Is MIAD as a term too all embracing

[Becky Blue]

Reading the other thread about dressing to pass vs MIADS prompted me to post a long thought view. I am not trying to be controversial either..

I think we need a new term MIAD is too wide a definition... We need a term for a MIAD who wants to look like a man in a dress ie Intentional .. IMIAD and then one for the people who think they can never pass and refer to themselves as MIADS. Many of these people probably are not MIADS they just don't think they look femm enough and most are probably wrong, or have not tried dressing fully yet. So maybe we need a better term

BTW Im not being frivolous there is a huge difference IMO between wanna be MIADS and wanna be more passable but have not tried yet or don't think they are...

[Samm]

I think the term MAID is fine. Maybe because I know what it refers to. I don't see yet another label or sub-label helping anything, or anyone. Even though, to your average everyday muggle, we are all MAIDs, I don't put myself in that box. For the record, I don't see you in there either, Becky. I think the whole MAID thing is pretty cut and dry. I don't dress female but present male. When I dress female, I do everything I can to present my female side, as in wig/makeup. So, I see myself in no way a MAID. But that's just the way I see it.

[Wildaboutheels]

OWPIDS.

Obsession With Passing Is Downright Silly.

The key word being OBSESSION.

However it is OK to be obsessed abut it, IF one can read minds.

I have numerous threads in the past..

People will never agree to just one term/phrase/acronym that fits them, although there are many ACROS that many will like. The possibilities are endless

Trouble with this Forum is that numerous members "do not like" anything less than a 100% effort and are quick to point that out every chance they get.

An opinion that HELPS no one.

I think MOHADD fits me best, not just in how I choose to attire myself (except when going to work) but in most aspects of my life.

Man Obviously Hearing A Different Drummer.

[Stephanie47]

Sounds as if to create a scale of gradations for judging a genetic male wearing women's clothing. On one extreme is the genetic male all dolled up en femme with proper makeup and hair and also emulating the gestures and walk of a woman. On the other end is a genetic male who is totally unshaven, maybe bald, and just wearing women's clothing. All I can image is the bearded lady at a carnival side show. I think the issue is coming down to "intent."

Unfortunately many men are "blessed" with male features that are genetically produced. My face can be clean shaven with no beard shine for most of the day. No hair on the legs or underarms. Born that way. Basically genetically hairless for purposes of cross dressing with the motivation to appear as a woman. Can I use the word deceive? I would not be comfortable declaring myself as a man wearing female clothing. My inner thoughts and motivations are more than that. When I wear the clothing of a woman it is not to deceive the public. There is a 'feeling' that overcomes me and encourages some inner motivation to announce herself. I cannot explain it to others because it seems so foreign to those not afflicted by it.

I have to assume a "Man in a Dress" is wearing the female garments for some other reason than wanting to appear as a woman. A bearded face with unshaven visible body skin strutting down the mall in heels. No makeup perhaps. Bald perhaps. Uncaring to public stares or ridicule?

Over the years of reading threads and posts on this forum there is a problem. Many are totally consumed by some image in their minds as to what a woman is suppose to look like. Yes, there are few hirsute women out there. There are many wonderful women who do not fall on the judging scale at a ten. Maybe they are are a zero, Or a five. Overweight? Too skinny? Flat chested? Too short? Too tall? Not the perfect face, whatever that may be. So, how many of us are consumed by the idea of being a ten?

I am six foot which is down from six foot two. I am 202 pounds this morning. Big bones. I an afflicted with male pattern genes. Women have always thought I was great looking. Ask my wife. When Stephanie appears...bursts forth for reasons known or unknown... she does not think of herself as a man in a dress. Unfortunately I do not make a womanly ten. I don't do the makeup. Most women don't do the makeup every day. So, unable to shed my male genetic physical profile I do look like a MIAD, but, my motivations and how I feel when wearing women's clothing is more than liking the fabric or colors or style.

So, what is your motivation for wearing the clothes society deems should be wore by a woman? Is the MIAD with a beard in some way denying his inner woman because his ideal woman cannot be achieved? In need of therapy? Stuck on the unachievable image of a ten?

[docrobbysherry]

I've often thot this, Becky. There r a few T's that r quite satisfied to throw on a dress and walk out the door. No; wig, makeup, heels, forms, etc., etc. They r INTENTIONAL MIADS.:straightface:

While I spend over an hour prepping every time before going out. I wear everything fem u could possibly put on to look as pretty and fem. Yet, no matter what I do because I never pass, (except on Halloween), I'm a MIAD!:sad:

Maybe: Intentional MIAD, and unintentional MIAD?:brolleyes:

[Robertacd]

Yeah, we need yet another label and subgroup to further fracture our community.

[Asew]

Yes, there is a difference between MIADS who have given up on passing but would like to and those who don't care about passing. Just like other classifications, we have different motivations and goals. I don't know if I see it important enough to coin a new term, but I could be wrong.

[RachelPortugal]

MIAD is not really all embracing, what about those that present as MISS, man in short skirt, after all they are not wearing dresses. We could make up lots of acronymic titles for ourselves, but surely as we are all wearing clothes designed for the opposite gender, we are all crossdressers, just like it says at the top of the page.

[Fran in skirts]

:sb:
MIAD and MIAS are what? They are labels and they actually do nothing but cause what labels most labels do and that is create havoc among the people. They create hate and cause harm to people. I try not to use labels (but I sometimes do) they are for cans and bottles not for humans.

We are humans and I think we should act like nice humans at that. We should all try to get along with each other and not add to the hate and animosity that is already out there. We all have opinions and they are ours, they may not be someone else's. We should all try to understand each other and behave accordingly. My opinions are MINE and you may agree or not, your opinions are YOURS and I may agree or not. BUT we should all agree to get along with each other.

Just my:2c:

Fran

[Tracy Irving]

I am a crossdresser. Plain and simple. Enough said...

[Teresa]

Becky,
I have to admit I'm really torn on this issue , I feel MIAD is sufficient to cover the people in that group .

I was going to post my thoughts on this whole subject , while I agree with Wildaboutheels on the passing comment I personally could never go out as a MIAD . To me it still gives off so many confusing issues not only to the public but also to other members of the TG community . I must admit I find it hard the respect them possibly because I'm confused and don't understand where they are coming from . I'm not saying it's wrong but to be perfectly honest I wouldn't walk down the street with one or socialise with them apart from in a social group situation , I would still try and understand them but in the back of my mind they are expecting me to respect them for their appearance but not showing the same respect for me or CDers who put so much effort into their presentation on occasions .

Many of us have been through hell and back to be able to walk out the door and look presentable as a woman , many of us are or maybe still on a journey, to be tagged a MIAD maybe soul destroying to some people . Again personally I have gone through a separation to achieve what I have so far , the comments and insults are still going round my head from my wife , I have proved her wrong by integrating in society as Teresa but I certainly wouldn't have done as a MIAD .

[t-girlxsophie]

I'm with Tracy,I'm a plain old Crossdresser,yes I do everything look as femme as I can,but I'm under no illusions I know i dont pass ,but I still don't feel MIAD is a description for me in any way at all.but fair play to those that feel its apt for them.We shouldn't get hung up on any labels anyway let's all just enjoy what we do

Sophie

[AllieSF]

Becky, unless you are a MIAD or IMIAD or whatever, why not let them decide if they need more detailed defined labels. They have to live with the label that they choose, not you or us who do not define ourselves that way. I do know that many here might say that they may look like a "man in a dress). However, the MIAD acronym used in posts has been used almost exclusively by those that go out in a dress with short man hair and no wig and maybe even a beard like Phili does.

Would you consider suggesting a new acronym for a TS who doesn't have bottom surgery because it helps you to better understand them or categorize them for your own benefit ant not the TS's benefit?

[Beverley Sims]

I think we should let the term evolve, it will find it's own level of acceptance just as other labels have.

[Cassandra Lynn]

I've seen too much negative stuff said, too many times, early in common usage of the label (about the time I came back around here this past spring), and mostly have tuned out of and stayed away from any OP dealing with it.

So, I must be way behind; isn't it describing any guy dressing in a dress (or anything similar.....I mean come on, do we need to have a version for skirt too?) with no other attempt to present as female?
Uhhh, you know, kinda something like...……...a man in a dress? :idontknow:

A beard and mustache, tennis shoes, body hair...………….a human male wearing a dress. Simple.

And I know I must be wrong, because I have indeed seen people here using the term to 'describe' or to put it another way, ridicule people for not looking passable enough when fully dressed. Which begs the obvious question, is it not 'just' a man in a dress, not trying to look anything like a woman (passable or not) or is it a use as you want term that can be used as an insult?.....or ahem, to provide critical feedback.

I'm gonna leave it there because i'm about to pop the cork on my rant about just how dumb the term crossdresser is in comparison.

Cass

[GeorgeA]

When I first suggested "MIAD" it was to describe myself, to distinguished me from most members here who go to great lengths to present themselves as women and trying to lose masculine appearance altogether.

The term seems to have gained a general acceptance with a variety of interpretations as to what it means.

My interpretation: I enjoy wearing items normally associated with women but I have no desire to present as a woman. What I wear daily I do not consider women's clothes, they are mine and I spend all my time in them. When I must go out I change my skirt for trousers but underwear stays the same, I have no feminine traits, mannerisms etc.

I dress for myself bur would not mind meeting with others if I knew them to be like me.

I know there are others here who call themselves MIADs but use heels, bras, wigs etc. What you use or not use is up to you and if you want to call yourself a MIAD then go ahead and do it and pay no attention to others criticising you.

[suzanne]

I want to see fewer labels, not more. Ultimately, I just want to be known by just my name, which is a male name because I'm not trying to be, or pass as, a woman. I dont want this conversation "Hi, Z, how's the crossdresser game?". I want "Hi, Z, nice dress" and then on to the next subject.

[phili]

I use the term MIAD generously as the positive all-inclusive term for anyone who is not trying to look like a female when wearing feminine clothes or using makeup, etc. As has been said, to be seen as a MIAD is also held up as a negative experience by those who don't want to see traces of their maleness.

As Salerba and Wild, and others have said, it is perfectly possible for a male as well not to feel or want to feel anything feminine, and just devote oneself to enjoying selected aspects of culturally assigned 'feminine' grooming.

I feel compassion for anyone who feels they are expected to really try to look like a woman to be allowed to wear dresses and feel feminine.

I feel happy for anyone who just loves to look like a woman. I look like a type of woman - to myself. I am sad that no one else can see that. But I feel every womanly thing with respect to social role, emotional freedom/labor, feminine side of relationship, sexuality, and seeing myself beautiful whether anyone else agrees or not.

I feel sad that Teresa and so many others would not walk down the street with me when GGs have no issue with it. I am fun to be with! And I am sure that no one will think less of you- quite the opposite. In fact, you would probably be seen as the expert beautiful friend of the ugly duckling. But then again, since I am not embarrassed, they might just think- "What a pair. You go, girls! "

[Charlotte7]

I'm fine with the term MIAD, and regardless however cross dressers may arrive at being a MIAD, even by many varied routes, in my book, that doesn't make them different things. Actually. I'm probably as much with those who say that we don't need any more labels than cross dresser as that is the one thing which defines us all.


...I must admit I find it hard the respect them possibly because I'm confused and don't understand where they are coming from . I'm not saying it's wrong but to be perfectly honest I wouldn't walk down the street with one or socialise with them apart from in a social group situation , I would still try and understand them but in the back of my mind they are expecting me to respect them for their appearance but not showing the same respect for me or CDers who put so much effort into their presentation on occasions.

This reply though stuck out to me as being a different reply and I have to say that it may be a little sad. Sad, because it seems to demonstrate a lack of acceptance of the diversity in and among cross dressers. For we are a very diverse group, but have one thing in common, we wear ladies clothes.

I would put, at the pinnacle of MIADDOM, (see I've coined yet another new word ;) ), Conchita Wurst from Austria ( https://eurovision.tv/participant/conchita-wurst ) and I would say that in every aspect of their presentation Conchita is stunning. In case you don't look at the link or it doesn't work for you Conchita's motto is "Be the best version of yourself rather than a bad copy of someone else!" Now, personally I wouldn't present as Conchita in public but I'm very happy that they do and I would be proud to walk down the street and to socialise which Conchita and all those who Conchita inspires and empowers. If Conchita confuses people by pushing the boundaries, by acting in ways that don't conform, then that's all the better, because in doing so it makes it easier for others to follow. To not respect something because you don't understand it, is to demonstrate a mindset that is closed to being challenged. To say that a MIAD does not respect other cross dressers who fully transform is, well, it's to say something which can't be said because, none of us can ever know what is going on in someone else's head.

I've said it a few times on these boards, that in seeking acceptance from society as a whole, how can we begin to get that, if we can't accept the diversity of cross dressers that we have here? And you know, I think that if society can accept people like Conchita and Phili and all the other MIADs on these boards, then, that actually makes it much easier for those who pass and those who blend.

So, to sum up, yes, if you're a MIAD be proud, and if you not a MIAD then be proud for the MIADs among us, and as for new labels and sub-teams, no we don't really need any more of them, let's all just get along however we are, happy in our dresses.

[Teresa]

Charlotte,
As I said it is my pesonal view , I also pointed out how much has gone into achieving what I have so far . In the back of mind was the comment made by a MIAD about the reaction a good friend acting as a wingman saw , it wasn't good . The point I can't understand is why put yourself through that , there is no end game with dressing in that way . I realise I'm looking at it from more of a transition point of view . I also realise I got into a heated debate about it not being about the clothes , I accept they are only part of the equation but to me a totally necessary one .

The other point is you are reading my comments from the situation of not being totally out , it does change the perspective when you do so . Finding the balance to integrate and not get a reaction ( I'm still not going to use the word PASS !) is a learning curve .

Phili ,
I do apologise to you , it's nothing personal , as you say I might eat my words after meeting you but at the moment going full time is working out much better than I expected and perhaps I'm being slightly guarded over defending something that has been so hard fought for .

I also realise you have some personal battles going on and I hope you can resolve them sometime soon , I still have it in the back of my mind that given the chance to fully dress and losing the facial hair so you can see the full effect of makeup you would totally embrace it and not look back . I respect your reasons given in the past for not doing so .

[Roxanne Lanyon]

What is "MIAD"? Is this another of the many, many terms floating around today to confuse us? Me? I am a girl. I love being a girl! It feels so good. I want to be treated, loved, as a girl. Now, what does that make me? Is there a "name" for me? I am Roxanne Lanyon

[Stacy Darling]

"HUGO"

My appearance could be seen in a thousand different ways in one day only, and the interpretations could be much more numerous.

JUST SAYING! Some of us slide the Gender scale as well as the Passability Scale at any one given time!

label non required!

Stacy!

[Majella St Gerard]

Either way we are All men in dresses

[Charlotte7]

Teresa, do you not accept that there is a whole gender spectrum out there and we're all trying to find a place where we are happy? You've found a place where you're happy, Conchita Wurst has found a place where they are happy, even me, yes I've found a place where I'm happy. What we have to do in this world, and you're a very good example of this, is find our own corner of the planet, our own place where we can be who we really are and who we really want to be. And the important thing in this, is what matters to us as individuals, not others, but ourselves.


I'm not saying it's wrong but to be perfectly honest I wouldn't walk down the street with one or socialise with them apart from in a social group situation

Now bearing in mind what I've said above, can you see that your statement above might be seen in a negative light by those who are happy to wander the streets in dresses and sporting a beard? Do you not think that it shows just a tiny bit of prejudice and lack of acceptance? Live and let live.

As others have said, what's important is that we all like to put on a dress, let's celebrate that.

[Teresa]

Charlotte,
I've given this some thought and instead of hijacking Becky's thread I'll start a newe one to explain the point yopu make .

[Stephanie47]

I really appreciate threads of this nature. They are a lot more thought provoking than "What are you wearing today," although I do enjoy those too. I was somewhat surprised by Teresa's statement. Excluding someone because of who he or she is or may be? That is the raging debate in the United States right now. Genetic testing to include or exclude a person based on two letters in the alphabet, x and y. I have relationships with men and women, who are married to same sex partners. I have family members who are African-American, Mexican-American, severely disabled, and, so on. One big melting pot of genetic material. I also have acquaintances who intentionally exclude people like those in my family or circle of friends and acquaintances. As being the "odd man out" which is what I surely would be labeled, I can not find it in my heart to exclude anyone for who they were born as or to become. If I reject anyone for who they are, then anyone is entitled to reject me. No double standard here.

As I stated above (#4) I do not understand the thought process involved in a true MIAD. I do have, as I indicated, some conjecture on the issue. But, that is no more than conjecture that people may have about myself.

[jacques]

hello Becky,
What does the term MIAD embrace? If crossdressers try to look feminine I don't think the term applies. So that leaves perhaps to types of MIADs
- men who like to crossdress but don't make much effort on the feminine shape, wigs and makeup
- men who wear clothing they consider to be unisex
I am happy to be a man with a beard in a dress and have no real ambition to be more passable.
luv J

[Veronica Lacey]

I want to see fewer labels, not more. Ultimately, I just want to be known by just my name, which is a male name because I'm not trying to be, or pass as, a woman. I dont want this conversation "Hi, Z, how's the crossdresser game?". I want "Hi, Z, nice dress" and then on to the next subject.

This is as succinct as I can imagine. No analyzing, no judging, no labels. Observe, accept, move forward.

[Cassandra Lynn]

Before I go and spew all over Teresa's thread, and I don't want to hijack yours too much Bec m'dear, I do think I should give as honest an answer as I can.
A new term? Maybe, but the main problem in all this and lots of terms and labels revolves around basic errors in using common language.....imho.

Miad should mean exactly what it says and Majella makes a strong and valid point in post #23.

Like I said earlier, and Teresa is once again painfully pointing out for us, MIAD should not be used for a male who is trying but failing to look feminine in a wig, make-up, accessories, shoes and the whole nine yards. That's just not only idiotic and unfair, it's an insult.

Cass

[KimberlyJean]

I was under the impression that MIAD was for those that 1. Identifed as male 2. Made no effort to pass as a woman. I don't consider myself a MIAD because I identify as a woman and regardless of how successful, I dress smartly and appropriately in order to blend in.

I do believe we should be tolerant of everyone not just the people in our group. I had an awkward conversation while I was out, an at home crossdresser was showing me pictures and while I empathized with him I didn't feel any sort of connection.

[AllieSF]

Teresa, We all went through a similar thread in the past where you presented the same opinion with almost the same words. In that thread you clearly made your case and from MIAD's they gave all their reasons men in dresses (MIAD's) do what they do, and the key figure was Phili, regularly used as an example. Now after all that time you come right back and wonder, is in your statement above "The point I can't understand is why put yourself through that , there is no end game with dressing in that way ." What do you mean no end game? Phili goes out all the time and the fact that he gets satisfaction is more than a at least one end game for him. Does he also have to dress so that all other CD's, NB's and even TS's get the same happiness when he is out? He is only doing it for himself, which I believe is what the majority of us are doing. Yes, we may want others to like how we present and accept us, but that is really secondary for those of us that go out all the time. We do not worry about what others think nor do we really care.

In my point of view you are being insensitive to many of our members here and to those similar others out in the real world. I have a simple code I try to follow here. It is not always easy for me to follow sometimes, but I make every effort to do so. I try to treat everyone equally and respect their right to be and present as they want, even if I do not care for it. If you do not like to see MIAD's out in the real world, what would you say to those that do not want to see you out there either? There is always someone who wants to take the bar for acceptability, passing, blending or "correctly" representing us to a higher level than you do. Why even set the bar at any level? That always goes back to many past threads here that one should make the best effort when going out to blend in as best possible, dress your age, and don't make the rest of us look bad. Why does one need to do that and who are you, I, or anyone else to say what level of effort is acceptable by those few of us that actually can blend in more easily that others. You and I and some others may be gifted to have those desired personal characteristics, but what about those others, who don't meet up to your or others' standards, and who gets to set those standards?

You do not have to associate with anyone that you do not want to associate with. I don't either. But to state here that you still do not understand and then expect to get new answers that might change your mind with a new thread explaining your reasons, makes no sense to me. The thing is that the idea is strange to you and you really do need to meet a friendly and confident MIAD to truly appreciate who they are inside.

I truly do respect your struggles and current resolution to them. I am just like you and go out everyday, every moment in every circumstance as my real self, Allie. I also love to talk to strangers and anyone else that will listen to me. However, where we differ is that I very much respect people like Phili and others however they may decide to dress and present to the public and freely grant them the right to do so with no complaints, or "I just don't get it" comments to others from me, especially on a public forum with such a diverse membership from all over the place. I respectfully ask you to reconsider your comments and viewpoint, and welcome everyone under our large and mostly welcoming umbrella.

[Tracy Irving]

I joined this site because I thought we shared the common interest of crossdressing, whatever that means to each individual.


I must admit I find it hard the respect them

I guess I was wrong.



I'm confused and don't understand where they are coming from.

and have extinguished quite a bit of energy in an effort to stay confused, rather than educate yourself. It has been explained over and over by many members. Pull your head out of the sand and read their comments.


I wouldn't walk down the street with one or socialise with them

You may choose to live on a lofty perch but the blokes below you don't have to look up. I always thought crossdressing had to do with wearing the clothing typically associated with the opposite sex. That crossdressing did not require someone to think he's a woman. Nor did it require him to pretend to be a woman. Am I wrong? If not, what other groups do you discriminate against? Or is it just crossdressers?


they are expecting me to respect them for their appearance but not showing the same respect for me

Are there really people asking you to respect them? What members don't want you to dress as you wish, as you feel comfortable, as you are happy? Because I want all those things for you and everyone on this site.


to be tagged a MIAD maybe soul destroying

Name names. Who on this site is continually destroying your soul by calling you a MIAD? It seems as though the only resistance you get is from the wife you won't divorce.

[t-girlxsophie]

MIAD should not be used for a male who is trying but failing to look feminine in a wig, make-up, accessories, shoes and the whole nine yards. That's just not only idiotic and unfair, it's an insult.

CassThis in my humble opinion is best thing I've read on this thread, let's not squeeze everyone into groups that we don't belong in

Sophie

[Becky Blue]

Thanks for contributing to this thread girls and making it really interesting with some illuminating comments. I want to respond to a few posts will also explain why I posted the OP...


OWPIDS.

Obsession With Passing Is Downright Silly. The key word being OBSESSION.


Wild, you expect respect from people here for the way you want to be, but in return don't seem to respect the girls who aim to pass? Why is wanting or needing to pass silly?

- - - Updated - - -


Sounds as if to create a scale of gradations for judging a genetic male wearing women's clothing. On one extreme is the genetic male all dolled up en femme with proper makeup and hair and also emulating the gestures and walk of a woman. On the other end is a genetic male who is totally unshaven, maybe bald, and just wearing women's clothing. All I can image is the bearded lady at a carnival side show. I think the issue is coming down to "intent."


You have nailed what I was saying perfectly Steph

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, we need yet another label and subgroup to further fracture our community.

Roberta, I disagree I believe that the difference between intentional and unintentional MIADS actually help bring us together and you will see what I mean in my summation

- - - Updated - - -


This is as succinct as I can imagine. No analyzing, no judging, no labels. Observe, accept, move forward.

why does every person who uses or creates a label be presumed to be judging? In no way shape or form is my OP judgmental

- - - Updated - - -

Teresa .... Teresa ... Teresa whats to say?


MIAD should not be used for a male who is trying but failing to look feminine in a wig, make-up, accessories, shoes and the whole nine yards. That's just not only idiotic and unfair, it's an insult.
Cass

Thank you to Cassie and Jacques for helping me in making my point..

- - - Updated - - -


Becky, unless you are a MIAD or IMIAD or whatever, why not let them decide if they need more detailed defined labels. They have to live with the label that they choose, not you or us who do not define ourselves that way. I do know that many here might say that they may look like a "man in a dress). However, the MIAD acronym used in posts has been used almost exclusively by those that go out in a dress with short man hair and no wig and maybe even a beard like Phili does.

Would you consider suggesting a new acronym for a TS who doesn't have bottom surgery because it helps you to better understand them or categorize them for your own benefit ant not the TS's benefit?

AND thanks to Allie for providing me the ability to respond and in doing so explain why i started this thread

Aliie I thought long and hard about posting the thread for the exact reason you said BUT here is why I did.. As an more experienced girl who has been out numerous times and has been around quite a while, I quite often help and mentor other girls, perhaps nubies or perhaps people who have been too scared to venture out or even dress fully... I continually hear the same thing being said and it saddens me... Oh I could never go out like you do, I would look like a man in a dress, I have big shoulders or thick arms (insert various male attributes). In my opinion there are girls holding themselves back as they think they are MIADS.. so i felt that this thread can highlight the difference between someone who wants to be a MIAD and someone who does not think they will look good.

Hopefully through this quite balanced discussion some people can get encouraged to see themselves all pretty and femm (if they wish too of course)

[AllieSF]

Thanks Becky. I have never had anyone say that they were afraid because they felt that they looked like a MIAD (a new term for me in the last year or so). However, I have taken several wonderful ladies out of their comfort zone here in San Francisco. However, when I first started seeing the term MIAD here it wasn't used much and was normally used by Phili or members like Phili. Yes, it has a braoder or more detailed definition now, that I see and better understand. I never heard that term used by those IO took out, but I see now that it may have applied to them directly. I like the the clear separation as stated in your sentence, "so i felt that this thread can highlight the difference between someone who wants to be a MIAD and someone who does not think they will look good."

[Becky Blue]

Allie as they say "if I had a dollar....

[GeorgeA]

Charlotte,
I've given this some thought and instead of hijacking Becky's thread I'll start a newe one to explain the point yopu make .

I remember you starting that thread and I even posted a comment. I was away for a couple of days and now can't find it.
Have you deleted it?

[Lydianne]

@Salerba: I don't think she did.

But I'm so glad that happened because that deletion is extremely symbolic ( although the authorities probably didn't intend it to be ).

I have read a few members here who identify as MIAD saying they felt unwelcome to post, and I understood that. But now, you got so much backup from members of other parts of the spectrum to the point that this happened. I generally do not advocate breaking the rules, but in this case, the cause superseded the rule.

I'm so glad it went down the way it did, and it's all credit to you all for the statement you all made in Phili's picture thread.

Welcome to the community! :hugs:.

- Lydianne.

[Sara Jessica]

I remember you starting that thread and I even posted a comment. I was away for a couple of days and now can't find it.
Have you deleted it?

Someone must have gotten butt-hurt and the thread went poof which is ridiculous. You pour honesty and effort into such a conversation that was somewhat intriguing only to return and find it gone. Two can play at that game.

Poof.

[sometimes_miss]

We have to remember, that for 99% of us, anytime we wear female attire, all that we are, is 'a man in a dress' to the rest of the world. Doesn't matter if we are doing anything more in the way of altering our presentation or not (make up, body mechanics, voice adjustments, etc.). The only person we end up fooling, is ourselves. Everyone else sees us as a man in a dress (or skirt, or lingerie, whatever).
Most of society doesn't care, as long as you don't try to force yourself into their lives.
At some point, we have to get over it. No one sees us as women. Trying to 'blend' only pushes off the inevitable a few moments longer; there are simply too many physical differences and behavioral 'tells' that give us away for what we are.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But it's important to not have the pink cloud follow you around whenever you leave the house. Because if you're fooling yourself into believing that you're passing when you're not, reality can bite you on the butt, hard.
Enjoy feeling better by dressing up girly if that's what you feel the need to do. It's what all of us here, do.
Just be careful out there.

[Teresa]

Salerba,
My thread was running it's course so I requested it be closed, I came on the forum this morning to find it had been deleted .

Sara ,
Sorry you are wrong with your assumption but there's nothing stopping you starting a new thread up if you have the inclination .

Cassandra ,
You'll have to find someone else to spew over , sorry about that !

As for the rest who enjoyed the hypocrisy of finding fault with others while they can't see their own faults and failings , well I've decided I don't need it anymore , that's my final comment .

[Charlotte7]

Indeed teresa, indeed, but you do not, cannot and will not speak for me. The thread had life, it existed, many, indeed three pages worth of comments all spoke one way. You closed it. So mote it be.

[phili]

Lily Tomlin joked in a takeoff on Andy Warhol's famous painting of a Campbell soup can, - that "life" and "soup" were interchangeable! It is a useful metaphor, and here we all share an interest in sharing over our version of the life soup containing the ingredient of Crossdressing. Everyone is working out their soup recipes. Mock turtle and real turtle soups each have their place, and there is a wide variety of turtle involved, from flavor to whole turtles. Intuitive cooks and recipe advocates promote their approaches and results.

The only thing we have in common is the love of our version of crossdressing soup, and it is not too strange that we sometimes have trouble being polite to others with widely different views on acceptable turtle soup. But respecting each other's choices makes for better community life, and it is pointless to attempt to say we have the right recipe for others.

I think part of the motivation for slipping into that point of view is that we each are trying really hard to settle the mysterious drive we have, and when we think we have a solution it is only natural to assume at first that it might be useful to others. I was certain that some transformation dressers might benefit from my discovery that I could feel totally feminine without any transformation. Others have asserted to me that they are sure if I just tried transformation there would be no turning back. I love that advice, when it is heartfelt. It is positive and supportive.

Of course, when that morphs into mocking or classifying my approach as troublesome, wonder what is driving the need to make me wrong. I am confident and reasoned in my approach and am happy to explain. I can understand the urges, and I argue for forgiveness, so we can all continue to support each other where we are.

297745

[t-girlxsophie]

I'm still bemused that theres people posting on this site that choose to disbelieve those of us that go out wether CD or MIAD.passing,blending or neither are just having a really good time,and hell and it's minions don't follow us around drawing us dirty looks at every turn.Most people really dont care,yeah of course there's exceptions but frankly I couldn't give a toss about them

I dont lose it much on here so Apologies if this comes across as bad tempered but I really just wantwed to say it

Sophie

[DaisyLawrence]

Becky.

I don't know, I go away for a week and all hell breaks out! Going back past the brilliant replies from Tracy Irving, Charlotte, Phili, Sophie and Cassandra (amongst others, you said it for me, thank you) to your original post, what we don't need is another term. What we need is less terms. MIAD? Let this be the LAST time I use that term. What's the point of it? We are all crossdressers in one way or another. In fact, those that 'pass' are not (in the eyes of the viewing public) even really crossdressing at all as all anyone sees is another woman. I was out on the fells recently and one day I wore a 'trekking skirt' over my leggings. I was an ordinary middle aged bloke who happened to have a skirt on. I was, technically, crossdressing (a bit) and in an obvious way. I did not need labeling with a term that no-one else understands. In fact, all the terms used exclusively by the 'community' are pretty pointless if you ask me. If the general public don't know what it means then what is the point? Anyone seeing me on the fell wouldn't have said "did you see that crossdresser/transvestite/MIAD (delete as appropriate) they would have said "did you see that bloke had a skirt on?" or "is that a bloke in that skirt?".

And to the proud MIADs amongst you, stop using that term, you are crossdressers, people wearing the clothes of the opposite sex. By using the term MIAD you legitimise it and this encourages its use to describe a crossdresser trying but failing to pass, and using it that way is disrespectful. If you don't pass and don't want to pass then you are the visual representation of a crossdresser, no other term needed.

Respect is all that is needed. If we can't respect each other here, we can not expect it in the real world.

[Becky Blue]

I'm still bemused that theres people posting on this site that choose to disbelieve those of us that go out wether CD or MIAD.passing,blending or neither are just having a really good time,and hell and it's minions don't follow us around drawing us dirty looks at every turn.Most people really dont care,yeah of course there's exceptions but frankly I couldn't give a toss about them

I dont lose it much on here so Apologies if this comes across as bad tempered but I really just wantwed to say it

Sophie

Thank you Sophie.. as someone who has gone out 25+ times in 3 continents and 6 cities I cant tell you from experience no one cares, no one notices... When I go out, I do normal things like shopping or going out for dinner etc etc...99% of the time I blend in and no one gives me a second glance... if people discover i am a guy, they don't care... perhaps some are thinking ugly thoughts, perhaps one day someone will say something, it doesnt trouble me if they do.

Back on topic, all I was attempting to achieve with my OP was to try and point out that some people on here dress deliberately as men in dresses and that is very different from people who believe they can't look like passable women.

[Stacy Darling]

Respectfully Bec! Who gives a
I'ts only us which care
Stacy!

[Wildaboutheels]

I don't wear dresses. So what? The D letter of the term does not bother me. Many here can't/won't/ don't wear female jeans. Or heels. Or any # of other things. So what? It's their CHOICE.

People (CDers or not) are free to wear whatever they want when they are home. And free to wear whatever they want when they go out in PUBLIC as long as certain body parts are covered. It's the law in every state as far as I know.

Read the vast majority of replies. MIAD for most, has become an umbrella term for a man wearing some clothing item/s designed for women but is not trying to "pass as a woman".

It's both sad and troubling that on a site named Crossdressers dot com, some can't seem to understand such a simple thing.

[GretchenJ]

This is getting a bit personal for my taste, and on the verge of shutting it down.

let me add my 2 cents.

Do we need a new term for MIAD? It depends ....

To me, a cross dresser like transgender is an umbrella term. Inside that term , there are 4 different sub terms.

1. Transgender individuals who identify as female and crossdress (v) in order to order to match their gender indentity to how they feel inside. Passing is very important to them in order to feel a level of acceptance

2. Cross dressers who identify as male (and don’t believe they are female), but like to present as female and want to be as passable and they can possibly can.

3. Drag queens who are male and present as female, but present so “over the top” that the idea of passing is off the table, but it does not really matter to them, because they are presenting their unique individuality

4. MIAD which may identify as male, female or non-binary, but choose to dress in a hybrid approach in order to match their internal feeling. They have no desire to pass, but have a deep desire to feel accepted.

i am going to keep this thread up, but any disrespect from anyone towards anyone else will not be tolerated and will cause this to be shut down

[Charlotte7]

Gretchan, I can see where you are with your four groups and I think that there is some merit in what you say. However, of your groups, I am in group one. For me, my dressing is all about gender identity. However, I feel no need to pass. I have no need for acceptance. I say this because of the gender identity thing. For me, when women dress, they dress, and they dress as females. When I dress I do so because I am me. Part of me is female. I don't need someone outside me to acknowledge that, I don't need anyone else to accept that. And that is because it goes to the very core of who I am. It is me. And I know that. For me, nothing else matters.

[GretchenJ]

However, of your groups, I am in group one. For me, my dressing is all about gender identity. However, I feel no need to pass. I have no need for acceptance. I say this because of the gender identity thing. For me, when women dress, they dress, and they dress as females. When I dress I do so because I am me.

Charlotte,
I totally get what you are saying, Group 1 is the hardest to describe in finite terms, because it constitute the majority of permutations of all the different types of personalities it encompasses. So it maybe better to say that acceptance is preferred, but can live without it. But the ability to live an authentic life is paramount.

[Rachelish]

Sometimes I wear a pair of womens tights under my jeans when I go out so I'm a [insert label here].

Sometimes I spend time in the house wearing a skirt or a dress so I'm a [insert label here].

Sometimes I dress up in a wig, makeup, forms and pads, leggings, skirt or dress and go out shopping so I'm a [insert label here].

You can substitute the label for any of: crossdresser, MIAD, or 'transgender person' and they would all be correct.

It matters little to me. It probably matters even less to anyone else.

[GeorgeA]

Gretchen,
I think your four categories cover the complete spectrum and there is no need to sub-divide further. Of course there are varieties within each group but basically they adhere to your list. Look at the variety of dogs, yet all are basically the same.

[Wildaboutheels]

GAOOSH

Go All Out Or Stay Home is a thought process of many here. An opinion often expressed perhaps not too subtley. One that probably keeps some members home/in their closets. (An action [INaction] that helps no one).

I think the very name of this site should be a good enough clue to people.

[Blair]

While I'm just starting, Id never go out in public. I don't have the body or the face for it. I don't know about later. If I shave and learn to put on makeup that might change. For now it's just in the bedroom. I like the term MIAD being brand new to this I never heard it before.

[phili]

Yay for Gretchen's lexicon! Seems simple and comprehensive enough, and we could adhere to it, with an FAQ for new posters, and friendly reminders when people lose track of the differences. Using this kind of terminology would help people know where we are coming from, so repliers know what to say. Of course, simply understanding that we are here to support each other as crossdressers, regardless of our individual reasons, is the easiest way forward. If we don't understand why someone is doing something, we can ask, and at no point question their motives or sanity!

But if we are going to use labels to provide context- as I did when making the MIAD sharing thread- so that someone expecting to see an emulation dresser is not disappointed, we could add helpful specificity:

1. Say Female-identified crossdressers, rather than transgender, since the latter term is also an umbrella term in the larger society, and still evolving [see https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx ] Transsexual is too limiting, in terms of incorporating physical transition.

2. Perhaps use the term Emulation crossdressers, for those of us who are trying to look like females, but not identifying as female.

3. Drag queen crossdressers are well understood as performance artists.

4. MIAD might better be said as NB crossdresser. This is for all those who are not trying to avoid being seen as at least partially a male/man/masculine - and the way we crossdress speaks about how we are incorporating the female/woman/feminine into our presentation and by reference, our identity! Using NB also avoids the term being used in a way that sounds like it is undermining someone's success in leaving the male look behind.

I think we started using MIAD simply to helpfully provide context to our goals when we post. That was because foiks sometimes were critical, not realizing we could have such divergent goals [in terms of appearance] while sharing a love for crossdressing. We never really tried to give everyone a simple and uncontested label that works for a post- and has been pointed out, individuals are not limited to one category- we switch back and forth.

[Georgina]

Is MIAD simply just the truth?

[Kas]

I agree with Phili. I think Non-Binary (NB) should be used in place of MIAD. If you were to visit any other website, forum, etc. you would be considered NB. MIAD is a term which was created and used on this website only and i can see how new members could take offence to this because of the use of the letter "M".

I think the term non-binary is not used enough on this site when it really should be. MIAD is basically the definition of NB.

[abbiedrake]

It's always been my contention that humanity rests on this dichotomy: the desire to belong to a group, and the necessity of division in order to define a group.
Once we subdivide 'human' we invite conflict. But that desire for belonging clearly derives from the procreative drive that in turn drives the acquisitive drive to secure resources, even at the cost of others' survival - conflict.
And yet even at a time in history when we should be able to transcend such simple motivations what do we do? Break down into infinitesimal sub-divisions. It seems to be near axiomatic that the finer the sub-division the greater the resistance to its existence.
And yet if we were to truly sub-divide and sub-divide to its logical conclusion (or reductio ad absurdum, whichever you prefer) we'd find ourselves back where we began. That any division of 'human' results in any 1 of 7 billion absolutely unique beings. 'Human' is the ONLY thing, the only label that unites us all, describes us all.
Labels should only be applied where they *usefully* act as a shorthand for understanding a characteristic, but never as a substitute for respect. No-one, but no-one on this planet is reducible to one or even a handy few labels. We're all crazily complex venn diagrams of overlapping characteristics. That needs celebrating.

That all said, what Gretchen said, as refined by Phili. I did say labels could be *useful*.
IMHO.

[Becky Blue]

I agree with Phili. I think Non-Binary (NB) should be used in place of MIAD. If you were to visit any other website, forum, etc. you would be considered NB. MIAD is a term which was created and used on this website only and i can see how new members could take offence to this because of the use of the letter "M".

I think the term non-binary is not used enough on this site when it really should be. MIAD is basically the definition of NB.

Kas I think you don't understand the full range of Non Binary... it means not involving just two things... I consider myself to be non- binary because I think I am a blend of both genders and my 'Transness' can vary quite a lot. I am most definitely not a MIAD however.

[Cassandra Lynn]

I think the term non-binary is not used enough on this site when it really should be. MIAD is basically the definition of NB.
Wrong on both counts. There is a sub-forum here that has many regulars.
MIAD is the definition of a crossdresser, someone who wears women's clothing and (for most) it has very little to do with gender.
Although I do agree that there are a large number of peeps here who don't want to admit or are afraid of accepting the fact that they are more than a 'mere crossdresser', and are actually on the transgender spectrum, which could also mean they might be NB.
I get the impression you are one of those people who confuses gender with biological sex. I was born biologically male but my sense of gender never aligned fully with being male.
I realize now, all these years later, that I was gifted a feminine gender to go with the one I grew up with. Non-binary means I am transgender, and the gender is mostly found between my ears, in my heart and in my soul. Binary means either one or the other, hence the term non-binary.

Speak of anything gender with most MIAD's here and what you get back is something along the lines of...…...'I just like to wear women's clothing, i'm all male, it just feels good, it's a hobby, i'm my masculine (masculinity and femininity are gender constructs, not something one wears for awhile) self, i'm just a crossdresser' etc, etc.

Your entitled to your opinion of course, but don't try to define me or anyone else here who truly understands the terminology, without knowing more than you do now, it's both rude and foolish.

I LIVE a non-binary life, both internally and externally each and every day.
Cass

[Kas]

I meant in the sense that all (intentional) MIAD are NB, but not all NB are MIADs.

I know NB refers to many other groups, but in my view intentional MIADs are the epitome of NB.

[Cassandra Lynn]

A man in a dress, is a man in a dress, and his reason for being in a dress, has little to do with anything NB people think, feel or look like externally.
Every NB person I've met here speak of their gender, yet every MIAD here only talks about wearing an item of clothing.

Many of the guys here who are MIADs, do nothing at all besides the dress, other than maybe a pair of heels. When someone wear clothing normally associated with the opposite sex, I believe that is known as crossdressing?

Absent of the obvious biological and other body shape, bone structure, skin, hair, and body shape differences, my presentation is that of any female I see out and about everyday. The reason I do this is because it suits me in and feels natural to my sense of gender.

Would you like to further explain what your thinking is?

Cass

[Kas]

NB means somebody who does not conform to one of the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. One being a man who acts/looks like a man, the other being a woman who acts/looks like a woman (TS women included).

Therefore a man with a beard and wearing a dress is considered as non-binary due to the fact they do not fall under one of the binary stereotypes.

I would even argue that anybody who does not present 100% as female (under-dressers, people who do not wear a wig for example) would fall under the NB category which would mean the majority of this forum. I will even admit that I would be considered NB due to the fact that I do not always present as 100% female most of the time.

People can choose to associate with any group they please, but technically speaking, if you do not fit under one of the binary stereotypes then you are considered non-binary.

What do you consider NB to mean?

[Becky Blue]

Kas a Non Binary person can be a man in a dress, but a man in a dress is not Non Binary because they put on dresses. In fact you have hit right into the whole point of my OP and why I suggested The term is too embracing. A male who sees himself completely as a male but wants to partially dress in womans clothes is NOT in any way non binary, they are very much males.

[Cassandra Lynn]

Hmmm, this is getting interesting now. I can't wait till Daisy reads this, it's gonna give her something to think about as to her 'Bridge' theory.

Just so you know I agree with some of what you say, and it serves to prove the fact that crossdressing is nothing more than a verb, one which describes the act of wearing women's clothing, and yet this main forum that we're on is chock full of people who go cross-eyed when one of us 'TG Spectrum' theorists tries to point out that most CDs are in fact trans and are on one end of that spectrum.

But that, as they say, is another discussion, What your leaving out of what you say is how one thinks and feels inside. (sense of gender as learned over a period of years)
Like i said earlier, gender is mostly what goes on between a persons ears.
Remember, you can't prescribe that gender is all about what is seen and worn and how someone "acts".

As you said...…...
"Therefore a man with a beard and wearing a dress is considered as non-binary due to the fact they do not fall under one of the binary stereotypes.

I would even argue that anybody who does not present 100% as female (under-dressers, people who do not wear a wig for example) would fall under the NB category which would mean the majority of this forum. I will even admit that I would be considered NB due to the fact that I do not always present as 100% female most of the time."

NBs can explain fairly easily why they feel the way they do, most of us can tell about how difficult it was living a life not feeling right in our skin, how we know we weren't matched with our biological sex, the back and forth in our heads about things like transitioning and HRT.

You said.....
"NB means somebody who does not conform to one of the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. One being a man who acts/looks like a man, the other being a woman who acts/looks like a woman (TS women included)."
Maybe this is part of the problem, it's pretty flimsy when you say "acts/looks like" to describe gender stereotypes and then go on to say a man wearing a beard in a dress acts/looks like a woman in gender.


Does any of that help?
Cass

p.s. No offense Phili, I know from reading your posts, you do have a deeper sense of gender than what most peeps who identify as miad, I was just going from most have said.

[Kas]

I agree with you, Cassandra, that there is more to it, but just because somebody doesn’t identify as something or believes otherwise doesn’t make it true.

As an example. Somebody may identify as being straight, but if they are only attracted to men and only have sex with men, then despite what they may “think”, they are still considered as gay by general society.

The term non-binary literally refers to the 2 common social stereotypes assigned to men and women. (Bi = 2). To be non-binary means you do not fit in with either of these social stereotypes. That simple.

[GeorgeA]

A male who sees himself completely as a male but wants to partially dress in womans clothes is NOT in any way non binary, they are very much males.
Thank you, Becky.
Now I know what I am. A MIAD, a man in a dress.

[Kas]

Kas I think you don't understand the full range of Non Binary... it means not involving just two things...

The word Binary refers to two, Bi = 2 (Binary Code for example), referring to the two social stereotypes, one for each sex. So yes, it is just 2 things. Here is the definition of binary for those that didn’t know (seemingly everybody):

1. relating to, composed of, or involving two things.

2.relating to, using, or denoting a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.


It’s such a simple concept to understand. I don’t know why everybody is having such a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

Topics like this are impossible to discuss because everybody just makes up their own definitions of what something is despite the term having an already agreed upon meaning.

[Becky Blue]

So we are in agreement Cas - Non Binary means NOT involving two things - could be three or one or sixty seven or none :)

[Kas]

Haha well I wouldn’t give a number. It can be anything which doesn’t fit into the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. So infinity? 😛

- - - Updated - - -


Kas a Non Binary person can be a man in a dress, but a man in a dress is not Non Binary because they put on dresses. In fact you have hit right into the whole point of my OP and why I suggested The term is too embracing. A male who sees himself completely as a male but wants to partially dress in womans clothes is NOT in any way non binary, they are very much males.

I’m not saying they’re not males. But a man wearing a floral dress certainly is not fitting into the “male” gender stereotype, therefore making them non-binary in the true sense of the term. Of course if you pay some cis guy to wear a dress or an actor wears a dress, that won’t make them NB, but I’m referring to crossdressing where we have the option to conform, but choose not to.

Of course this all goes out the window if everybody just decides to make up their own definition of what non-binary is and choose not to use the already agreed upon meaning.

[DaisyLawrence]

Non-binary means I am transgender, and the gender is mostly found between my ears, in my heart and in my soul. Binary means either one or the other, hence the term non-binary.

Thanks Cass, your reply to Kas saved me the trouble.

Kas, I am non-binary and I am non-binary ALL the time. I am non-binary when I'm naked and I'm non-binary when I have overalls on to the crawl under the car and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the clothes that I have on at any one time. Now, as it happens it matters to me that people realise they are not dealing with a brainwashed stereotypical binary person so my outward presentation is usually androgenous BUT this does not mean I am non-binary only when I present as a mixed gender. Oh and to be clear I never ever dress as a 'man in a dress'. On the rare occassions I do wear a dress I try to look like a woman. So no, you are wrong, NB and MIAD are NOT the same thing at all.

Looking at your replies to Becky and Cass it seems you just don't seem to get it, or at least you don't want to get it and would prefer an arguement. Try this statement: "Non-binary is a gender identity NOT a presentation". Simple really when you say it like that, I mean how hard is it to grasp that statement. Now go back to Salerbas' comment at #68. Salerba is a man, period, he identifies as a man all the time but it just so happens he likes to wear a dress every now and then (good call). I don't know but I'm sure he has other hobbies like fishing or something. Going fishing wouldn't change his gender identity and wearing a dress doesn't either. Salerba doesn't want to be described as non-binary because he isn't non-binary. I'm struggling to understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -


I can't wait till Daisy reads this, it's gonna give her something to think about as to her 'Bridge' theory.

Well maybe not Cass because my non-binary bridge between binary genders is all about ones internal gender identity whereas Kas here is confusing presentation with identity. You stand in your correct place on the bridge naked, wearing clothes, any clothes, does not change the position towards one bank or the other.

[abbiedrake]

How about instead of NB crossdresser we go with Panvestite. That makes zero comment about gender. 😘

[Maid_Marion]

AMAB but I have a thin waist and enough fat in my chest, butt, and thighs to look like a GG. I'm routinely gendered as female wearing a tight fitting T shirt and jeans. It is a delight to shop for clothes that fit me perfectly!

[Jennifer_Ph]

I have absolutely no desire to be female. I don't feel like a woman trapped in a man's body. I love skirts, hose and heels! I love the clothing options on both sides of the store, for different reasons.

[Bree_fun]

I'd love to 'pass' but alas I feel I will only ever be a MIAD :(

[phili]

Keeping in mind our purpose was to try to have terminology that works for everyone, is intuitively understood correctly, and doesn't leave anyone out...

and that this is more or less impossible except for terms like pure black and pure white, and perhaps even those...and that maybe folks just like to argue ...!

I picked up MIAD and always used it tongue in cheek, but that suffered because people couldn't see the bulge in my cheek. It had going for it even then the poetic layers of meaning which include all of us who are deemed males by someone, but that suffered because a lot of us in that category do not like that fact. So I tried to clarify my meaning as 'not disguising maleness' while wearing a dress, which was meant to sidestep motivation and identity, and just make usage work on the obviousness of it all- but that suffered because many who do want to leave maleness behind are bedeviled by traces of it, and don't want to be seen as belonging through no fault or intention in a category called MIAD.

Aha, I thought, after Kas' offering- let's use NB- with the meaning of NB being generous, i.e. anyone who sees themselves as not exclusively identifying OR presenting on one side of the binary, such as genderfluid, asexual, or simply " 'male' personality and 'female' clothing" and not including reference to male. Darn, that fell apart fast. Yep, Becky- it was too broad and therefore difficult to be useful.

I'll jump to the side off those arguing that we should forget labelling, and celebrate individuality. That is really simple- "We don't argue about how or why you crossdress! If you crossdress, and we don't even argue about whether your idea of crossdressing qualifies, - just tell your story and post your pics, and our community will offer friendly support.

There is plenty of criticism reaching us in each of our worlds. This Forum's special value is for unconditional friendship- sharing experiences and friendship. It's not helpful, if you are on some track which experience will reveal to be unworkable, to be told your sense of yourself is wrong or misguided. It is much more likely to be useful to hear from members who have been down that road already. I have seen wonderful examples of this here.

As humans it is natural to want to belong to a successful group, so we are going to be tempted every day to sell our vision and gain support, and then to reinforce this by dinging others or challenging their world view. As long as we keep to the first goal- why not! We can enjoy the company of like-minded folks without reaching out to ruin someone else's day.

I started the MIAD pic sharing thread with that goal, bolstered by Salerba's term sounding very much modest and generous and showing we can make light of this fact. It has positive though limited participation. Is that because the term MIAD doesn't work, or because the thread purpose is unclear, or because MIADs fear the disdain of others, or because being a MIAD truly is difficult for most people to enjoy visually [the binary rightness model being so embedded in us], so hard to say anything meaninfully nice without feeling like a hypocrite - who knows.

Would it get more traffic as a NB sharing thread? I doubt it. Should I just share photos of myself as I like to see myself, like others do, and stand out like a sore thumb? Yes- I tried that and didn't like the result, but now I can see it in perspective. I'll try it again, and this time knowing it is for me, and I am not going to get enthusiastic wows from the group, and so it goes for the girls and boys in the world who don't look as others wish they would. I have come to accept myself and see the line more clearly between fantasy and reality as it applies to all of us. And I am still grateful for the opportunity to take part in this community and feel the diversity we present as creating an ocean that lifts all ships.

[DaisyLawrence]

I'll jump to the side off those arguing that we should forget labelling, and celebrate individuality.

Plus 1 to that Phili :)

[abbiedrake]

Phili, in my short time here I've come to relish your posts for their gentle erudition. I've always been impressed by what seems grounded self-assurance. Please don't ever change.
I'd love to present as fully female as possible in public but I'll still be a MIAD as home too in between times. Not to mention hybrid mode which is my most common. I own no men's jeans so that's a thing.
I haven't seen the MIAD pic thread (yet) but I'll happily participate. I'm always ready to quiz where someone got something nice. 😄 But I'm also happy to participate to share encouragement.
That we're so boxed in as men causes me great sorrow. If my wife can HONESTLY tell me (while I'm not wearing makeup etc) a dress looks good and flatters me (and believe me she'll say when something doesn't!) despite her struggles with my CDing surely we as a community can rise to the challenge and support each other. Regardless of label or motivation or perceived effort or perceived level of 'success'.

[Maid_Marion]

Youtube just picked this one for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8q2ifO3pI
Queen - I Want To Break Free (Official Video)
230,363,321 views

[abbiedrake]

Oh Marion snap!
I have the facial hair (watch this space!) and I do all the housework. Don't own a leather mini though...

[t-girlxsophie]

I honestly get tired forever having to justify or explain how I label myself.I picked My user name on here as I was happy being a T-girl then I was told oh no your not that,tranny was out, due to the negative connotations of that which I understand, then being on here there's eternal threads debating on whether your transvestite or crossdresder. Now add MIAD to the list, any more and my head will explode. I would rather just cut all the labelling bull****

I'm just Sophie living my life as happily as I can

Sophie

[Becky Blue]

I'd love to 'pass' but alas I feel I will only ever be a MIAD :(

It is EXACTLY for this reason that i started this thread. There is a massive difference between Bree who wishes she can pass and Phili who does not want to.

BTW Bree you would be amazed what proper makeup, a good wig and the right outfit can do for most of us on here.

AND a general comment to everyone who don't like labels, life is full of labels we cant avoid them, so lets at least try ensure they are accurate. I hate paying tax but I can't avoid it legally.

[Amelie]

I got confused and thought the thread was talking about dressing as a maid.

Also I get confused with all the terminology that is written on this forum and the web in general. Years ago when I use to go to clubs we were known as people, maybe we were known as people with an alternative lifestyle but we didn't call ourselves that. If one can remember in the UK the people called Blitz Kids and similar in the US(NYC) called Club Kids, then they will know what life was like back then for me. We just wanted to dress the way we wanted without describing to others what it meant. Though there were some like me that wanted to change genders or at least come close to it, as a non op transsexual.

But keep the discussion going, it makes for good reading.

[GeorgeA]

While I'm just starting, Id never go out in public. I don't have the body or the face for it. I don't know about later. If I shave and learn to put on makeup that might change. For now it's just in the bedroom. I like the term MIAD being brand new to this I never heard it before.
We started using it about a year and a half ago. I wanted to see if there are others like me so I asked the question:

https://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?251236-Are-you-a-Miad

There were others and the term became popular to describe us.

[Kas]

Thanks Cass, your reply to Kas saved me the trouble.

Kas, I am non-binary and I am non-binary ALL the time. I am non-binary when I'm naked and I'm non-binary when I have overalls on to the crawl under the car and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the clothes that I have on at any one time. Now, as it happens it matters to me that people realise they are not dealing with a brainwashed stereotypical binary person so my outward presentation is usually androgenous BUT this does not mean I am non-binary only when I present as a mixed gender. Oh and to be clear I never ever dress as a 'man in a dress'. On the rare occassions I do wear a dress I try to look like a woman. So no, you are wrong, NB and MIAD are NOT the same thing at all.

Looking at your replies to Becky and Cass it seems you just don't seem to get it, or at least you don't want to get it and would prefer an arguement. Try this statement: "Non-binary is a gender identity NOT a presentation". Simple really when you say it like that, I mean how hard is it to grasp that statement. Now go back to Salerbas' comment at #68. Salerba is a man, period, he identifies as a man all the time but it just so happens he likes to wear a dress every now and then (good call). I don't know but I'm sure he has other hobbies like fishing or something. Going fishing wouldn't change his gender identity and wearing a dress doesn't either. Salerba doesn't want to be described as non-binary because he isn't non-binary. I'm struggling to understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -



Well maybe not Cass because my non-binary bridge between binary genders is all about ones internal gender identity whereas Kas here is confusing presentation with identity. You stand in your correct place on the bridge naked, wearing clothes, any clothes, does not change the position towards one bank or the other.

Look, I understand where you’re coming from, but I invite you to watch Contrapoints (TS YouTube star) video on YouTube regarding aesthetics. She used the example, if a guy identifies as Transsexual, but does not want to transition, wear women’s clothes, talk/act/look like a woman, then can he really be considered as TS?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z1afqR5QkDM


You can personally identify as anything you want, but unless you fit the definition of a term in a physical/visual sense, you are not. Can you call somebody a crossdresser if they have never worn women’s clothing, but have only had the thought of doing so? I don’t think you can. A crossdresser is somebody who physically wears/has worn women’s clothing. Just as you cannot call somebody NB if they have never deviated from the Binary stereotypes society has created.

You can identify as being a dragon, but unless You grow wings, scales and can breathe fire, then sorry, but a dragon you are not. Physical characteristics are what makes something is what it is. Until you perform some kind of physical/visual action, all it is is a thought. For example, You can think about killing people all day long, but until you actually do it, you are not considered a murderer. In reality, what’s “in between your ears” means nothing. Actions are what matters and what defines us.

It’s like somebody dressed up in a dog suit telling you that they’re dressed like a cat. It doesn’t matter what they “think” they are dressed as, because everybody else in the world knows it’s a dog suit and will refer to it as such.

I believe the visual aspect is massive, because this is how every other person perceived/judges us. We need to consider how the general population views a term, not what we personally believe.

We must recognise that without any visuals, what would being TS, TG, NB or a CD even mean? If clothing, makeup, voice, the way we act don’t mean anything, then why do we do it? What we do is a VERY visual thing.