When crossdressing is simply dressing
This is a theme I've occasionally written about, and right now I feel like taking a stroll through these ideas.
One of the things I've learned from this forum is that there are many, many reasons a genetic male would choose to wear women's clothing. First off, I do not like using the term "women's clothing" but would prefer "feminine clothing" instead. Let's face it; women wear masculine clothing without so much as minor blink, but the reverse is not true ... yet.
Some males wear femme clothing for the rush, some for the emotional release, some to display "another side", while others do so because they wish to "be" female. The list goes on and on. But in all cases, we take as a given that it is a male who wishes to dress like a female.
Yet, this basic premise is, IMHO, flawed. It assumes there are only two genders. What if there there were three genders? Or four? Or perhaps a gender continuum? How then would we define "crossdressing"?
First, the prefix "cross-" would be meaningless. It assume two, polar genders which in our discussion would be two of many, perhaps with significant overlap.
Okay, so let's use the term "counterdressing"; that is to dress in a fashion other than your specific gender. This would work as it maintains the intent of the term "crossdressing" while acknowledging a multiplicity of genders.
Therefore, if one is a gender other than male or female, a gender that shares attributes of both, and one was dressing with respect to this third gender, then it would not be "counterdressing". But, if one still adhered to the old polar view of gender, it would be "crossdressing".
This is the confusion I find in the use of all of these terms. Personally, I'm looking to simply dress as me, as the gender I see myself as, whatever that might be. I am not attempting to either "crossdress" or "counterdress", but simply to "dress".
So, it seems that "crossdressing" for one of us is simply "dressing" for another. If that is the case, then I also feel that it is imperative to allow each of us to express ourselves as we see fit. There is no single definition for what we do, nor should there be. To adopt rigid definitions, either consciously or not, serves our group a disservice.
I will admit, I find it hard to rationalize why someone would want to dress in a manner such that they "become" someone else. But that is simply a reflection of my my personal experience and understandings. I work hard at being as accepting of others as I can. Life's too short to do otherwise.
I would also hope that as I describe the type of clothes I enjoy wearing (when I get the chance to wear them) and the fact that I have a well-cropped beard, that others will simply say, "Oh, that's Bill, and he's okay." I can even imagine someone choosing not to shave any hair from their body. Of course, this will not work with "every" type of outfit, but for some outfits it is perfectly fine.
I look forward to the day when terms such as "crossdressing" and "counterdressing" slip out of use because they no longer have any current meaning. I sincerely hope that day comes very, very soon.
Toodles!
Bill
Byllie, u can CALL YOURSELF a DUCK!
Even cover yourself with feathers! But, the general public will reject your premise and u! :brolleyes:
For MOST folks, if you're born with a penis, you're MALE! If borm without one, female!
And sadly, most don't really care to discuss "gender diversity"!:doh:
When is crossdressing simply dressing?
When you rid yourself of the fear of what others think, or label you, and you being to just live the life that suits you.
Kel