http://scroll.in/article/730731/what...of-transgender
Quote:
Transgender is a relatively new word. So when an academic seeks to create a transgender historical archive, complications abound.
Printable View
http://scroll.in/article/730731/what...of-transgender
Quote:
Transgender is a relatively new word. So when an academic seeks to create a transgender historical archive, complications abound.
What an interesting and thought provoking thread this has turned into. I'd like to thank one and all for your replies. Personally, I'm not one to split hairs, nor am I easily offended when innocently "labelled" incorrectly. Very difficult for the general population to "get it right" so to speak. It's difficult indeed to avoid the use of "labels," especially in the media. As long as the intent of the label is sincere and respectful, perhaps we should overlook small inaccuracies within it?? Just a thought.
Karen
Everyone will use a term that they feel comfortable with. This forum differentiates by accepting that Transgender is an umbrella term for the whole spectrum, whilst Transsexual is the term used for those are transitioning from their assigned gender and will then live their new gender on a permanent basis.
In the UK, the government have made the differential within their equalities legislation by specifically by using the term Transsexual as a protected characteristic , this has been further refined by specifically
identifying their interpretation of a Transsexual person.
,Quote:
Originally Posted by mikell
I would suggest you have a read of the postings and profiles of both named moderators of the TS section, both of us are Transsexuals, as is another moderator on the forum
Come to think of it I get confused by that one. Go figure, I miss the simplest times of childhood when I was "black" and that was it, simple easy to remember etc. Now I get confused on what's the proper politically correct term for me now, or use the terms interchangeably ex "whose that hot news anchor on the 6 O clock news, you know the black- oops I mean African American lady??, ditto for friends, etc who seem to feel afraid about what term to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenniferathome
LOL, I've also had several of buds during our late nite, we're bored discussions come up with the "no offense bro but Charlize Theron is more "African American" than you are." To which I respond with the "technically you are right but that's "Afrikaner", "Boer" etc, and you guys now seem to have no clue what I'm talking about, and then we move on to standard Xbox One is superior to PS4 debate and divisive/important issues. Which is why I vote for a new confusing term, just further to complicate things, maybe create more division, or balkanization of America with the term. Sub-Saharan African American! Definition Black Chick/Dude!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
You would think, given the guy's claim that he's been investigating the topic since the 1990s, that he'd have learned a little more about crossdressers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
Pc terminology always amuses me. Literally the same group think of people will trend words and terms then deem those same words and terms derogatory.
Me- I don't ever get fired up over any term because in a few years it will be deemed derogatory anyway. I cd, and have other ways in which I express my femininity. Since I am not transitioning, according to the latest group think trend, I am out of the TG club. Oh well, I will still do what I do and feel what I feel, whatever it is called these days.
Actually that "Guy" is a trans woman that has transition years ago from a quick search of her name...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennie-cd
Megan
A lot of accepting people I know seem much more comfortable in thinking of me as transexual, although they say transgender. The idea that sexuality is not binary and that you might be somewhere on a continuum tends to make them very uncomfortable. My ex-wife OTOH was much more comfortable referencing transgender. Most people seem titillated by transgender but aren't necessarily interested in understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadine Spirit
Doesn't help that different people use different names: my parents, for example, used "queer." A much worse choice.....
my apologies Nigella i just saw your use of part of my post and i have gone and made corrections to my post, one of the hosts at my support event was FtM and seemed irritated that i used the term transexual, that was the point i intended to make with my post and apologize if i offended anyone.....that was the reason for my post as i was surprised that the term was offensive and felt i had insulted some there....when i used the term mods i my original post their were two hosts running the meeting.... the meetings are private and i was trying not to give too much detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigella
Much Ado About NOTHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocelyn Quivers
You've been made to question sound logic.
K.I.S.S. is a good principle to follow...
DeeAnn
In my lay opinion, "transgendered" and "transexual" are not the same thing, but sloppy use of these and related terms has confused the issue. It is somewhat excusable, because a good deal of the gendered and sexual world have been hidden due to social norms. This sort of thing does matter in terms of law and policy, however. As the glorious diversity of these spectra emerge, folks are trying to make sense of it all. Just a few years ago, I remember learning of asexual people - I had no idea! I love learning more about how complex people and populations can be.
I do think crossdressing is a wide set of behaviors that transect or overlap the gender and sex spectra. As such, I do not believe it is correct to refer to crossdressers as transgendered, since many, including me, would not identify as such.
But, as you say, labels and their meaning aren't everyone's favorite concern.
Label terms and the English language are funny things sometimes, often just in tone. Some words sound harsher or even funnier than others. I heard a stand-up comic once describe that he uses cities Like Peoria, Pittsburgh and Cleveland in his jokes, simply because they sound funnier than say New York, Miami, Denver, simply because of the rhythm of speech. I always think the term gay sounds a little nicer than, homosexual, or Lesbian (although gay is usually used for males). But I wish we as CDs had a better sounding and feeling name to refer to ourselves as. I still think transvestite and crossdresser, aren't particularly my favorites either and still sound a little creepy (maybe used on too many Jerry Springer Shows perhaps). Transgendered, sounds nicer than transsexual.
In fact along the acceptability chart these days, I think someone who is described as being transgendered, is usually more accepted than a cross dresser , because it is usually assumed they have some sort of homornal, or genetic make-up that makes them want to BE females, when cross dressers are just deviants to a degree with a fetish, which we all know is not true in most cases. Like its OK because they have a medical problem, they didn't choose to be that way like cross dressers do.
How the future will go down will probably be like this. Eventually a transgendered (transexual) person will become more common place and accepted, much like the status gays have now. And that will eventually drag us cross dressers, if you will, along with that, to a very slow upward climb to acceptability. Be cool some day to see someone point to a CD and say, "what a cute outfit" rather than OMG a guy who wears a dress?
And also, like I agreed with Alex in another thread, I feel more Bi-gendered than transgendered. So I don't feel I total fit under that umbrella either
-Annie
Personally, I see no need to be polite because what people are doing is reducing us to splinters. At a time when we SHOULD be coming together, we're trying our best to separate ourselves. Further, we have NO basis for complaining about the general populace being confused about WHO we are until WE get some clarity. Seeing 37 different notions of what a crossdresser is doesn't help anyone...
DeeAnn
:yt:Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
Anytime anyone says "I don't want to be part of your..." I hear "here I am an easy target because there is one of me and hundreds of you". I hear "I am not someone who needs protection because I am not part of that world." I hear "Leave me alone, what you are going through doesn't concern me and how I live" until...it does History of minority groups has shown that by causing infighting, those in charge can keep control easier.
From the referenced article
"It may be time to remove the term “cross-dresser” from transgenderism, and from society all together, and give men the right — and the legal protection — to wear what they want."
Maybe IF men would actually grow some and quit being afraid of themselves, we wouldn't need "legal" protection. But they won't because they feel like they are "different". If men really wanted to have the right and protection, then being in a larger mass would help. Gays did it, Blacks (sorry but what word do we use?) did it. Women did it.
Transgenders won't because men are afraid (go ahead deny it) of things that go bump in the night. Yes society looks down on a man who presents as transgender because you don't get a group together to say "That's wrong" instead you say"Well I am not like they are so really I am not part of what you are against but still I can't be whatever because you won't let me."
The ONLY way men will get the right to wear (aw geeze technically they ALREADY have the right, they just don't exercise it) what they want is to stand up, join together and make it happen
(BTW the article is weak at best)
I actually thought the article was pretty lame as well, Lorileah.
In reference to that article, Utopia is a wonderful place. The problem is that it is HIGHLY likely that none of us will be around to see it. The conditioning that we received growing up male wasn't developed overnight. We're talking about decade after decade, generation after generation. To undo all this conditioning is not the work of a moment.
Certainly we are afraid. Too many things hang in the balance for MANY of us: our families, our homes, our employment and our place in the communities where we live. Reluctance to go out and wave your panties can be easily understood. So yes, Fear is usually what keeps humans from doing something stupid.
Isabella, I respectfully disagree. In fact, the term is not universally accepted at all. This is the entire point. I also don't feel my position is a "disservice to those who fought long and hard..." Discussion of this topic, even though it may drive some people crazy, is important and should be encouraged. I think some of the language used in this subject is obsolete, and this matters not just for those seeking terms in a journey of self-understanding, but in the development of policy and law.
But, I'm just one person and I really have no interest in being any type of advocate for this or related causes. There are many more willing and talented folks than me capable of fulfilling this kind of role. So, it's cool if we disagree - I think that disagreement reveals underlying truths and I may be wrong about what words to use. But I do know that I am definitely a man, inside and out. Alex is the result of a sexual fetish that emerged when I was a young teen :)
I am reminded that there are many examples of "universally accepted" labels for human beings that have been wrong, sometimes with tragic consequences. "Transgendered" may be such an example.
Ok I guess I'll help muddy those waters some more.
While I will accept transgender as an umbrella term where cross-dressers, transsexuals and the rest fall under. To me the term doesn't really fit what I do as a cross-dressers. I wore women's clothing, It was fun. while there was a lot of self reflection as to why I did it, my sense of my own gender didn't waiver. I was dressed as a woman but felt like a man. It felt fun to dress as a woman but it felt wrong to identify myself as a woman. It is hard for me to think that just because of a wardrobe choice my gender was now some how in transition. To believe that is to give credence to the idea that a man in a dress is less of a man or some how loses his manhood. I don't believe that.
To call transgender as an umbrella term doesn't seem right either it is more of a corral were someone penned in a bunch of miscellaneous barnyard animals. Sure technically they are all barnyard animals but a pig is different than a chicken, which is different from a sheep which is not the same as a cow. To some they might be categorized as farm animals but they all have different needs and demand different care. It isn't a one size fits all. And they are not likely to unite and declare "four legs good two legs bad" :)
From what I've seen here over the last several years, it looks like this (no exact hierarchy intended):
- People who underdress, but never leave home
- People who dress but never leave home
- People who underdress and leave home
- People who dress and leave home
- People who dress and leave home maybe 2 or 3 times a year
- People who dress and have extensive social interactions while dressed
- People who dress for fetishistic purposes
- People who live 24/7 as females but who have no interest in transitioning
- People who want to live as females 24/7 and want to transition, but cannot
- People who are living 24/7 as females and are in the process of transitioning or have finished
These are all the shades that I can up with in a couple of minutes. I'm sure that someone somewhere has voiced additional variations of these. For my purposes, I would claim ALL of them under the big tent of Transgender as they have ALL crossed the line in some way. Anything less is just splitting hairs...
Good, because that's not true. How we really are in terms of identification is already in place, but sometimes it takes a long time to discover and realize it. Whatever our internal make up is has already been determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantDebutant
True, but consider the difference between farm animals and sea creatures. This would be analogous to people who present as their assigned gender at birth and those who present as something different. And yes, pigs, chickens and sheep all have different needs and function very differently. Similarly, crossdressers, transsexuals and whoever is in between all have different needs and function very differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantDebutant
The analogy is the same; you just didn't carry it far enough...
DeeAnn
Good summation of my thoughts DeeAnn! Totally agree.
This thread has got me thinking hard about what gender feels like. When I try to think what it might feel like to be a woman I then immediately say to myself, well, what does it feel like to be man. I haven't a clue. I know it feels good to be dressed, somehow correct at least in the moment. So, in considering the topic in this thread, I wonder what crossdressers, who make no claim of gender variance ( all man ) are thinking and feeling when they are dressed.
Alex...of course you're a man. Just as I am. Regardless of the nature of our compulsion that we have to wear women's clothes, sexual or otherwise, it's that compulsion that makes us transgendered. Being transgendered doesn't somehow mean we aren't men. Is this why you're having such problems with the term? When you put lingerie or a dress on (and you have many beautiful dresses!), you're still a man, but you aren't trying to appear as a man, are you? Instead, you're expressing a gender identity of a woman. And this is why most standard definitions of transgendered are like that of Miriam-Websters: "of, relating to, or being a person (as a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth." But again, to reinforce, being transgendered as we are does not mean we are not men. Perhaps this helps? As for the term transgender being an example of a "'universally accepted' labels for human beings that have been wrong, sometimes with tragic consequences", why on earth would that be the case? What evidence to you have to suggest it? It's an excellent, non-offensive, sensitive term that we should be proud of, not running away from.
It can sometimes take a while to realize that when you are dressed it is simply fun a pleasure that one is feeling. that one has these feeling because dressing makes the individual feel that way. One starts to learn that most women don't share those feelings while dressed. That one has no true reference point for "feeling like a woman". That feeling pleasure dress does not equal feeling like a woman. That being dressed and made up fully doe not translate into comfort or desire with "behaving feminine" or engaging in "feminine activities". That in the end it was all about the dress after all and not a metamorphosis into womanhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by melanie206
Thank You, ma'am...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadine Spirit
You know, the way it sits for me is that I really feel disappointed when I hear/see people say "I'm not transgender because I don't do ABC" or "I'm not a crossdresser because I do XYZ". I'd like to think that we as a community are more understanding and have more insight and information than the population at large. But, it seems that isn't the case. It's sad because we can do a whole lot better than we have. As I've said before, how can we realistically expect the general population to understand us if we are so fractious on our own?
DeeAnn
The problem is, DeeAnn, this "community" is an artificial construct cooked up by sociologists in some think tank somewhere without heed to whether or not a cross-dresser, transsexual, genderqueer, etc. had the similar outlooks, motivations, desires, upbringings and so on. We were al unceremoniously dumped under this Umbrella "transgender" without being consulted. It might as well have made the category "people who wear clothing not designed for their birth gender". It is as if they lumped a people into a category of "those who read books" without looking closely at the different genre of books people read.
This isn't to say that the groups in the transgender umbrella should be opposed to each other. But how on earth can you expect lock step uniformity among this group, when you have one part coming from the serious position of being trapped in their wrong gendered body and another part just gets a thrill from wearing satin lace panties from time to time? Those two are going to a very different life experiences and outlooks on the world in general. For one it might be key to their life the other may see it as a frivolous pass time. Chances are they are not going to agree on the nature of transgenderism or its importance. I don't think the group hold any personal grudges against the others it is just so hard to find common ground when all the groups start form a wide array of points.
However you cut it, the common thread is crossing the boundary that separates one gender from another. That's what you see. Anything else: opinions, thoughts, perceptions, histories, etc. you have to ask about, but presentation is visible.
And no, consulting us would not have helped. I doubt we would be able to sift through the list I presented on the previous page and more. If we cannot agree here, what difference would you think being asked would do?
DeeAnn
So clothes make the man, or transgender as it were?
The visuals are the result that you see. However, something happened internally to illicit that behavior. Note that it is possible to appear feminine in male clothing. It is all in how you put it together. It isn't the clothes per se; it is what they represent.
I think the bigger problem is not our community being an artificial construct but the people within the community not wanting to be associated with others within the community. Like your opinion that somehow by being grouped together there is an expectation of lock step uniformity. Personally I don't see any demand to be the same as anyone else within this group. I kind of think that was my initial concern. Just because I identify as transgender does not mean that I should automatically be assumed to be included in a subset of that group. But I have no problem with being included within that larger category.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantDebutant
Don't make the false assumption that just because someone is within a category that it makes everyone the same within that category. Not all lesbians, or homosexuals, or bisexuals, or car enthusiasts, or gamblers, or white people, or fire fighters, or soccer players, or ________ are the same with the same outlooks, etc. Even though we are included under larger groups, we are all each individuals. It does us no harm to be considered as part of a larger group. It actually can be quite helpful. Generally to get rights within a society you need to have enough members of the group.
OK, how does that change things?? (I was really using 'guy' in its non-gender specific mode. It's fair in modern usage.) -- but going back and reading my comment, I see i used "he" twice so clearly I didn't read the byline and made the assumption the author was male. Sorry. Though again, it doesn't change my reaction to the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
"How many so-called “cross-dressers” use the transgender label as an excuse so they can wear the clothes they want in public?"
Let me restate my objection:
You would think, given her claim that she's been investigating the topic since the 1990s, that she'd have learned a little more about crossdressers...
Given the spectrum from occasional crosssdressers in the privacy of their own homes to post-op transsexuals, and every subtlety in between, how could there ever be "lock step uniformity"? The variations are infinite, but when we communicate to the outside world, all that does is cause confusion. That is why a simple pared down approach is better: crosssdressers at one end, transsexuals at the other with variations in between. That is as simple as it gets.
When people attempt to cover every shade between the 2 ends, I would have to question their motives. They are not interested in sending a clear message to the outside world.
There are some good and new points being made here - and so politely too! :D I think this one stands out for me and I'd love to hear some answers from those who fit this description.... this is one of those questions that should get right to the meat of something:
This is why I am quite content in the belief that I reside under the TG umbrella - I 'feel' more feminine... I won't say I feel like a woman, because I don't, but the presentation aligns with something in me that desires to be seen as feminine or female, even though I am not a woman, and I can only understand that to be related to my (and our collective) gender quirk... :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by melanie206
Nice question Melanie - I'm going to make a note of that for future use and I dearly hope someone will try to answer it... :)
Katey x
Being part of a community doesn't mean you are all clones. A community can just be people who have similar interests and goals.
So many CDs here bemoan that they can't go out, or that they can't dress because their wives don't like it (or bosses or dogs whatever). That they feel marginalized by the world. And yet, when the opportunity arises for something to change, they scream they don't want to play in that sand box.
Fact, no one except your mind has even made a rule that says that men cannot wear dresses or skirts (at least in the countries represented in this forum). Fact, because you fear being different, you hide it. Fact, if tomorrow fashion all ove the US said Men's dresses are the new in thing" 99% here would cry that they didn't want that either.
But back to the community aspect. In the 70's farm workers were being abused by farm owners. Low pay, poor working conditions, no or substandard housing. Many were from Mexico, some from other Latin American countries. All shared a language, skin tone usually and a desire to get ahead in life. The Mexicans didn't like the Guatemalans who didn't like the Hondurans who hated the New Mexicans. But in order to get better lives, better working conditions, money, health care, they banded together. They put their differences aside. It helped thy had a common nemesis, slave driving farmers, but they fought together.
Do we really need a Cesar Chavez, or Martin Luther King Jr or Susan B Anthony to come along to get us to stand together? It is so easy for most here to just disappear when thing get tough. Thus the I don't wanna be associated with....crowd. You let others lead the way but you are very happy to reap the rewards. You won't take part in the losses though. How nice is that.
The article really doesn't say anything that is earth shaking. It is at best a weak essay. The writer doesn't address the answers to the issues but instead tries to get sympathy, without result, from a small group of people. Just think, if that group of people was 100 fold larger, the message would be heard louder.
You can complain about the sand in your shorts or you can do something about it.
Lorileah, you are ultimately right about what you are saying as far as be the change you want to see. Since I am one who has decided that it is not in my best interest with the overall life I have to "play in the sandbox", I do not get too bent up over whatever terms, names, laws are being pushed or thwarted. Not that I am without opinion mind you, but it would be hypocritical of me to whine loudly about any misunderstandings, being poorly treated or just plain ignorance and lack of knowledge while not attempting to right any of it. I have to therefor accept the self imposed limitations. Perhaps it was the many mistakes I made early on in not disclosing my gender issues... I have decided to accept the consequences of this. for me that just means my wife is not comfortable enough to view me dressed, and has limited acceptance of it overall. But, I was at least smart enough or perhaps lucky enough to find someone who is willing to at least give it a good shot in opening their mind as my wife has. She actually gives me plenty of time to dress, almost daily for an hour or two, and will listen and be involved in discussions from time to time.
Back to the TG/TS/ T1000 issue. I do think personally that TG is or should be considered a spectrum, within it the variations from casual partial dresser to fully identifying opposite birth sex. That which we call TS. Maybe the media just has too much of a PC hang up on the word SEX, or any variation of it. I really do not care ultimately... I can be "just a CDer"... and there doesn't really have to be a considered spectrum, for the sake of PC. I do think though that it would hamper a better understanding of CDers and that without knowledge of what the difference of a CDer vs TG/TS is, which may be in degrees..... Warm water, hot water.... hot enough it boils and then , but it is still H2O... Same stuff, liquid or gas state... People overall should be able to identify themselves correctly and have something to be able to identify themselves with. A comfortable out CDer who wants no part of transition should be able to express themselves, and have people understand the difference between them and someone who does want to or is/has transitioned. If they are looking for a partner and the partner is ok with CDing, but not ok with someone who is or will transition, accurate knowledge without having to tip toe so crazily due to current PC wording and terminology. Maybe the TG and CDer will accomplish this.... but many CDers, myself included have a range of other feminine expressions, which are not directly clothing. (a big reason why I feel CDers and TS is about degrees) Hopefully with more media exposure there will also be more accurate knowledge being presented as well. I do not care what the terms that are used are so long as it can be done so accurately.
I think there would be a better understanding of CDers if it was clear that CDing is under the TG umbrella or within the spectrum of gender variances rather then a totally separate thing. It is inescapable that there is not one type of CDer. Even within CDing it is a spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by gendermutt
PEOPLE: GIVE UP THE IDIOTIC NOTION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!
If someone's name is BOB, do you call him GEORGE?
First off I would just like to reiterate that I accept that as a cross-dresser I am in a group that falls under the transgender umbrella. And I have no problem being associated with the other groups under that umbrella. But as the blue man with the hat in The Gender Book says "No one gets to tell you how to identify you. You get to decide that for yourself." And I don't identify myself as transgender simply because I don't feel transgender. I feel that cross-dressing is about wardrobe not my gender. What good would the term do me? I have seen transsexuals not indentify as transgender but rather the gender they switched to, and good for them. It is very liberating to not be tied down by groups or labels. Terms like transgender or cross-dresser bring with them a lot of baggage that is best not to be carried around everywhere. I see that as the main reason why so many underneath this TG umbrella want to get out of this term, and they have that right. Labels are too restricting for many which is why we have these label debates on a regular basis.
Another reason we debate labels an terminology in the TG community is that the ground continues to shift. As with the OP that the media is now using transgender in replacement of transsexual, what does this mean? It might just be temporary lapse or it could now start to evolve that way. Who knows, after watching transvestite turn to cross-dresser and transvestite becoming a negative word, and there have been some to say cross-dresser is too negative and a new term is needed. All I know is words seem to change around here quite a lot which would be another good reason for a person not to identify to closely with one the meaning could become obsolete on them.
I am glad to see we are in agreement that we are not "clones" in "lock step" perhaps using lockstep was to heavy a term but it does appear to me that some are trying to yoke a herd of cats to the cart of transgenderism and its causes. There seem to be a few that scratch their heads in puzzlement as they watch the harnessed cats start to head in multiple direction or just lay down. And there as some who bemoan the fact that a couple little rascals slip out of their harness and go scampering off into the field to chase a butterfly or something more content in living a life of fun then pulling a wagon.
Now RD no one said anything about causes. Really? then what is all this talk about a CD MLK, a need to send a clear message to the outside world, and those that don't have questionable motives, getting rights in society, and those that eschew the TG label are doing a disservice to the TG sisters who have come before us, and lamenting the fact we cannot get the "general population to understand us if we are so fractious on our own". Surely the TG community is a free one based on all of us partaking in clothing not designed for our gender and one where a variety of ideas on the nature and meaning of being transgender can be had.
And what would this cause be? Why would we need some T'Ger Chavez? As Lorileah pointed out the only thing that is preventing CDing men is themselves. I wouldn't even know where to begin to craft legislation to emancipate a person from themselves. And it would be hubris to think he needed emancipation because many are just exercising their independent will to cross-dress or not to cross-dress. No government authority has ever prevented me from purchasing women's clothes or wearing them out in public. I have never heard of any western citizen getting locked up for getting a SRS nor have I heard of any movement to get that freedom. It would seem that the TG community for some time has been able to legally express their desired gender. The opposition to the TG community does not come from government but from other groups and individuals who have disagreements with them. As long as these disagreements don't end in assault, theft, or murder the two side will have to just disagree. If it does there are already laws against assault, theft, and murder. You can't legislate for people to like you or agree with you.
I find it ironic that there are some that are so adamant about being sticklers to Dictionary definition orthodoxy of the term transgender. While the transgender phenomenon got started by breaking out of the dictionary definition of man and woman.
I suppose a new group is forming instead of gendernoncomformist it will be transgendernoncomformist :D
That is the fear talking. Fear of being rejected. Fear of being ridiculed. Fear for getting HURT. Those are all legitimate fears, but at some point you have to swallow hard and go ANYWAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
Which I see as 'accept ME' vs 'I am now in the accepted zone'. Again, perfectly natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
<good quotes>
We must be our own best advocates. WE put up with stuff because THEY don't get it. THEY won't get it until we don't back down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
I go to the store in a skirt, painted toes and pretties, while sporting a bull frame and a beard. I am ME, dammit. If someone wants to confront me over that, then I have made the decision to have that confrontation.
I guess it comes down to that, the willingness to have that confrontation. If you still feel unsafe enough to need to be small and protect yourself, then ok.. I will have your back in any way I can. But I have to say that you don't HAVE to do that! It is about confidence and trust in yourself. Poker is all about position and bluffing. They want to see if you *blink*.
Don't blink. Don't apologize for being yourself. Please.
<3
- MM
What I believe:
- The majority of crossdressers have a touch of gender dysphoria. I don't buy that the lure of the clothes by itself is enough to get most to dress. If it was just about the clothes, why do people have buy, purge, buy, purge cycles? That suggests that there is a basic guilt for something that they are compelled to do.
- Current debates about transsexuals using restroom facilities consistent to their presentation has a knock-on effect for crossdressers. If this never gets worked out, we will be forced to use men's restrooms while dressed or whiz behind a tree or whatever. We have a vested interest in this.
- Since we do not have a united front and a common set of definitions, it's hard to call out the media when they misuse terms such as transgender. Who would correct them? Trying to splinter off in 37 different varieties does NOT serve us well.
- How do we get the general public to understand what we are about if we cannot understand and agree within our own community? If not, we can only accept the misinformation (accidental AND purposeful) that exists in the general population. We have no basis for complaint.
- While there may be no crossdressing-specific statutes, if law enforcement wishes to make life difficult for crossdressers, any number of generalized laws will do. It is very easy.
- To my way of thinking, ANYONE who dresses in such a manner as to cross from the assigned gender at birth to the opposite gender IS Transgender. Motivations are immaterial. Durations are immaterial. Goals are immaterial. Evidently, ones desire to do this is stronger than the need to support accepted gender-specific practices of dress.
DeeAnn
DeeAnn,
I could not agree with you more, honey.
Nothing else matters if you do not believe in yourself.
If you/we have doubts, then our predators will feast on that. We have every right to be here, we have every right to claim our space. That is 'free cheese' unless we stand up otherwise.
I am SO sad that so many of us don't have the room to be 'glorious' and sweep aside all this crap. We are *blessed* people, not 'broken'people.
I guess I'm just sad that so many of us feel like we are 'broken people'.
<3
- MM
I seen this thread earlier and have been thinking about this topic on and off throughout the day. I do agree that CDs should have their spot under the TG umbrella. But in my opinion clothes do not define or effect a persons gender, after all they are just material items made by people. Gender is defined in two parts physically and mentally, the physical part can be changed to co-inside with the mental part to make TS's who they are in mind and body. To me some one that is a CIS gendered male and wears a dress and acts in his mind "Feminine" is as much TG as a cat is a dog. If there is no gender dysphoria is the person really TG? Or just an actor/actress wearing a costume and playing a role? Some CD's may like to think that their need to dress runs deeper, but in the end it is usually just for sexually gratification.
Yeah, but perhaps we CDrs are in a little denial because for most of us crossdressing is much more than just wardrobe. We get wigs, breast forms, wear make-up, perfume, nails, so we want to present as females to ourselves, if we are closeted, and be seen as females to the public, if we are out. hence all the concern about passing. So there is a little more going on here than just fabric color and feel. My CD may be deeper than even I care to admit. There is the girl inside that ebbs and flows at times. That's a gender issue not a fashion issue.
And there I am totally in your corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candice Mae
But it isn't about clothes...
I'm sorry Hon, I have to disagree. I'm a full-on bull stud who cares about drapes. Identity isn't a light subject. We are 'messing with the machinery', honey. We are mixing modes, crossing streams, confusing mundanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candice Mae
This has less to do with desire, as much at it has to do with who we *care* about and who we want on the end of our bits. You gotta LIKE someone before you want more, yes? If you LIKE them, then do you really care what bits (you or they) have? I don't care how hot you are, I don't care how you present, I don't care how FERTILE you display.
If I'm not into you, it doesn't matter.
I'm a 6'2", 265# XY who feels more at home in a skirt and cami than shorts and a T. I have pierced ears, I paint (all) my nails, I have long hair and a cropped beard. I wear mascara. I advise my wife on what presents well, she doesn't 'get' it without me. She is a guy in a girl-bear body. She just sees the 'bear' part.
I can only lust-rail critters I CARE about.
What gender am I? (Most days, I don't know myself)
You tell me, sweetie,
<3
- MM
MM:Quote:
Originally Posted by mechamoose
Thanks!
I firmly believe this is true: In the absence of information, people make up their own.
Since we as a community have never come together and put our flag in the ground, folks in the media just went off on their own and picked what made sense to them. Unfortunately, that doesn't do us any good and it will be even more difficult in the future to get terms corrected.
CM:Quote:
Originally Posted by Candice Mae
Clothes are the medium of expression. The clothes project the reality that the person is trying to pass along.
AM:Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieMac
I agree. There is likely more going on than just the fabric...
DeeAnn
You kind of contradict yourself MM, you say it isn't about the clothes but then use clothes/cosmetics to distance yourself from being a CIS male. Just because a male doesn't fit societies ideal of what he should do or wear doesn't necessarily mean he has gender dysphoria.Quote:
Originally Posted by mechamoose
Candice make the point that CDs should not fall under the TG umbrella. I agree, yet I disagree. In my earlier post (#27) I expressed my feeling upon joining this forum as a CD, that I wasn't comfortable being included under the TG umbrella as I felt that there was a big gap between myself and the TS folks, so from that point of view I agree with Candice.
The counterpoint is that there is a spectrum under the TG umbrella, some of us fall at one end, some at the other and some in between those extremes. Also, how many here can say that they have not moved along that spectrum? Are you still exactly where you were two years ago? (What is the difference between a CD and a TS? answer, two years. I'm not saying this is true for all, but we have seen that it is for some.) So if the TG umbrella doesn't include CDs then I think that the umbrella is a pretty small one, it doesn't represent a spectrum at all. So if only TSs are TG, then what are the rest of us?
Although I don't identify as TS or ever believe that I will, I have a great empathy for those that are traveling that road and if I can in any way lend my clout (if I have any) to the TS cause I am willing to be counted. There seem to be a lot more CDs that TSs, if we are all under one umbrella we make bigger numbers and we all know that politicians only pay attention to groups with numbers.
So on that count I disagree with Candice. So where do I go now? Maybe the dog house!
This thread has lead to a very interesting discussion that is important for this community.
Hugs, Bria
Funny thing about all of this is, most people and the media can understand and wrap their heads around someone who is "transgendered" and wants to live as a woman, whether there is full transition down the road or not. "Oh OK, he is one of those women trapped inside a mans body!" What does not compute for them is a guy like me that likes the look and feel of females clothes, make-up hair, and how I look and feel in them from time to time. There are times I want to feel female and others not. I guess It's kind of like the Tom Boy thing. There are days when i guess you would say I am a "Nancy Boy", and want to feel pretty and female. That hadn't the slightest thing to do with really wanting to live as a women, and that flat out doesn't make sense to people. Why would a guy ever want to wear sissy clothes? That's why we are so far down on the acceptability chart in life.
I'm amazed that my example of a CIS male CD not being TG was interpreted as all CDs are not TG... Just because a male likes to wear females clothes doesn't necessarily mean he has gender dysphoria, which if you look up the definition of TG is very important.
B:
I understand what you mean. I would consider myself a semi-active crossdresser. I hang out with 2 groups in different cities and I am likely go out fully dressed 2-3 times per month. I dress at home, neck down, maybe 3-4 times per week. I am 66 and as far as I can recall, I don't ever remember thinking that I should be a female. I don't think that I have ever had that experience.
However, I have always enjoyed shopping and putting an outfit together is fun to me. Actually, that is true in guy mode and girl mode. The clothes then represent that part of me that comes from some degree of feminine identification.
CM:Quote:
Originally Posted by Candice Mae
I suspect that only a relatively small portion of crossdressers seek professional help. I doubt it is anywhere close to most. As I said earlier, I do believe that crossdressers do have a bit of gender dysphoria. But, they wouldn't probably know unless they had seen a professional. Further, the bit of crossdressing that they do is probably sufficient to keep the dysphoria from ever boiling over.
DeeAnn
Ok, Candice, let's work that out for our mutual benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candice Mae
I *do* have GD, but I'm in a special place where I don't have the slightest desire or need to 'correct' that. I have known for a long time that I am not either/or, I am both. I GET that people could do 'choice A' from column 1. I also understand that that is not the only available choice. Much less the best choice.
I am a big, stupid male with fashion sense. I can be a swishy girl all day long in boy-jean shorts and a T. I allow myself the room to wear girl clothes in order to validate myself. My wife is jealous of my 'girl mode' wardrobe. She gives me grief only because I can wear 'prettier' stuff than her, and that I get two wardrobes to her one.
I allow and enforce myself to be FEMALE while inhabiting an XY body regardless of what I would/should be doing as a 'stock jock'.
I FEEL female. I *interact* as a female. I am a girl in a stupidly male body. I'm girl inside an alien body, hon.
I'm all here for discussion, sweetie.
- MM