Printable View
Charlotte,Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte7
I totally get what you are saying, Group 1 is the hardest to describe in finite terms, because it constitute the majority of permutations of all the different types of personalities it encompasses. So it maybe better to say that acceptance is preferred, but can live without it. But the ability to live an authentic life is paramount.
Sometimes I wear a pair of womens tights under my jeans when I go out so I'm a [insert label here].
Sometimes I spend time in the house wearing a skirt or a dress so I'm a [insert label here].
Sometimes I dress up in a wig, makeup, forms and pads, leggings, skirt or dress and go out shopping so I'm a [insert label here].
You can substitute the label for any of: crossdresser, MIAD, or 'transgender person' and they would all be correct.
It matters little to me. It probably matters even less to anyone else.
Gretchen,
I think your four categories cover the complete spectrum and there is no need to sub-divide further. Of course there are varieties within each group but basically they adhere to your list. Look at the variety of dogs, yet all are basically the same.
GAOOSH
Go All Out Or Stay Home is a thought process of many here. An opinion often expressed perhaps not too subtley. One that probably keeps some members home/in their closets. (An action [INaction] that helps no one).
I think the very name of this site should be a good enough clue to people.
While I'm just starting, Id never go out in public. I don't have the body or the face for it. I don't know about later. If I shave and learn to put on makeup that might change. For now it's just in the bedroom. I like the term MIAD being brand new to this I never heard it before.
Yay for Gretchen's lexicon! Seems simple and comprehensive enough, and we could adhere to it, with an FAQ for new posters, and friendly reminders when people lose track of the differences. Using this kind of terminology would help people know where we are coming from, so repliers know what to say. Of course, simply understanding that we are here to support each other as crossdressers, regardless of our individual reasons, is the easiest way forward. If we don't understand why someone is doing something, we can ask, and at no point question their motives or sanity!
But if we are going to use labels to provide context- as I did when making the MIAD sharing thread- so that someone expecting to see an emulation dresser is not disappointed, we could add helpful specificity:
1. Say Female-identified crossdressers, rather than transgender, since the latter term is also an umbrella term in the larger society, and still evolving [see https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx ] Transsexual is too limiting, in terms of incorporating physical transition.
2. Perhaps use the term Emulation crossdressers, for those of us who are trying to look like females, but not identifying as female.
3. Drag queen crossdressers are well understood as performance artists.
4. MIAD might better be said as NB crossdresser. This is for all those who are not trying to avoid being seen as at least partially a male/man/masculine - and the way we crossdress speaks about how we are incorporating the female/woman/feminine into our presentation and by reference, our identity! Using NB also avoids the term being used in a way that sounds like it is undermining someone's success in leaving the male look behind.
I think we started using MIAD simply to helpfully provide context to our goals when we post. That was because foiks sometimes were critical, not realizing we could have such divergent goals [in terms of appearance] while sharing a love for crossdressing. We never really tried to give everyone a simple and uncontested label that works for a post- and has been pointed out, individuals are not limited to one category- we switch back and forth.
Is MIAD simply just the truth?
I agree with Phili. I think Non-Binary (NB) should be used in place of MIAD. If you were to visit any other website, forum, etc. you would be considered NB. MIAD is a term which was created and used on this website only and i can see how new members could take offence to this because of the use of the letter "M".
I think the term non-binary is not used enough on this site when it really should be. MIAD is basically the definition of NB.
It's always been my contention that humanity rests on this dichotomy: the desire to belong to a group, and the necessity of division in order to define a group.
Once we subdivide 'human' we invite conflict. But that desire for belonging clearly derives from the procreative drive that in turn drives the acquisitive drive to secure resources, even at the cost of others' survival - conflict.
And yet even at a time in history when we should be able to transcend such simple motivations what do we do? Break down into infinitesimal sub-divisions. It seems to be near axiomatic that the finer the sub-division the greater the resistance to its existence.
And yet if we were to truly sub-divide and sub-divide to its logical conclusion (or reductio ad absurdum, whichever you prefer) we'd find ourselves back where we began. That any division of 'human' results in any 1 of 7 billion absolutely unique beings. 'Human' is the ONLY thing, the only label that unites us all, describes us all.
Labels should only be applied where they *usefully* act as a shorthand for understanding a characteristic, but never as a substitute for respect. No-one, but no-one on this planet is reducible to one or even a handy few labels. We're all crazily complex venn diagrams of overlapping characteristics. That needs celebrating.
That all said, what Gretchen said, as refined by Phili. I did say labels could be *useful*.
IMHO.
Kas I think you don't understand the full range of Non Binary... it means not involving just two things... I consider myself to be non- binary because I think I am a blend of both genders and my 'Transness' can vary quite a lot. I am most definitely not a MIAD however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas
Wrong on both counts. There is a sub-forum here that has many regulars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas
MIAD is the definition of a crossdresser, someone who wears women's clothing and (for most) it has very little to do with gender.
Although I do agree that there are a large number of peeps here who don't want to admit or are afraid of accepting the fact that they are more than a 'mere crossdresser', and are actually on the transgender spectrum, which could also mean they might be NB.
I get the impression you are one of those people who confuses gender with biological sex. I was born biologically male but my sense of gender never aligned fully with being male.
I realize now, all these years later, that I was gifted a feminine gender to go with the one I grew up with. Non-binary means I am transgender, and the gender is mostly found between my ears, in my heart and in my soul. Binary means either one or the other, hence the term non-binary.
Speak of anything gender with most MIAD's here and what you get back is something along the lines of...…...'I just like to wear women's clothing, i'm all male, it just feels good, it's a hobby, i'm my masculine (masculinity and femininity are gender constructs, not something one wears for awhile) self, i'm just a crossdresser' etc, etc.
Your entitled to your opinion of course, but don't try to define me or anyone else here who truly understands the terminology, without knowing more than you do now, it's both rude and foolish.
I LIVE a non-binary life, both internally and externally each and every day.
Cass
I meant in the sense that all (intentional) MIAD are NB, but not all NB are MIADs.
I know NB refers to many other groups, but in my view intentional MIADs are the epitome of NB.
A man in a dress, is a man in a dress, and his reason for being in a dress, has little to do with anything NB people think, feel or look like externally.
Every NB person I've met here speak of their gender, yet every MIAD here only talks about wearing an item of clothing.
Many of the guys here who are MIADs, do nothing at all besides the dress, other than maybe a pair of heels. When someone wear clothing normally associated with the opposite sex, I believe that is known as crossdressing?
Absent of the obvious biological and other body shape, bone structure, skin, hair, and body shape differences, my presentation is that of any female I see out and about everyday. The reason I do this is because it suits me in and feels natural to my sense of gender.
Would you like to further explain what your thinking is?
Cass
NB means somebody who does not conform to one of the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. One being a man who acts/looks like a man, the other being a woman who acts/looks like a woman (TS women included).
Therefore a man with a beard and wearing a dress is considered as non-binary due to the fact they do not fall under one of the binary stereotypes.
I would even argue that anybody who does not present 100% as female (under-dressers, people who do not wear a wig for example) would fall under the NB category which would mean the majority of this forum. I will even admit that I would be considered NB due to the fact that I do not always present as 100% female most of the time.
People can choose to associate with any group they please, but technically speaking, if you do not fit under one of the binary stereotypes then you are considered non-binary.
What do you consider NB to mean?
Kas a Non Binary person can be a man in a dress, but a man in a dress is not Non Binary because they put on dresses. In fact you have hit right into the whole point of my OP and why I suggested The term is too embracing. A male who sees himself completely as a male but wants to partially dress in womans clothes is NOT in any way non binary, they are very much males.
Hmmm, this is getting interesting now. I can't wait till Daisy reads this, it's gonna give her something to think about as to her 'Bridge' theory.
Just so you know I agree with some of what you say, and it serves to prove the fact that crossdressing is nothing more than a verb, one which describes the act of wearing women's clothing, and yet this main forum that we're on is chock full of people who go cross-eyed when one of us 'TG Spectrum' theorists tries to point out that most CDs are in fact trans and are on one end of that spectrum.
But that, as they say, is another discussion, What your leaving out of what you say is how one thinks and feels inside. (sense of gender as learned over a period of years)
Like i said earlier, gender is mostly what goes on between a persons ears.
Remember, you can't prescribe that gender is all about what is seen and worn and how someone "acts".
As you said...…...
"Therefore a man with a beard and wearing a dress is considered as non-binary due to the fact they do not fall under one of the binary stereotypes.
I would even argue that anybody who does not present 100% as female (under-dressers, people who do not wear a wig for example) would fall under the NB category which would mean the majority of this forum. I will even admit that I would be considered NB due to the fact that I do not always present as 100% female most of the time."
NBs can explain fairly easily why they feel the way they do, most of us can tell about how difficult it was living a life not feeling right in our skin, how we know we weren't matched with our biological sex, the back and forth in our heads about things like transitioning and HRT.
You said.....
"NB means somebody who does not conform to one of the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. One being a man who acts/looks like a man, the other being a woman who acts/looks like a woman (TS women included)."
Maybe this is part of the problem, it's pretty flimsy when you say "acts/looks like" to describe gender stereotypes and then go on to say a man wearing a beard in a dress acts/looks like a woman in gender.
Does any of that help?
Cass
p.s. No offense Phili, I know from reading your posts, you do have a deeper sense of gender than what most peeps who identify as miad, I was just going from most have said.
I agree with you, Cassandra, that there is more to it, but just because somebody doesn’t identify as something or believes otherwise doesn’t make it true.
As an example. Somebody may identify as being straight, but if they are only attracted to men and only have sex with men, then despite what they may “think”, they are still considered as gay by general society.
The term non-binary literally refers to the 2 common social stereotypes assigned to men and women. (Bi = 2). To be non-binary means you do not fit in with either of these social stereotypes. That simple.
Thank you, Becky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky Blue
Now I know what I am. A MIAD, a man in a dress.
The word Binary refers to two, Bi = 2 (Binary Code for example), referring to the two social stereotypes, one for each sex. So yes, it is just 2 things. Here is the definition of binary for those that didn’t know (seemingly everybody):Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky Blue
1. relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
2.relating to, using, or denoting a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.
It’s such a simple concept to understand. I don’t know why everybody is having such a hard time wrapping their heads around it.
Topics like this are impossible to discuss because everybody just makes up their own definitions of what something is despite the term having an already agreed upon meaning.
So we are in agreement Cas - Non Binary means NOT involving two things - could be three or one or sixty seven or none :)
Haha well I wouldn’t give a number. It can be anything which doesn’t fit into the 2 (binary) gender stereotypes. So infinity? 😛
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
I’m not saying they’re not males. But a man wearing a floral dress certainly is not fitting into the “male” gender stereotype, therefore making them non-binary in the true sense of the term. Of course if you pay some cis guy to wear a dress or an actor wears a dress, that won’t make them NB, but I’m referring to crossdressing where we have the option to conform, but choose not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky Blue
Of course this all goes out the window if everybody just decides to make up their own definition of what non-binary is and choose not to use the already agreed upon meaning.
Thanks Cass, your reply to Kas saved me the trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassandra Lynn
Kas, I am non-binary and I am non-binary ALL the time. I am non-binary when I'm naked and I'm non-binary when I have overalls on to the crawl under the car and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the clothes that I have on at any one time. Now, as it happens it matters to me that people realise they are not dealing with a brainwashed stereotypical binary person so my outward presentation is usually androgenous BUT this does not mean I am non-binary only when I present as a mixed gender. Oh and to be clear I never ever dress as a 'man in a dress'. On the rare occassions I do wear a dress I try to look like a woman. So no, you are wrong, NB and MIAD are NOT the same thing at all.
Looking at your replies to Becky and Cass it seems you just don't seem to get it, or at least you don't want to get it and would prefer an arguement. Try this statement: "Non-binary is a gender identity NOT a presentation". Simple really when you say it like that, I mean how hard is it to grasp that statement. Now go back to Salerbas' comment at #68. Salerba is a man, period, he identifies as a man all the time but it just so happens he likes to wear a dress every now and then (good call). I don't know but I'm sure he has other hobbies like fishing or something. Going fishing wouldn't change his gender identity and wearing a dress doesn't either. Salerba doesn't want to be described as non-binary because he isn't non-binary. I'm struggling to understand why that is so difficult to grasp.
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
Well maybe not Cass because my non-binary bridge between binary genders is all about ones internal gender identity whereas Kas here is confusing presentation with identity. You stand in your correct place on the bridge naked, wearing clothes, any clothes, does not change the position towards one bank or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassandra Lynn
How about instead of NB crossdresser we go with Panvestite. That makes zero comment about gender. 😘
AMAB but I have a thin waist and enough fat in my chest, butt, and thighs to look like a GG. I'm routinely gendered as female wearing a tight fitting T shirt and jeans. It is a delight to shop for clothes that fit me perfectly!
I have absolutely no desire to be female. I don't feel like a woman trapped in a man's body. I love skirts, hose and heels! I love the clothing options on both sides of the store, for different reasons.
I'd love to 'pass' but alas I feel I will only ever be a MIAD :(
Keeping in mind our purpose was to try to have terminology that works for everyone, is intuitively understood correctly, and doesn't leave anyone out...
and that this is more or less impossible except for terms like pure black and pure white, and perhaps even those...and that maybe folks just like to argue ...!
I picked up MIAD and always used it tongue in cheek, but that suffered because people couldn't see the bulge in my cheek. It had going for it even then the poetic layers of meaning which include all of us who are deemed males by someone, but that suffered because a lot of us in that category do not like that fact. So I tried to clarify my meaning as 'not disguising maleness' while wearing a dress, which was meant to sidestep motivation and identity, and just make usage work on the obviousness of it all- but that suffered because many who do want to leave maleness behind are bedeviled by traces of it, and don't want to be seen as belonging through no fault or intention in a category called MIAD.
Aha, I thought, after Kas' offering- let's use NB- with the meaning of NB being generous, i.e. anyone who sees themselves as not exclusively identifying OR presenting on one side of the binary, such as genderfluid, asexual, or simply " 'male' personality and 'female' clothing" and not including reference to male. Darn, that fell apart fast. Yep, Becky- it was too broad and therefore difficult to be useful.
I'll jump to the side off those arguing that we should forget labelling, and celebrate individuality. That is really simple- "We don't argue about how or why you crossdress! If you crossdress, and we don't even argue about whether your idea of crossdressing qualifies, - just tell your story and post your pics, and our community will offer friendly support.
There is plenty of criticism reaching us in each of our worlds. This Forum's special value is for unconditional friendship- sharing experiences and friendship. It's not helpful, if you are on some track which experience will reveal to be unworkable, to be told your sense of yourself is wrong or misguided. It is much more likely to be useful to hear from members who have been down that road already. I have seen wonderful examples of this here.
As humans it is natural to want to belong to a successful group, so we are going to be tempted every day to sell our vision and gain support, and then to reinforce this by dinging others or challenging their world view. As long as we keep to the first goal- why not! We can enjoy the company of like-minded folks without reaching out to ruin someone else's day.
I started the MIAD pic sharing thread with that goal, bolstered by Salerba's term sounding very much modest and generous and showing we can make light of this fact. It has positive though limited participation. Is that because the term MIAD doesn't work, or because the thread purpose is unclear, or because MIADs fear the disdain of others, or because being a MIAD truly is difficult for most people to enjoy visually [the binary rightness model being so embedded in us], so hard to say anything meaninfully nice without feeling like a hypocrite - who knows.
Would it get more traffic as a NB sharing thread? I doubt it. Should I just share photos of myself as I like to see myself, like others do, and stand out like a sore thumb? Yes- I tried that and didn't like the result, but now I can see it in perspective. I'll try it again, and this time knowing it is for me, and I am not going to get enthusiastic wows from the group, and so it goes for the girls and boys in the world who don't look as others wish they would. I have come to accept myself and see the line more clearly between fantasy and reality as it applies to all of us. And I am still grateful for the opportunity to take part in this community and feel the diversity we present as creating an ocean that lifts all ships.
Plus 1 to that Phili :)Quote:
Originally Posted by phili
Phili, in my short time here I've come to relish your posts for their gentle erudition. I've always been impressed by what seems grounded self-assurance. Please don't ever change.
I'd love to present as fully female as possible in public but I'll still be a MIAD as home too in between times. Not to mention hybrid mode which is my most common. I own no men's jeans so that's a thing.
I haven't seen the MIAD pic thread (yet) but I'll happily participate. I'm always ready to quiz where someone got something nice. 😄 But I'm also happy to participate to share encouragement.
That we're so boxed in as men causes me great sorrow. If my wife can HONESTLY tell me (while I'm not wearing makeup etc) a dress looks good and flatters me (and believe me she'll say when something doesn't!) despite her struggles with my CDing surely we as a community can rise to the challenge and support each other. Regardless of label or motivation or perceived effort or perceived level of 'success'.
Youtube just picked this one for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8q2ifO3pI
Queen - I Want To Break Free (Official Video)
230,363,321 views
Oh Marion snap!
I have the facial hair (watch this space!) and I do all the housework. Don't own a leather mini though...
I honestly get tired forever having to justify or explain how I label myself.I picked My user name on here as I was happy being a T-girl then I was told oh no your not that,tranny was out, due to the negative connotations of that which I understand, then being on here there's eternal threads debating on whether your transvestite or crossdresder. Now add MIAD to the list, any more and my head will explode. I would rather just cut all the labelling bull****
I'm just Sophie living my life as happily as I can
Sophie
It is EXACTLY for this reason that i started this thread. There is a massive difference between Bree who wishes she can pass and Phili who does not want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree_fun
BTW Bree you would be amazed what proper makeup, a good wig and the right outfit can do for most of us on here.
AND a general comment to everyone who don't like labels, life is full of labels we cant avoid them, so lets at least try ensure they are accurate. I hate paying tax but I can't avoid it legally.
I got confused and thought the thread was talking about dressing as a maid.
Also I get confused with all the terminology that is written on this forum and the web in general. Years ago when I use to go to clubs we were known as people, maybe we were known as people with an alternative lifestyle but we didn't call ourselves that. If one can remember in the UK the people called Blitz Kids and similar in the US(NYC) called Club Kids, then they will know what life was like back then for me. We just wanted to dress the way we wanted without describing to others what it meant. Though there were some like me that wanted to change genders or at least come close to it, as a non op transsexual.
But keep the discussion going, it makes for good reading.
We started using it about a year and a half ago. I wanted to see if there are others like me so I asked the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blair
https://www.crossdressers.com/forums...Are-you-a-Miad
There were others and the term became popular to describe us.
Look, I understand where you’re coming from, but I invite you to watch Contrapoints (TS YouTube star) video on YouTube regarding aesthetics. She used the example, if a guy identifies as Transsexual, but does not want to transition, wear women’s clothes, talk/act/look like a woman, then can he really be considered as TS?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaisyLawrence
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z1afqR5QkDM
You can personally identify as anything you want, but unless you fit the definition of a term in a physical/visual sense, you are not. Can you call somebody a crossdresser if they have never worn women’s clothing, but have only had the thought of doing so? I don’t think you can. A crossdresser is somebody who physically wears/has worn women’s clothing. Just as you cannot call somebody NB if they have never deviated from the Binary stereotypes society has created.
You can identify as being a dragon, but unless You grow wings, scales and can breathe fire, then sorry, but a dragon you are not. Physical characteristics are what makes something is what it is. Until you perform some kind of physical/visual action, all it is is a thought. For example, You can think about killing people all day long, but until you actually do it, you are not considered a murderer. In reality, what’s “in between your ears” means nothing. Actions are what matters and what defines us.
It’s like somebody dressed up in a dog suit telling you that they’re dressed like a cat. It doesn’t matter what they “think” they are dressed as, because everybody else in the world knows it’s a dog suit and will refer to it as such.
I believe the visual aspect is massive, because this is how every other person perceived/judges us. We need to consider how the general population views a term, not what we personally believe.
We must recognise that without any visuals, what would being TS, TG, NB or a CD even mean? If clothing, makeup, voice, the way we act don’t mean anything, then why do we do it? What we do is a VERY visual thing.