Labels

[Tree GG]

In the "guy in a dress" thread there is much debate about labels and peeps refusing to be labelled as one thing or the other or taking offense to labels as simple as 'sir'or 'ma'am'.

I find that puzzling - especially coming from MTF CDs.

To Crossdress is to outwarding present in the gender opposite of your birth gender. A=female and B=male. For illustration, B wants to look like/act like/sound like/be treated like an A by other people. (passing, right?)

So this exemplary person must first define A & B, and therefore label him/her-self and assign characteristics they have/are now to modify themself to the other. Hence they use the very same labels that they resist and state are useless, judgemental and meaningless. But if they have no meaning, then A or B is irrelevant and there is no need for A to be B or B to be A.

And we all here know that is not true. So labels must have meaning. I wonder if color-blind folks are offended by the word 'red' and traffic lights? They can't see 'red' but they know the top light illuminated means stop.

[TracyH]

Male and Female are okay, but when people start nitpicking between those subdivisions of cross dressing it just gives me a headache.

[Mary Morgan]

Tree, Correct again as you are so often. It isnt the label that troubles me as much as the context it is placed in. We all know how to use the same word in a constructive or destructive way. As long as respect isn't sacrificed in the discourse, "... names will never hurt me". Mary

[Deanna2]

As a label-hater I think your major premise is way off. A person may not wish to be judged on a gender basis and consider it offensive to be labelled. In fact isn't this what women's lib is all about. Irrespective of gender many people just want to be regarded as a person who can think and act in a way that suits that individual.

Is a woman in a check shirt, jeans and boots cross-dressing or being comfortable? If I wear a camisole, skirt and high heels, am I cross-dressing or being comfortable? If the answer to the first question is one thing, why can't the second question have the same answer? It is because society is lazy about thinking and creates labels to ward off making decisions about each and every situation.

So let's forget about labels, regard people as individuals and treat them as we find them.

[deja true]

Yeah, Tree, honey, it's not the labels Male and Female that are the issue, it's the labels and confusion around CD, TV, TS, TG, and all their variants that seem to be the contentious part.

As a matter fact, there are at least two threads at the top of the new post page right now that keep going over the same thing.

It's usually a newbie, who hasn't read any of the back threads that posts something like "Am I a CD or a TV?" as one of their first posts. That's okay, but it always brings out the antilabelling contingent (including my self). Not to give them a label, but to ask that they do their own research and soul searching to figure out if, A) they want or need a label and B) what label do they think fits them best, rather than take somebody else's opinion. Our search is for individualism and comfort with own own identities, not a search for a niche to jump into.

I want to feel part of a great big all-inclusive group, not a clique within one. L'union fait la Force!

deja

[MJ]

***Example *** so all woman who go to bars are easy pick up a cheep easy date and if you get her loaded up she'll do anything you want . insert label here *-------*
**Example 2 ** all trans-woman who go to bars are easy pick up a cheep easy date and if you get her loaded up she'll do anything you want . insert label here *-------*

we know thats not true . yes some do..but most don't , but why paint us all with the same brush .. or stick the same label on everyone .

i hope not or I've been doing this all wrong

[Vicky_Scot]

This is all so confussing and it does not have to be.

Can we not just use this one simple and small word to describe ourselves.

So next time anyone ask what you are, just reply.

I am "ME"

Xx Vicky xX

[Nicki B]

If the one thing that came from this thread was that people didn't say such things in future, then it would have been worthwhile?

Otherwise, it's just yet another sad labels argument - haven't we had enough of those? :sad:

Guess the answer's no to both, then. :sad:

Your presumption is based on a binary view of the world - that you can be only either male or female?

Tree, would you define yourself as solely feminine?

[Tree GG]

Nicki, with all due respect I think you are and have used, a binary outlook on this issue as well - how you label things vs how someone else labels things.

Everyone uses labels. "A rose by any other name" is true, but if I call it a rose and you call it a daisy, we would have a rough time discussing this flower in the abstract. Especially if what I called a flower, you called a bus.

My point is that many MTF CDers object to "labels" yet they have used those same labels in their self-definition. They have labelled themselves 'male', assigned qualities and attributes to that, decided it doesn't fit themselves or they just don't want to be that way, and chosen a new label. To dress 'en femme', 'more feminine', 'as the female gender'. And then proceed to try to create that personna based on their definition of that label. I didn't make up the term "en femme". MTF CDs did. I don't insist they be called "she" or by a femme name, they do. They buy into the 'female' label.

So the label "guy in a dress" when applied to a CDer is appropriate for the English language and I don't believe it should be offensive. A point was made earlier by Louise which I believe is important. If a friend or acquaintance said to me, "Your just a woman in dungarees", I'd say, yeah, so what? If my husband said that, I would probably go off. I would interpret his comment as criticism based on previous conversations. Context is very important.

So this thread is meant to point at that rejecting "labels" is just silly and unrealistic. They are necessary. "I refuse to accept being labelled, yet I want you to label me as 'female'" just makes no sense to me.

[Carly D.]

This is mind numbing.. I think whatever degree you want to wear is fine.. crossdressing is a form of self expression, nothing more and nothing less.. if you want to label yourself then by golly you just do that.. as for myself, I think I would label myself Campbell's chunky soup.. the soup that eats like a meal...

[Michelle-NC]

I think a lot of the issue with labels are the definition. It seems different labels mean different things to different people. While yes, the Red Traffic light, meaning the top light means stop to anyone, whether they are color blind or not, the CDing label does not mean the same to everyone. For some it is a completely different meaning, and therefore even those who are doing it are sometimes confused as to what to "label" ourselves.

If we find a lable offensive, by our own definitions and not yours, then one would not want to be put into that category, for whatever our reasons.

I am a bi-CDer, and many on this board would hate that label, as being bi then becomes associated with all CDers...but I don't mind that label, as that is what I am...and am comfortable with it.

However, the question does remain, why can I not just be Michelle, instead of Michelle the Bi-CDer?

[deja true]

I think I'm following your reasoning Tree, but still sorta disagree ...

"I refuse to accept being labelled, yet I want you to label me as 'female'" just makes no sense to me. "

Maybe I'm in a minority, but I don't care if you label me 'male' or 'female'. Heck, you're right. I know I'm a male...for now. SoI can accept that truth.

But I'd appreciate being perceived as feminine, a different concept than the binary 'male or 'female'. Presentation doesn't fit into the binary.There are infinite shades. Venus Williams is not the same kind of feminine as Heather Locklear or Edie Izzard. And I cannot think of them as points on a sliding scale or spectrum either. They're all just different, each unique.

As wonderful and expressive as the English language is, it's still difficult to get into print what's going on in our minds. I think we really all agree more than disagree, it's just that our personal mental dictionaries and thesauri assign different shades of meaning to terms we all know in common.

So no argument, doll, I'm just using a different edition of the same volumes, I think...

deja

[battybattybats]

All language is by nature inaccurate. Clumsy tools we attempt to communicate with. Offensive... well it's not so simplistic.

Is it offensive to call someone of mixed ethnic heritage White when they consider themselves Black?

The term 'blue-eyed black' was a pretty common racist put-down for Aboriginal people in australia of mixed heritage.

So someone whose outer shell is male but who attempt to display the inner woman may too be offended. Even if they feel they are both male and female inside.

Should overweight people not be offended when referred to in public as fat?

The disabled being called crippled?

Oh there can be much offense in a seemingly accurate sentence of the english language both intended or unintended.

[ashlee chiffon]

this community is as varied as the labels and the biggest problem is that many straight males that dress resent being called trans-anything...so cd became the popular term to discripe those that partake in this lifestyle...transvestite was even more offensive, for some reason so rarely used anymore without the hint of insult *because of sexual connotations to the term?"
there's probably 200 variations of the cd theme in our group alone! Most of us probably change our outlooks as we go thru life towards our dressing..so even we sometimes don't know what to call ourselves! :heehee:
its just a confusing world, to say the least..thank heavens for our ability to escape in femininity!

[Lessa Lynn Young]

Labels are part of the human condition needed to give concepts meaning. They can also be helpful in that they can bring awareness to those who have no understanding, some will choose to enhance their horizons by learning more about the given labels while others will just as soon stick to their preconceived notions of their systems. For me I am fat/overweight, I am also transgendered as well as being handicapped/disabled though not necessarily crippled. I understand all of these things and have chosen in my life not to take offense from them. To me those who attempt to give offense with their actions or words only show me that they have a long way to go on their human and spiritual paths. It is up to me to bring understanding to those will to understand and hope that those who are not find it within themselves to find the path which will make life easier for us all. Don't get me wrong here I can be offended but actions that offend me are those that will bring physical harm to others and by no means do I find mental abuse to be acceptable but I try in my life to help those who suffer from it to understand that it is within themselves to find the truth and believe that truth and not that which comes from outside sources.

[Kayla Shadows]

Yes,crossdressing is the outward expression of the gender opposite of what you were born.A woman in jeans is very far from a man in full dress.What I don't understand is..how can you tell somebody who is hurt,that it shouldn't hurt?....Our souls are not the same.For some,who they present is who they want to be.What we believe may not be truth to someone else.

[crusadergirl]

Labels its one of thoses subjects i don't seem to like. Like i said in my last post on this subject why can't we just be called by the names we use. Not be called a man in a dress.
For me i'm just who i am not a label just me.
I don't label others are myself.

[victoriamwilliams1]

Personally when I dress I prefer to be addressed as a woman, However that is my preference. People assign labels based on appearance and being that I am in the TG/CD community I think this is a issue more with the M2F and not with the F2M. I think that those of us who seek acceptance vs. passing also what to be addressed in the pronoun of how we appear in public. In the early years of my dressing I was addresses as sir by a sales associate and I at the time was not offended and worked to make sure that did not happen again and it has not.

Today most people will give you the cutesy to address you based on how you are dressed and not what they think, we in the U.S. are too easy to create legal problems for business and individuals over a pronoun so most people though they want to say something they do not partiality because of the legal system.

However this issue goes deeper even in our profiles which if you wish to choose male and you are a M2F most people who visit your profiles on other services will either not believe or start ridicule a person, I chose female because I do not want that to happen plus most people know you are not what you appear to be.

This debait will continue for a while.

All I know is I am a M2F CD or TG.

[jessielee]

what is language but a code that most of us agree upon, most of the time?
yellowstone park rangers say its alright to call the bison buffalo, we know what you mean and we say it too, some do. i say bison because genetically the american buffalo is totally different fro african cape buffalo or asian water buffalo. except, slang has its uses. do you you know buffalo NY is named because the critters once ranged all over including there before being decimated to control the first americans and demoralize them? i won't talk about col. wm. f. bison bill cody or order a bison porterhouse. so sue me. won't say antelope either when talking of prongorn. there are real antelope elsewhere. yet this is not about political correctness, bison and pronghorn don't care what you call them. surprisingly, more first americans than not including the scholars i reference like vine deloria, rest his soul. prefer american indian to native american for their own political resons, american indian includes natives of guam and samoa and alaska (fighting words there), heck i'm a native american - all but meaningless.
so in dubois wyoming i say doo boys out respect for the local parlance and in dubois idaho i say it right (for the french heritage where it came from).
my dears, i wish to respect you whenever and always.
in hopes of someday being respected too. as femme.
goof alert Deja, had to type fast at the library no computer for now
love
j

[Carroll]

Oh wow...I hate labels too. They tend to be scatchy and annoying. Most of the time I cut them off. Sometimes there is too much info on a label I get a headache trying to read all that small print. Its great that there other label haters out there that were smart and had the label Ironed into the underware and t-shirts. :D

[Badwolf]

Just a small rant of mine...sorry if its too long but this argument is as old as time. My simple more abstract description of the below is that to say bans on certain labels is a limitation of freedom, a freedom that Trans are trying to claim in order to live their lives the way they want to. Yet socially I agree that to focus only on the present set of labels has been a problem for the Trans community since its beginnings and is therefore generally a detestable limitation as well.

Labels, just to put it into context, have to have a meaning. But remember labels are created and destroyed over generations. Fag in particular has undergone many different things and is particularly detestable label right now. As is it is up to society to come up with the appropriate set of labels to describe what it needs and to destroy them when they are redundant, detestable, or unnecessary. In a perfect world these labels would be non-judgmental and would be created and treated in such a way as only simple descriptive terms. The he/she argument within the trans community is null since there are so many different shades of blue and pink within it that it is impossible for those two simple terms to define anything. As such it should be avoided on these forums other than the fact that the usage of them can be fun and easier to use considering we don't only live within the only Trans community.

[Nicki B]

Nicki, with all due respect I think you are and have used, a binary outlook on this issue as well - how you label things vs how someone else labels things.

Tree, we're talking about labelling people, with feelings - not things? And I'm not telling anyone else they're a rose, or a daisy - just asking you to call me a Rose? :)

[Joy Carter]

"When it say's Libby's Libby's Libby's
On the lable lable lable
You will like it like it like it
On your table table table"

:heehee:

[Carroll]

"When it say's Libby's Libby's Libby's
On the lable lable lable
You will like it like it like it
On your table table table"

:heehee:

:clap::cheer::laughing::lol:

[Jacqui]

I am a color-blind CD who might be TS with rare fantasies of "you know what" but probably wouldn't, but you never know unless you tried.

So, if anyone can give me one-word that covers me, I don't think I would be the least offended and if there are any others like me out there, please let me know, I'd love to chat.

You can call me CD.
You can call me TG.
You can call me TS.
You can call me STRAIGHT.
You can call me BI.
You can call me GAY.
You can call me a WANNABE LESBIAN.
Just don't call me before 7am!

Jacqui (ME)

[shirley1]

the only label i'm now interested in is the one that tells me what size the skirt or dress is !

[Josey]

Lessa Lynn Young stated the view well. I wish I had said the very same thing...but would be redundate if stated here. As a newbie I find all responses of value and add to my own enlightenment on a wide variety of issues brought forward on this web site. Thanks to all for your views!

[Valeria]

To Crossdress is to outwarding present in the gender opposite of your birth gender.
I don't agree with that definition at all.

I was assigned "male" at birth, but I'm a post-op trans female who has lived as a woman and been legally female for years. I'm medically female too - the two doctors I see most frequently are my gynecologist and my endocrinologist. I even have a baby daughter who I've breastfed. Naturally, my lesbian life partner knows my full medical history (she was there with me for my surgery), but none of my friends or classmates or coworkers have any inkling of my medical past. Not even all of my doctors know - only those for whom it's medically relevant.

Obviously, I present as female constantly - though I'm not particularly "girly", and I rarely wear makeup or dresses (I do love pretty earrings, though).

My point is that I'm fully assimilated into life as a lesbian woman. The only way I can crossdress is to wear men's clothing.

The problem with the quote above is your insertion of the word "birth" into the definition. A more typical definition would be "to dress in the clothing characteristic of the opposite gender" (which still may not satisfy everyone, because it relies on the concept of the gender binary, but it is closer to the general meaning of the term).

[Tree GG]

Thanks for all the comments.

Joy, that Libby's commercial is OLD! I think we're dating ourselves there. :D

Kehleyr, I believe I stated in both my posts that I was mainly referring to MTF CDs. I didn't realize a post-op TS would identify as MTF CD, but that is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Jacqui summed it up very well. And someone else (I believe in the other thread) said, just label me, ME.

Labels are a necessary evil of language. The connotations and values I assign to any set of words is mine to decide. It probably doesn't jive 100% with anyone else's meanings. Telling someone else they have to subscribe to my definitions is way over control - it's not my right.

So if someone calls me fat, or old, or repressed or b**chy.....so what? #1, many of those may be accurate. #2 Being offended at the accuracy doesn't change the reality. #3 If I'm happy with myself, and those things are true, I'm still happy. #4 If they're not true, then the words were said with malice and should be ignored anyway.

He....she.....it....sir....ma'am....kiddo. They're all just words they have only a variable importance that each individual assigns them.

[Kate Simmons]

I'm kind of ambivalent when it comes to the whole label issue Tree. While I somewhat use them as a point of reference for simplicity, they in no way are my defination of a person as being just one thing or another. I avoid using pronouns for the same reason if possible and call a person by name because it is the person I identify with and relate to as per being themself vs putting them into any kind of "class" as we are all unique individuals after all. For instance, if I were talking to you or about you, I would be talking about my friend Tree and in my mind anyway(while it is obvious who you are), I do not classify you as per gender or presentation, simply as the person I know and appreciate.

While I realize that we kind of automatically get more or less "pigeonholed" by virtue of who we are, that in no way affects my perception of a person on an individual basis because the person is the most important thing to me. I guess a lot of it depends on a person's overall understanding and outlook on things in general.:)

[Kiera]

Personally I do not like many of the labels used to describe us. It is not merely the definition of the words that I do not like, but rather the image of each in my own mind that I find disturbing. While the definition of any particular term may be correct to describe me, the thoughts and emotions the word brings to my mind may not be favorable. Hope i was able to get my meaning across.... btw I have grown to prefer the term GURL.....
hugs
kiera

[Nicki B]

Labels are a necessary evil of language. The connotations and values I assign to any set of words is mine to decide. It probably doesn't jive 100% with anyone else's meanings. Telling someone else they have to subscribe to my definitions is way over control - it's not my right.

So if someone calls me fat, or old, or repressed or b**chy.....so what? #1, many of those may be accurate. #2 Being offended at the accuracy doesn't change the reality. #3 If I'm happy with myself, and those things are true, I'm still happy. #4 If they're not true, then the words were said with malice and should be ignored anyway.

I agree, we need labels to discuss broad concepts. The problems often come when we get to the detail and particularly when we talk about individuals?

I made (I hope) a pertinent comment here (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1238552&posted=1#post1238552) of my opinion on useful labels?

As for calling you names and being happy with yourself, I wholeheartedly agree - if you are happy with yourself?

Unfortunately I bet even for you, there are times those type of comments can catch you on the raw? I know they can do for me (fat, old AND bitchy?! ;) ).

And, as a generalisation, there are quite a few amongst us who find spending a lifetime trying to fit into a hole which is the wrong shape leaves us less than comfortable about ourselves? There are too many 'fragile' people in this community? That's one of the reasons for the arguments.. :hiding:

[Valeria]

Kehleyr, I believe I stated in both my posts that I was mainly referring to MTF CDs. I didn't realize a post-op TS would identify as MTF CD, but that is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Well, I don't identify as a MTD CD, of course - any more than you do. That's why I pointed out that your posted definition was overly broad, and includes TS and intersexed women who aren't crossdressers by any reasonable definition.

[Nicki B]

A more typical definition would be "to dress in the clothing characteristic of the opposite gender" (which still may not satisfy everyone, because it relies on the concept of the gender binary, but it is closer to the general meaning of the term).

Doesn't the term 'crossdresser' depend on that binary assumption, too?

Crossdresser has never seemed a useful term, to me - it simply describes what someone does, not why. Mind I think it was picked politically originally with that in mind - as a smokescreen?

[Valeria]

Doesn't the term 'crossdresser' depend on that binary assumption, too?
Y'all non-binary people just have to make everything more difficult, don't you? :)

[Nicki B]

:D .

[Roberta Llyan]

In the "guy in a dress" thread there is much debate about labels and peeps refusing to be labelled as one thing or the other or taking offense to labels as simple as 'sir'or 'ma'am'.

I find that puzzling - especially coming from MTF CDs.

To Crossdress is to outwarding present in the gender opposite of your birth gender. A=female and B=male. For illustration, B wants to look like/act like/sound like/be treated like an A by other people. (passing, right?)

So this exemplary person must first define A & B, and therefore label him/her-self and assign characteristics they have/are now to modify themself to the other. Hence they use the very same labels that they resist and state are useless, judgemental and meaningless. But if they have no meaning, then A or B is irrelevant and there is no need for A to be B or B to be A.

And we all here know that is not true. So labels must have meaning. I wonder if color-blind folks are offended by the word 'red' and traffic lights? They can't see 'red' but they know the top light illuminated means stop.

I can certainly appreciate and think you correct in what you are saying. However, the mind is unable to comprehend anything unless it can label it with some label. For without a label it is a void nether. Therefore, we automatically label everything so we can define or understand it.

That is the ONLY way we can comprehend it.