cross-dressing on wikipedia

[Aka_Donna]

What do you all think of the wikipedia article on CD? It does not seem to match the vibes on this forum.

[Taylor186]

What is your issue with it? You can always update it if you think it lacks in some area.

[Pixie_94]

I haven't checked it, not the one in English. What exactly did you see that may differ with what you see around here?

[Robertacd]

I dunno, I just skimmed it and it all sounded like the standard to me...

What part don't you like?

[kimdl93]

I read it. I would say that it provides a reasonably comprehensive and objective discussion of the subject from historical and psychological/motivational perspectives. Remember, cross dressing is the act of wearing clothing ordinarily associated with the opposite sex. The behavior can be prompted by a variety of circumstances and/or interests.

I am curious, how would you describe as the vibe here?

[Patience]

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia would be better if its vibe were more like what we have here?

[Stephanie47]

I am curious, how would you describe as the vibe here?

Wikipedia is always a "work in progress." It depends people with knowledge to add pertinent facts with citations, etc.

[docrobbysherry]

Why didn't u simply post it here? So, we all don't have to google it?:brolleyes:

[April Rose]

O.M.G. Doc. Seriously? I remember the days when we had to walk all the way to the bookshelf and pull down a heavy Encyclopedia!:lol2:

[Marianne S]

OK, Doc, here's the link ;)

Cross-dressing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing) on Wikipedia.

I don't see anything wrong with the article as a whole. It's very comprehensive, covering every imaginable motive for crossdressing: theatrical, disguise, social protest and so forth--so the balance of the article's content is different from what we find here.

I hope nobody chokes on this sentence, which occurs early on:

[According to] Edward Carpenter: "Cross-dressing must be taken as a general indication of, and a cognate phenomenon to, homosexuality"

Obviously Carpenter was wrong, but that sentence is not an assertion the article itself is making, only a quotation to illustrate the origin of the term "cross-dressing."

The only odd thing I found is that the article mentions nearly every possible reason for crossdressing while never explicitly listing "gender identity" or "gender dysphoria." And up front it says "Cross-dressing is not synonymous with being transgender." This of course is true. A person doesn't have to be transgender to crossdress. Yet it leaves the paradoxical impression that those do wear the clothes of the opposite sex to express a divergent gender identity can not be counted as "crossdressers"!

[BrendaPDX]

Nothing captures the vibe of this forum! It's tough to go someplace else once you have hit pay dirt.