labeling versus descibing

[Tamera]

Seems to me there has been some talk of girls that don't like to be labeled.

Well maybe in some cases they are not being labeled but being described.

If you was to ask to describe your neighbor. And you started out by saying he was a male or female, some may think that already you are labeling when in reality you are describing. For instance that person is BI, TG, etc.

Some girls get offensive when they are being described because they think they are being labeled.

Tamera

[Marla S]

It depends on the usage (within a community, outside of a community), association (positive, negative) and the definition (broad or narrow) if something is descriptive or labeling, positive or negative.

CD used within the community is descriptive and integrative in the first instance.
Outside the community it is labeling and separative.

Here associations with CD are rather positive.
In the 'real' world it's rather negative.

If the definition is narrow (only if you doll up to the nines, or present yourself as a woman) it's labeling.
If CD means the act of wearing clothes intended for the opposite gender it is descriptive.

For me CD with a broad definition within this community is descriptive.
Outside this community I am still CD but want to be described as feminine man, anticipating that the usage of CD by 'outsiders' has rather negative associations and with a narrow definition meaning a special type of CDs/transvestites.

Simple, isn't it :heehee:

[battybattybats]

I've seen the same thing with some illnesses. I understand that people don't want to be thought of as "the person that has 'that'!" but when you go for years seriously ill and no-one can tell you what is wrong with you and then you find the name for it, I speak from experience to say that can be a very good thing.

Now while terms like CD, TS or TG don't describe something wrong, they do describe a difference from that which is not those things. Stereotypes compound the association, positive or negative, that people attach to those terms.

There can aslo be flaws in simple descriptions. some people don't know where they fit or fall between the cracks.

It also depends on whther someone feels good about belonging to a certain group or whether they are comfortable with acknowledging that part of themselves or their life.

[Billijo49504]

Me, I'm just an old fart that dresses as a gurl and is a guy, but doesn''t know it yet...BJ

[Sheri 4242]

IMHO, it is really very simple . . . most of the time on this forum we get to discussing terms/definitions, and one of us will offer up standardized definitions simply so we can communicate -- so that we know we are all on the same page.

This is NOT an attempt to label, or stereotype, or "box in" anyone!!!

Yet, a few will get upset and claim that this is exactly what is being done: labeling. It isn't!!!!!!! How the heck could we discuss any topic if we didn't have a point of reference based on definitions by which to communicate!!!!!!! We'd be pretty pathetic not being able to communicate vis-a-vis a certain set of agreed-upon terms. I have never known a group that couldn't agree that, to communicate in a free and open fashion, certain terms are necessary to facilitate discussions!!!!!!!

[Chelseaswpa]

Seems to me there has been some talk of girls that don't like to be labeled.

Well maybe in some cases they are not being labeled but being described.

If you was to ask to describe your neighbor. And you started out by saying he was a male or female, some may think that already you are labeling when in reality you are describing. For instance that person is BI, TG, etc.

Some girls get offensive when they are being described because they think they are being labeled.

Tamera

I am one of those so sorry:love: But sometimes I get so confused by the labels myself (must be my blondness) Tamera you are quite correct tho honey, unless you really know someone, it is nice to know where the y fall in the scheme of things. Okay let me try - I am pretty sure I am TG- cant explain it right now but pretty sure. I know I am attracted to males- but only to other girls like us- so I would love someone to help me with that label- cause I am not sure. Maybe that is why I dislike labels because I am kind of new to this and dont want to tell someone the wrong thing! So I am looking for input from you all! :hugs:

[Chelseaswpa]

IMHO, it is really very simple . . . most of the time on this forum we get to discussing terms/definitions, and one of us will offer up standardized definitions simply so we can communicate -- so that we know we are all on the same page.

This is NOT an attempt to label, or stereotype, or "box in" anyone!!!

Yet, a few will get upset and claim that this is exactly what is being done: labeling. It isn't!!!!!!! How the heck could we discuss any topic if we didn't have a point of reference based on definitions by which to communicate!!!!!!! We'd be pretty pathetic not being able to communicate vis-a-vis a certain set of agreed-upon terms. I have never known a group that couldn't agree that, to communicate in a free and open fashion, certain terms are necessary to facilitate discussions!!!!!!!

sorry Sheri I did not mean to forget your post as well:hugs:

[Kate Simmons]

Well, I just use the CD term as convenience Tamera. As you say just for describing mostly. What does annoy me slightly is that the term does not really describe who I am as a person is is merely a blanket observation. When another gal comes up to me and says she is so and so and a crossdresser, I just roll my eyes. I usually respond with: "Hi, I'm Salandra and I'm myself" after which I usually get a slightly bewildered look.:happy:

[Kate Simmons]

Me, I'm just an old fart that dresses as a gurl and is a guy, but doesn''t know it yet...BJYeah, I know the feeling BJ.:heehee:

[LisaRose]

A label is nothing more than a word for a concept. The problem arises when the definition of a concept doesn't match the definition of someone elses perception of that same concept. Take cd'ing for example. To me Crossdressing is that simple; dressing in the clothes of the opposite gender. It's got nothing to do with make-up, wigs, or voice lessons. It's just clothes. Crossdressing to me is also a direct translation of Transvestism, or crossdresser is a direct translation of Transvestite. Transvestism--Trans=to cross, vestism=to dress. Our culture or the group you may be in simple has chosen to change the definition to soot (sp?) it's own needs.

Another example would be the word gay. Look it up in the dictionary, there's about a dozen defintions. My favorite use of the word is "Now we dawn our gay apparrel." I'm guessing it now means to get dressed up to go to a gay bar. Didn't mean that, though, when I was growing up.

I'm thinking if we don't want to upset anyone on this forum the moderators should write the defintions of any word that may be a source of any disagreement. Then we should be allowed to vote on the definition until everyone is happy with it and swear an oath to abide by the so stated word. If we can't get a concensus then perhaps we should elect two Senators from every State and 1 Representative for every 1 million people, then send them to one of the most expensive areas of the World so they can sit around and fight over the definitions while the rest of us go about our every day lives and hope our representatives don't vote themselves raises until we no longer have the financials means to dress no matter what fashion we choose to wear.


Or, perhaps we can change the way we write. Writing defintions if we think what we are trying to say might offend someone should we be thinking about using a word that maybe controversial (sp?). Or, perhaps what we want to say in a way that won't upset someone. I know my standard procedure is to rattle off something. Post it without really think about it. Then get p*ssed off about it when someone else may respond negatively.

It is about communication and we should simply be more conscience about who are readers maybe. Kind of like saying something in public when you don't know who may be listening.


:love::hugs::cheer::chatterbox::cute::evilbegon:ju mping::kissing::luvu::Party2::twirl:

[Julogden]

IMHO, it is really very simple . . . most of the time on this forum we get to discussing terms/definitions, and one of us will offer up standardized definitions simply so we can communicate -- so that we know we are all on the same page.

This is NOT an attempt to label, or stereotype, or "box in" anyone!!!

Yet, a few will get upset and claim that this is exactly what is being done: labeling. It isn't!!!!!!! How the heck could we discuss any topic if we didn't have a point of reference based on definitions by which to communicate!!!!!!! We'd be pretty pathetic not being able to communicate vis-a-vis a certain set of agreed-upon terms. I have never known a group that couldn't agree that, to communicate in a free and open fashion, certain terms are necessary to facilitate discussions!!!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!!!

Carol

[Marcie Sexton]

I agree with Marla...it all depends on how a word is used...

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

soot (sp?)

Suit. (:


I think if someone doesn't like to be labeled, they should put some effort into convincing the labeler as to how they think they should be referred. No one should expect anyone else to just fall in line with their own thought processes. I know my own processes vary greatly from the next person so I try to obtain a deep understanding of what is being said to or at me before reacting instinctively.

[Khriss]

I Believe,
I've been missunderstood , by the general "society" I live in..

then again , by people .. or persons , that I've reached out to ...
as what I'de hoped we're "sisters" ....
wishing they might comfort me ..explain some things and, make life as "I Live IT " ...less painfull .... more "understandable" .. perhaps .... and "HOPE" I'd supose-
reasons I log -on -here-
"K"

[Sheri 4242]

My favorite use of the word is "Now we dawn our gay apparrel." I'm guessing it now means to get dressed up to go to a gay bar. Didn't mean that, though, when I was growing up.

It is, "Now we don our gay apparrel . . ." from the Christmas carol "Deck the Halls." At the time it was written, "gay" meant happy, festive, and merry, thus the verse from the song meant, "now we put on our festive (seasonal/party) clothing."

"Gay" began to be used to mean a homosexual in the 1960's/early 1970's, so a couple of generations have grown up with that reference for the word!!! I recall a cartoon in Playboy in the late 1960's/early '70's -- of course it portrayed an incorrect stereotype but still was good for a chuckle -- where a guy was dressing up in a "merry widow, stockings, and MMFMP's" -- a christmas tree in the background -- and the guy singing, "now we don our gay apparel, fa la la la la'a,,, la/la,, la, la . . . " :lol2:



I'm thinking if we don't want to upset anyone on this forum the moderators should write the defintions of any word that may be a source of any disagreement. Then we should be allowed to vote on the definition until everyone is happy with it and swear an oath to abide by the so stated word. If we can't get a concensus then perhaps we should elect two Senators from every State and 1 Representative for every 1 million people, then send them to one of the most expensive areas of the World so they can sit around and fight over the definitions while the rest of us go about our every day lives and hope our representatives don't vote themselves raises until we no longer have the financials means to dress no matter what fashion we choose to wear.

Oh, you'd still have disagreements about it b/c some would decide they didn't like this or that -- or say they were being fenced/boxed in or labeled.

The thing is, words have meaning -- and when you put words together, you have sentences (or fragments the way some of us write :lol2: ), and gee, we end up having tools for communication. If you don't like the generally accepted definition of a word, don't use it -- find another way of saying what you want to say, but don't take away the right's of others to freely communicate through words that have standarized definitions (in either regular, medical, or psychological dictionaries).



perhaps we can change the way we write.

By all means . . . :tongueout