinion, any psychological need or want that a person has that can be fulfilled by crossing gender boundaries (e.g. presenting as the opposite sex), must be the result of some psychological gender-related incongruence and that makes that person technically transgender. ...

This is pretty good Zylia. It makes a lot of sense. So does stress relief count as a "psychological need"?

[ophelia]

What many of us are doing is not necessarily wishing to be gender female. We are merely and naturally enjoying adorning ourselves.
Two and three centuries ago men dressed and coiffed infinitely more "prettily" than they do today. Society has dumped all of that, the fabrics, scents, hairstyle, jewellry and such into a giant toybox labelled "female".
Such a box, by any other name would be just as much fun.

Given that theory, maybe our perspective on our passion is 180 degrees wrong.
What if we were the "normal" and the other men out there who deny their enjoyment of enhancing their appearance with fashion, form and fragrance are the freaks?

[CONSUELO]

Lots of good discussion and many opinions and subtle shades of distinction. Yet I cannot help but feel that ultimately it does not matter what we call ourselves. We are here because we like to dress in feminine clothing and doing so gives us a good feeling that ranges from relaxed to excited. What more can we say.
All of the labeling comes from professional psychologists and psychiatrists who, for their own purposes, need to classify and make definitions.

[LilSissyStevie]

Just as you can't force an identity on anyone, you can't exclude anyone from it either. Is this TG thing some kind of cult or something? Just who's in charge?

[JayeLefaye]

This is pretty good Zylia. It makes a lot of sense. So does stress relief count as a "psychological need"?

Well, sorta, yeah, at least in the USA. I have a friend who "looks" normal and healthy, but psychologically is a mess, and VERY stressed and anxious in social settings. With his psychologist and doctor's letters, he was able to get an official "Service dog", similar to a seeing-eye dog for the visually impaired. The dog had a legal red sweater, and it allowed him to take her into any establishment, anywhere....It's not the same thing as a nice skirt and pair of pumps, but ya get my meaning:-)

Jaye

[Marleena]

Two - some CDrs don't like being included among the transgendered, and will come up with a variety of exceptions. I don't agree with those exceptions, but its not worth arguing about it.

I agree and I'll take it a step further. Cisgender people don't need to cross gender boundaries and have no urges to do so. Crossdressers do cross gender boundaries (trans) albeit temporarily. Perhaps the word transgender is causing other people to question their manhood and or sexuality and gender (do they identify as male or female?) and maybe that's where the problem arises. I'll run now.:)

[suchacutie]

Maybe Marleena's way of looking at this brings some clarity: If you don't do ANY of the things that we do to express any form of feminine presentation, then we are NOT transgendered. The rest of us are :)

By the way, just so it's not in question, I fall into the category of "two apps running on the same database". My wife sees Tina as not her husband, but her girlfriend. The personalities of these two apps are simply different. There is some overlap (neither of us is a bank robber!) but so much is different that for all intents and purposes, Tina's transformation is the vision of that part of me (us) which many would define as feminine. It's very satisfying to stand in front of the mirror and see a part of me I never understood, and to let Tina express herself without the male me hanging on. I'm for sure transgendered, by anyone's definition from what I can tell, and very proud of it! :)

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Cisgender people don't need to cross gender boundaries and have no urges to do so.

This isn't really true. Women have been itching to do the same things as men since time began...look at the glass ceiling and how we desperately want to smash that thing! Not to mention Tomboys have been around forever, plenty of little girls prefer traditional boy toys to girls, and there are even cisgendered women who are more comfortable in male assigned clothing than women's - even buying jeans from the men's department! Not to mention the more fetish aspects that women can experience (I won't go into details for fear of annoying the powers that be, yet again), but cisgendered people cross gender boundaries all the time. I also think there is psychological fulfilment for women who cross traditionally male boundaries and I'm sure many also feel excitement. Hillary Clinton is probably just itching to get Obama's job off him!

The difference I see is cisgendered women can cross these lines without leaving their female identity behind. Crossdressers like Jennifer and my H also cross gender lines without leaving behind the male. But others cross the line and temporarily shed their usual gender identity in order to join the other side and that to me is TG.

[Marleena]

@ Tinkerbell your examples are considered acceptable GG behaviors for the most part. Now if you were to bind your breasts, add a beard and a sock in your crotch area and try your best to look and act like a man you would be considered TG also. Cder's are considered part of the transgender umbrella and we're trying to figure out what is so wrong with the word. So I was just speculating why transgender invokes the reaction it does with some people.

[Nadine Spirit]

Some people do not like what it implies about them. They feel it categorizies thrm improperly.

I am just curious if there are some people out there that don't like being categorized as human. Oh wait that's right I do remember seeing some show where some people were saying that they were felines and not humans. Go figure.

[ReineD]

Lori #26, well said!

------------------------------

Katey888 #23, for years I believed as you do, that a strong desire to present as a woman necessarily indicates some degree of gender-discord. But, no longer. I think that many CDers dress for no other reason than it feels good, whether this is a form of excitement or a feeling of calmness, or because it just feels right. But whatever is the feeling obtained by the CDing, it is different than when dressed in regular male clothes, and I'm afraid that some CDers may extend the difference in feelings to a belief they must then have a partial female gender identity.

GD isn't about feeling good when dressing and looking like a woman. GD is rather not feeling in sync with one's male sexual identity (for MtFs). People who have GD are distressed with their male body and they hate that wives and everyone else in their lives think they are male. GD isn't something that turns on and off depending on how a person is dressed.

------------------------------

Nadine #44 brought up a great point about not wanting to identify as a crossdresser, so as to not be confused with the people who dress for private pleasure, since Nadine does not dress for sex.

Still, not dressing for sex doesn't mean that by extension a person MUST be TS, or be "on the TS side", or have GD. A lot of people have passions they love and some that really drive them (think Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, or Beethoven when composing) without finding sexual gratification in it, so why should the CDing be any different? Also, I'm sure that even some CDers who do not dress for sex still from time-to-time have some sexual fantasies about it when they're in a sexual mood. This is just plain being human, so if some of you do fantasize occasionally, don't be thinking that you're purely fetish CDers.

------------------------------

Isha #55 mentions getting moody and sullen when she doesn't CD, and wonders if this is GD. According to the WPATH, it isn't. GD is about experiencing distress with inhabiting the male body and the associated gender role (husband, father). Here's the definition:

Gender dysphoria: Distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics).

------------------------------

Sometimes-miss #57, you dispute the label "transgender" for everyone who presents as a woman. You need to understand that people can cross a gender boundary and still very much have a male gender identity. Gender boundaries (or categories of gender) are a number of things that any society defines as typically male or female, including the clothing that people wear. In our society, women wear women's clothes and so any CDer does cross a gender boundary when he dresses in women's clothes for the purposes of emulating a woman. My dad has taken to buying women's woolen tights to wear under his pants in the winter (he's 85), and like the women who wear men's flannel shirts, this doesn't count. lol. My father does not do this for the reasons that CDers wear panties.

A CDer's actions (and not his gender identity) effectively place him under the Transgender Umbrella, together with all others who cross the gender boundaries in some way, even if their motives are different than CDers. Drag Queens are under the umbrella too, and they dress because it's their job!

------------------------------

Tink #68, we can't confuse a woman's desire for power in a man's world and the actions she needs to take in order to accomplish this, for a desire to appear or feel male. Women who make it into the boardrooms of the world need to abandon clothing that emphasizes their sex, they need to be assertive and have presence, if they are to be taken seriously by the men they deal with. Likewise, if perchance a woman buys men's blue jeans because they fit her body type better than women's jeans, this is not a desire to appear male, unless of course s/he is FtM. It's not taboo in our society for women to wear jeans and flannel shirts.

I think that the vast majority of people are perfectly OK with presenting in the gender that coincides with their sex, meaning they are not making an outright effort to present as the opposite sex the way that members here do. And I doubt that the few women who do buy their clothes in men's stores and who are not F2M, do it because they have a thing for men's clothes. Still, it's important to remember there is indeed a wide range of "energies" if you will, within each sex. For example, just imagine 6 or 8 college-aged women sitting together. Some will be more traditionally feminine than the others, while some will be more angular, taller, or stockier, perhaps more sporty. But everyone at the table will still be unmistakably women, even if some of them don't focus on clothes or makeup like the others. It's very much a question of personal taste and in such a group (unless there are FtMs), no one is even remotely thinking of presenting male.

[Zylia]

I also think there is psychological fulfilment for women who cross traditionally male boundaries and I'm sure many also feel excitement. Hillary Clinton is probably just itching to get Obama's job off him!

Incomparable. Women like Hillary Clinton aren't crossing gender boundaries, they're pushing them. They don't have the intention to look like a man or behave like a man.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Zylia, actually I don't think it's incomparable. I think in both examples - a male identified crossdresser and a woman who desires a typically male role - both covet that which they see the other gender possesses. Simplistically, in our gender divided society, women possess physical beauty and men possess economic power. Sure, it looks very different (women don't have testosterone, for a start, so it will always be different) but I don't think the two are completely incomparable. Power is a strong motivator. I'd bet there are at least a few men who feel confident and powerful when dressed. Am I right?

Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, there are men who crossdress who don't feel like women who I now see from the posts here belong under the TG umbrella. If no one minds then its not a problem :) In the end, people are free to decide who they are and where they belong. It's only if the general public start assuming things about people because of this 'umbrella' that there will be a problem. If you don't identify as female yet everyone assumes you do, I imagine this could become upsetting. Hopefully, this will pass with time and education.

[Amanda M]

Am I the only one here who really could not care less about labels?

[sometimes_miss]

Am I the only one here who really could not care less about labels?
no, I feel the same way, but it piqued my interest when it looked like the thread was insinuating that everyone MUST accept being tagged with the giant TG brand.

[NicoleScott]

Is this TG thing some kind of cult or something?

Yes, it is, and the one thing we have in common is the inability/unwillingness to agree on its definition.

[LilSissyStevie]

I think this discussion is a good example of Sayre's Law which states In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake. I mean, really! Why should the TG faction care if some CDs consider themselves not part of the club? Why should CD's be upset that some TGs include them? As a closeted, fetishistic type CD with only minor gender identity issues it makes little difference to my life whether I'm included in or excluded from the TG sorority. Exclude me and I laugh in your face. Include me, fine, as long as I'm not obligated to do anything.

Nicole- I doubt there can ever be perfect agreement on a definition of something as complex as transgenderism. I imagine that the members of the WPATH committee that came up with theirs went home embittered and disillusioned (see Sayre's Law) because they each wanted to define it somewhat differently. But they had a job to do and they came up with something they could live with at least until the next round of discussion. So it's our responsibility, when we use a word, to explain what we mean by it if there is any doubt. It's frustrating but language is more art than science.

[Katey888]

Not a cult - nor a definition or perspective that everyone must accept... or an obligation to participate either. Most people here still exercise free will... and most realise that if something is being discussed that they're either not interested in, or they don't have anything useful to contribute, they move on to another thread or section somewhere else without actioning any desire to just leave some unhelpful comment... Imagine if what we were discussing was actually read by or influenced one of those psychologists who do eventually sit down and contribute to research, legislation or something more... wouldn't we have missed an opportunity to give of our best thoughts?? At some point those experts will categorise all of us whether we like it or not. :thinking:


Reine - I've learnt a lot from what you've said over the past 10 months, and I agree with most of it, actually... :) but I have to revisit this perspective, even though I recognise it is an opinion based view and we may not get to full agreement - but that's OK...



Katey888 #23, for years I believed as you do, that a strong desire to present as a woman necessarily indicates some degree of gender-discord. But, no longer. I think that many CDers dress for no other reason than it feels good, whether this is a form of excitement or a feeling of calmness, or because it just feels right. But whatever is the feeling obtained by the CDing, it is different than when dressed in regular male clothes, and I'm afraid that some CDers may extend the difference in feelings to a belief they must then have a partial female gender identity.

I don't see what we have as a distinct partial female identity - I don't think that's really likely for most of us - but I have questioned and searched myself for the reason as to why I feel good or calm or excited, and more recently pushed that desire and need to express me in female presentation to other folk (my recent and first outing). I don't believe there's a girl inside trying to get out as such, but I do believe that for some of us (perhaps a lot who occupy the mid-ground) there is an aspect to our personality - a different facet - that naturally would exhibit more feminine traits but gets repressed by conditioning of what male behaviour, presentation and attitude is supposed to be. The act of dressing - of transforming - allows each of us more freedom to express that facet of ourselves without the same incongruity that is there when we present male. I suspect there is still more to it than this but, simply, men who are able to do this naturally just come across as more effeminate and a little 'camp' compared to the normal ruff 'n' tuff macho image we are used to as a stereotype, but conditioning prevents a lot of us doing this. Dressing gives us our outlet - it provides a kind of permission.

And we need the outlet because we have that additional facet to us that is demonstrably not there in the vast majority of males. I can't accept the simplistic 'I just dress female and this is nothing to do with gender', for that same social conditioning that so powerfully makes this feel (for many, at least in the early days) such a shameful and aberrant condition must have something that is also a sufficiently powerful drive in order to overcome that societal stigma. That is why I think that such a deep and powerful need must come from something at the core of our personality - not just a hobby or pastime, something we could do - but something more visceral; something we absolutely need to do! Someone who seeks escapism joins a Civil War or Roman Legion re-enactment group or amateur dramatics or similar... that way their male identity is totally preserved. To say that anyone continues to identify as male (with few exceptions on this board, notable for dressing but eschewing makeup, forms, padding or wigs) while doing their utmost to portray feminine in every possible visual way, just strikes me as being that conditioning surfacing again... "Yes, I wear lingerie, a dress, use mascara, wear female jewellery, eyeliner, earrings and heels - but I'm still 100% male identifying..." :facepalm: How can that be 100%??? So let's just say there's an acceptance that it's not 100% - it's whatever tiny or larger fraction that comes across as femme and it is that repressed facet I'm talking about and it's exactly that element that moves us from cisgendered males to transgendered.

:whew!:

Just finally (and briefly :)) I agree with you about GD - I think that is a more severe and distressing category of our condition... but like it's possible to be relatively normal functioning with Asperger's syndrome or significantly handicapped with autism, we all exhibit differing degrees of TG and therefore have different needs and motivations required to satisfy the drive.

Not everyone will read all of this (but if you have, well done and take a cookie :)), I'm sure - but all of these discussions are really helping me with my self-acceptance and understanding... so there. :p

Katey x

[BeckyW]

It's frustrating but language is more art than science.

I think language is part of it... but, I think the science aspect of TG is the real issue.

There are fields where the scientific method works perfectly. I can come up with an idea, test it, and prove if the idea is right or wrong. It's objective.

Social Sciences though... I fit the WPATH and DSM-V definitions of TG. I'm ok with that. I have Gender Dysphoria, again according to the definition, and I'm ok with that. From what I can tell, being TS is having Gender Dysphoria so strongly that you really need to live as the other gender in order to survive, or at least be happy. (I worry like hell that I'm headed that direction.)

But... really, is any of that scientific? There are so many tiny little variables to anyone's life, how in the world could you ever "scientifically" diagnose a condition like transgenderism ? The best researchers can do is see that there is a portion of the population that shares a certain number of traits, and putting a name on that collection of traits.

So we can talk about being CD or TG or TS, and really, the only "truth" to any of it is *how do you feel?*.

[lexivanderpump]

Nadine,
I disagree 100% with you. Your "argument" holds no logic. I am a straight married male that loves to put on girls clothes. I have no intention on becoming or transitioning to become a woman. I love being a male. I do not like labels either. By the way, that definition you cited is extremely broad and vague.

I do appreciate your astuteness though.

Love,
Lexi V.

[ophelia]

This site needs a new name if this is an issue. I adore wearing the clothes, scents, shoes and hairstyles of what society calls the feminine, or opposite sex. I am comfortable with "crossdresser". But "Trans" indicates to me that I am on my way somewhere else, and I am not.
I am loving both worlds.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Your "argument" holds no logic. I am a straight married male that loves to put on girls clothes.

It holds logic if you believe 'girls clothes' make a woman, which I gather quite a few here do. As a woman, I know this is utter nonsense which is why I think Transgender is too inclusive and should really only mean those who cross psychological gender lines and not just the external.

Of course, there are also those here who rationalise that if you wear it, you must feel it. I personally think this is also nonsense and I'm sure this is just people making themselves feel better - safety in numbers and all that. So I suggest to those who disagree to ignore the labels if they don't fit as not everyone needs group approval to be content.

If the label fits, then wear it proudly, but avoid temptation to compare yourself to other members as this is where all this confusion comes from. We're all different. Embrace it! :)

[kkaye]

Be mindful that labels are going to attached to us by others or with some. Ourselves. Fact is when we are made out in public. Fact is we are perceived as gay. We are not at first blush seen as who we are be it a straight man with a wife. We don't have that explanation readily available to what is in someones mind. Ok, What we are to ourselves is what matters. If, I tried to put a label on myself, I may not find one because, I have my own unique needs and feelings that comes with CD. Let these professionals with their studies and science come into my life and people that share the same feelings that, I do and what my happen is some of my joy may be imposed on. It's one person in this dress and she sets the rules, and her science behind it is that this girl is secure and can't wait to go out again. I love both of me. The only thing is. One side wants to run the show.

[Janine cd]

I agree. am a crossdresser, therefore I desire to present myself as a woman. I am, by definition a transgendered individual.

[Jenniferathome]

At the end of the day, the label doesn't bother me but the request to wear name tags is just too much!

[Nadine Spirit]

Hmmm..... Okay, lets see....

#1 - I stated that I consider everyone who does any gender variance thing, like putting on women's clothes when you are a man, to be transgender because I understand the term "transgender" to be the umbrella term that covers everyone who does anything that does not conform with what their birth gender traditionally does.

#2 - I do not need to be a part of any group to feel whole, or included, or a part of something. Trust me, even with this internet thing going on for quite some time, I never bothered to reach out to anyone, other people, other groups, support places, LGBT associations, therapists, or whatever. I was happy enough being a group of two, my wife and I. My wife actually laughed when I read to her how many of you think that I need to be part of a group to feel good about myself. :tongueout

#3 - I do not think that I am any part woman. I am nowhere on the path to transition. I do not personally think of myself as anything but a man.

#4 - I was fine with calling myself "just" a cross dresser or even a transvestite, until I started telling my friends and family about what I like to do. I kind of got the reaction of "hey that is great, but I am not interested in what you do for your sexual thrills, it is fine, but keep your fetishes to yourself." This idea of cross dressing being a sexual fetish is partly why I started my blog in the first place, to try and help dispel the myth that it is always a sexually related activity. When you type in cross dresser into google, and view the images, I do not relate to those pictures in any way. If you do the same thing with the word transgender, yeah, that is far more along the lines of what I do. When my friends and family type a word into google, personally I want them typing in transgender. I understand now, that many of you do not want to ever be associated with that word, because you think it implies you are transexual. It does not. Both cross dressers and transexuals exist underneath the same term, transgender.

#5 - If I am anything, I am a word nerd! I love words! So many of you are afraid of "labels," but I do not have a fear of them, as they are just words! After viewing the many, and impassioned responses, I simply wish we had clearer, more accurate, more universally accepted descriptors.

#6 - If you don't want to call yourself transgender, then don't. If you want to call yourself "just a guy who occasionally likes to dress in women's clothes but it does not mean anything at all about me, my gender, or my sexuality," then go ahead, but I think it is kind of a mouthful.

[Jenniferathome]

Don't beat around the bush Nadine. What do you really think?:)

[lexivanderpump]

Nadine and anyone else who can't live without labels.
Transvestite(noun): person, typically a man, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex.

Transgender(adjective): denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.

Using the definitions above I will admit to being a transvestite. I am not transgender person. I am not "confused" about my identity.

Also important to note, a "noun" is a person, place, or thing.

I hope this helps to elucidate things for you hon.

Love,
Lexi V.

[Nadine Spirit]

Well um... Thanks?

I didn't say I am "a" transgender, I said I consider myself to be transgender. I am pretty sure that madlibs cleared up for me what a noun is. And I am "a" human that is transgender.

Cause you know an adjective describes a noun.

[lexivanderpump]

Nadine,
I really do admire your vehemence!

Love,
Lexi V.

[Jenniferathome]

...Cause you know an adjective describes a noun.

Well now you're just using your high falootin' book learning to bamboozle me!

[Lorileah]

annd...as typical of this type of thread we are going into redundancy and sniping. I think we be done K?