Not trans? Huh? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krisi

That only works if you decide that WPATH has the right to define the word. I think common usage would be a bit different.

---

OK I don't get this. So because someone says something enough it overrides what is considered correct? "I could care less" is the common usage of the actual phrase "I couldn't care less" The word "Aks" as in "Let me AKS you something" is incorrect, so we should throw out the correct usage because it is common?

Why does WPATH get to define the word? Because in the world of science we need words and phrases that everyone agrees on to communicate. WPATH is the group who is foremost in the Trans (oops..sorry...that slipped out) world. When they invented cars someone called the piece that sucks air and mixes it with gas a carburetor...so every mechanic could communicate that instead of saying "that sucky thing". Who if you don't think WPATH has the right, does have the right to make a word that will define the gender dysphoric community? Just because a word is used commonly...doesn't make it correct.

And why should we start excluding sections ( ie fetish dressers)? You start with one group ten it makes it easy to exclude others

Probably me, Nadine. But, I'm old and you'll often find me trying to pull my foot out of my mouth here!

What I probably meant was; "I'm not TS, I'm a CD." Or; "I don't feel like I'm transgender."

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to be more specific in the future!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenniferathome

Again, I am feeling unique.

---

You're unique here, on this forum, which leans quite heavily toward the gender dysphoric side of life than others, even some of the other GG support forums I've frequented where you'd expect the worst cases. Instead, most of the husbands were like you. They don't bother to join forums like this one because there's no internal conflict. Crossdressing is a weird compulsion that they secretly enjoy and it's the wives who struggle with the contrast of masculine husband wearing women's clothing.

Whether these men fit under the transgender umbrella is almost irrelevant as I doubt most of the 'hobby' dressers (who I suspect make up the majority) care much for labels. It's a private matter and they just get on with it...much to their wife's annoyance, lol. I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. If this also means they're TG, I guess that just makes y'all a very big and very diverse group. :)

Generally someone who says they are "not trans" would imply "not transsexual".

I have been to cross-dresser meetings where members referred to dressing as "an expensive hobby" and were "all man under this dress".
Others have even referred to it as a "kinky fetish".
I was actually a bit put off by the attitude of some of the men at these meetings.

At transgender support meetings, most have the desire to present as female as often and as effectively as they can, and may or may not have the desire to transition.
I tend to see more transsexuals and people who are gender dysphoric at these meetings.

The term transgender was created to describe the entire spectrum, from those who are "type 1 - fetish dressers, wearing only a few specific items, often for sexual pleasure, to type 6 - Transsexuals who are so dysphoric that without treatment they will try to castrate themselves, mutilate themselves, or commit suicide if forced to live in their birth genders - often before they are 30. The Hijri of India submit to castration and emasculation without anesthesia. Many come from across the country to join, knowing the procedure required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DebbieL

...The Hijri of India submit to castration and emasculation without anesthesia. Many come from across the country to join, knowing the procedure required.

---

In Britain, we call that becoming a politician. :heehee:

I always identify initially as Transgender and will then use the 'TG' or 'Trans' tags when talking to people about my identity. This was the standard grammatical construct taught at school, full word first, abbreviation in brackets, so I tend to follow it in life. If it needs further clarification, I give it. Common, all garden CD - that is moi!

Oh yeah! Crochety moment from the old girl - "I blame it all on the winterweb, all that on the line chat stuff....innit" :devil:

Rebecca

For the mathematicians/engineers/other scientists among us, perpaps this makes it clearer:

• crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and

• transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS. :)

/geekmode off

i'm a trans*y CD girly TG/etc/* --and pretty pleased about it!

i just got really lucky, i guess! lol!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natcrys

For the mathematicians/engineers/other scientists among us, perpaps this makes it clearer:

---

Thank You! Now I understand:lol:

Seriously, that is as good of an explanation as there is.

"•crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and

•transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS"


I have never been offended by someone calling me "transgendered" but I suspect there may be a few who might be offended by me calling myself "transgendered". I guess they will just have to get over it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katey888

...One question still bugs me though - if you identify as totally male, how do you explain that this identity is not subverted when you exhibit publicly as a female? As others have noted, and you yourself admit, you put a great deal of effort into looking as feminine as possible and yet you maintain that the reason you choose to express as a female is nothing to do with gender, but you must also admit that being a 'dude in a dress' as a choice of pastime is choosing a hugely stigmatised and potentially damaging way of simply... doing fancy dress...? If you specifically had no gender need to reflect feminine, wouldn't you just go out wearing a cowboy outfit or biker gear...? Even something that might be non-conformant but reinforced your 100% male identity...?

It just seems really unusual... :)

---

Katey, I see why you see this as incongruous. I like your your last examples, cowboys and bikers. As I have noted many times, my genetic alteration is for cross dressing, not biker dressing;-) Now, when I am dressed, I am still male me. I like all the same things as when I am in pure male mode. No change whatsoever...except for the way I look. As to why the effort, I am the type of person who when doing anything, goes all in. I started riding bikes and now I race. I was tennis player when I was younger. Ranked nationally in college. I don't do anything half assed, so that is part of the explanation. The other is that i do not want to be embarrassed when out and I don;t want to disturb the "wa" or harmony of the group. So the more I blend in, the better off I am in both circumstances. Regarding this comment, "...but you must also admit that being a 'dude in a dress' as a choice of pastime is choosing a hugely stigmatised..." would be correct if I chose it but I do not choose. It is in me. I do not know that I have a "gender need" to be expressed. And for that reason I have no need to express my masculinity and more than just living. Perhaps for me it is purely visual, I never really thought about it too much. I don't question my gender identity any more than I question why I am right handed. It just is. I often wonder if I am unique or if others are trying so hard to explain this to themselves that they fall into gender explanations because it makes sense but is it real? I don't know. I'll stick with I am unique. Take care,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

... I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. ...

---

Great statistic Tink! Yeah, I suspect this is right. The silent majority as I have often referred to it.

I was telling my wife the other day how frustrating this forum can be at times and she asked why I don't just drop out. I easily managed an answer: I'm here to help a few and to shout down the noise. Purely my self-appointed task, much to the consternation of many, I'd bet. Perhaps in this area, we are quite similar;-)
take care,

This one is easy,
I just don't agree with you.
Read on from others comments they may have more useful arguments to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natcrys

• crossdressing (CD) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

and

• transsexualism (TS) ⊆ transgenderism (TG)

That doesn't necessarily say anything about the relation between CD and TS. :)

---

I love it! Makes sense to me!

Very interesting responses so far folks. Good discussion. I do find some of your responses to be a bit off though. Maybe one of my strange analogies might help clarify how I think about it:

Imagine the following conversation"
"I like red."
"Oh I like that color also."
"Red is not a color."
"Um... yeah, red is a color."
"No red is not a color."
"Yeah, the word color means "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."
"Well I disagree with that definition."

Where do you go with that?

Some things in life need some sort of common definitions. But then again, on this forum people always disagree with definitions. Just take a look at the many threads with many members who consider themselves heterosexual unless _______.

I am with you Jennifer, and thank you for expressing it so well. I always feel male, even when dressed. I make no attempt to "fool" people into thinking I am a woman.... I couldn't anyway. When I wear women's clothing, I feel comfortable, but it does not change what I think, like, or do one iota. I am still male, and when I talk to someone while dressed, I make no attempt to sound like a woman, change my vocabulary, or talk about what I think a woman would talk about.

Although it sounds crude, the phrase "guy in a dress" is apt. I am a guy, wearing a dress.

Now back to the question of whether this makes me transgender. I don't know. It comes down to some pretty fine distinctions based on definitions of gender that are not all that clear. I think the imprecision of these definitions make it pretty hard to make a forceful argument in either direction.

Alana

I was just reading a booklet from Tri-Ess that uses the term " Bigenderist"
A person who is both genders.

Katy, I think, from observation of my own H and chatting to many wives over the years, that the reason many of these non dysphoric dressers put so much effort into passing is exactly what Jennifer explained: it's a guy thing! Men are HUGELY visual so if this compulsion to crossdress enters a boys head one day for whatever reason - genetics, brain wiring or whatever - it makes complete sense that eventually this boy will become a man who wants to perfect his craft. My H is like this with everything in his life. I also think many here are as guilty of needing to rationalise the behavior as the general public is, and it's expected that because a man dresses as a woman he MUST want to be female on some level. Otherwise, why bother? But it doesn't always work that way, and my H says he has never, ever once considered himself female. Not once!! Crossdressing isn't rational, like much of human nature. It's just a weird variation in male behavior and shouldn't need to be explained as a gender issue just because it makes people feel better.

But back to the original post. I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who regularly pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??

Shouldn't TG mean how you feel on the INSIDE, not how you present on the outside? Or does it literally encompass anyone who crosses the line, meaning I'm TG right now as I sit here wearing my H's tee shirt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

They don't bother to join forums like this one because there's no internal conflict.

---

As I bisexual crossdresser, I do not have an internal conflict. Perhaps some do, but I don't. I understand the various identities that I claim and that isn't a problem. The reason that I am here is to get a sense of what's happening in the community at large, discuss various aspects of dressing and to offer whatever support I can. It is not driven by any sort of internal conflict. I dress because it shows a side of my personality that is usually hidden, for various reasons. It pleases me to have the opportunity to do that, but I'm not conflicted by it. I just don't try to change it or suppress it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

Crossdressing is a weird compulsion that they secretly enjoy and it's the wives who struggle with the contrast of masculine husband wearing women's clothing.

---

It is the secret part that is the problem. If there is internal conflict for people, that may be the root of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

Whether these men fit under the transgender umbrella is almost irrelevant as I doubt most of the 'hobby' dressers (who I suspect make up the majority) care much for labels.

---

Building model trains is a hobby, but I can't put dressing in the same context. For people who dress, it satisfies a deep, and perhaps sunconscious, need. That takes it out of the realm of a hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

It's a private matter and they just get on with it...much to their wife's annoyance, lol. I even had therapy with a psychologist whose specialty was crossdressing and she said in all her thousands of patients (most dragged to her by their wives) only a handful felt they had gender dysphoria. Most we're just men who identified as men but liked to present on occasion as a woman. If this also means they're TG, I guess that just makes y'all a very big and very diverse group.

---

Odd that only a handful felt that they had gender dysphoria. Most people don't have a clue as to what it is, so to me it's more of a surprise when people say that they have it.

However, as a community I think it is up to us to be clear in out usage of the terms discussed here. I would ask that we NOT use trans and trans*. Use transexual or TS and transgender of TG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell-GG

Shouldn't TG mean how you feel on the INSIDE, not how you present on the outside? Or does it literally encompass anyone who crosses the line, meaning I'm TG right now as I sit here wearing my H's tee shirt

---

No, unless it satisfies some particular need for you, wearing the t-shirt doesn't mean a thing.

I've never thought that the term transgender applies to me. I've described myself as a plain old crossdresser.
However, and as much as I dislike labels, transgender is very probably the term that applies to me.
I said to my wife very recently, if you put Male on the left and Female on the right, I'm somewhat to the right of Male.
But labels are funny, and I'll be calling myself a crossdresser when I talk to my two daughters about it tonight.

Christen x

Flatlander, I actually hyphenated 'hobby' (see, did it again, lol) as it's obviously not a hobby in the way that golf or cooking might be, as it's a strong compulsion that does fulfil some psychological need. However, for many men, it's also fun, exciting and has little to do with an internal female gender but rather relates more to their masculinity. I guess this is very hard for those who dress to fix gender incongruence to understand. I didn't for the longest time either, until counselling and talking to my H. He actually couldn't believe I assumed he must have a female side! Well, yeah, of course, why else would he do it?!? Turns out, he's just a self confessed weirdo, lol.

So with that in mind, given there's a need fulfilled by crossdressing but it's not correcting gender, more aligning a masculine urge, does this belong under TG? It LOOKS like it should, but underneath all the dresses and make up is a man. A happy man, lol, but still a man nonetheless. This is where the labels become murky for me, but if no one minds including everyone, then it doesn't really matter. The more the merrier!

To me, if you are trying to fix something, that falls towards the transexual end of the spectrum. That is where people are dealing with incongruence. With fixing, it is saying that the current situation is not good and there is a desire to move to a different situation that is more appropriate. That also tends to be permanent.

With crossdressing, at the other end of the spectrum, it is allowing oneself to experience a previously hidden part of the whole. It's not fixing, it is allowing it to be. Further, it is temporary. I would posit that the vast majority of crossdressers do not desire to live as females 24/7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenniferathome

I also agree that from the outside world, I MUST BE trans of some sort but I don't think of myself that way. I'm just a normal cross dresser;-)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenniferathome

would be correct if I chose it but I do not choose. It is in me.

---

You do know I feel similar to you, right? I think you and I just disagree about the definition of the word. I see cross dresser, of any sort, as existing under the broader term of transgender. I do not take transgender as necessarily meaning that one does not identify as their birth gender. It could be, but does not have to be.

But after doing a bit of research, it is generally accepted that being transgender is something that is self identified. Thus it is obviously not accepted by all to be an umbrella term.

Sometimes I just feel on this board that many of us have conversations that go like this:

"I like those shiny red or green or yellow skin fruits with the white flesh inside."

"Oh you mean apples?"

"No, not apples. Those fruit that you sometimes cutup into slices and can put into pies."

"Oh you mean apples?"

"No not apples. You know, the golden delicious ones, the granny smiths, the fujis?"

"yeah, you are talking about apples."

"No, I am definitely not talking about apples."

Talk about frustrations on these board huh? I have said this before, without universally accepted definitions, we often talk ourselves in circles.

Oh and Jennifer, many people's definition of cross dresser is far different than yours. You know the ones, who dress up, stay in their bedroom, and have some private fun? Yeah, if you look up definitions of cross dresser, most of them include some sexual aspects. When you and I had dinner, I know for a fact no sex was involved. This is part of the reason I don't really like identifying myself as a cross dresser when, as of late, I have been coming out to my friends.

Just food for thought I suppose!

Who's On First?!?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadine Spirit

...

Oh and Jennifer, many people's definition of cross dresser is far different than yours...

... When you and I had dinner, I know for a fact no sex was involved. ...

---

Yeah, I appreciate that my definition is not the norm. And I really have no problem with someone labeling me as "trans" or "trans*" I just don't see myself that way. Now, as for sex at dinner, I can't remember the last time I has sex while eating dinner! That actually seems quite challenging. makes you think;-)

so if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's NOT a duck!
i think i got it now... :)

Yes, it is something that flies and quacks, but I don't know what the Hell it is...

I'm confused enough as it is. Threads like this just make it worse ;)

While I'm not that big on labels, at some point I'd like to figure just what the hell I am because every time I think I know I find out I have no clue. Maybe this is why I don't like onions?

I'm failing to see the point. What is to be gained by hammering into someone that they are something that they say they are not? I know many idiots but I'm quite sure they would disagree with the term.

Angela