Can you CD w/o being TG?

Wether people like it or not the word Transgender is now an umbrella term used to include all gender variant people. Lets face it if you wear clothes designed for the other sex (and your male) your a CDer (unless your TS) and it matters not what your reasons for doing so are. the term CD falls under the transgender umbrella term at least this is its most common usage as far as I can tell. I have noticed the term transgendered being use to differentiate someone from a CDer. i don't see how this clarifies anything or what the purpose of doing so is. I suppose those people who Identify as transgendered in a way to differentiate themselves from CDers do so to say they are more serious about their CDing or they feel they have a female identify (to some degree) but express it through CDing rather than transitioning. this is speculation on my part though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pink Person

Do labels matter? It depends how meaningful your want your life to be and if you want to communicate with other people and have meaningful relationships with them. If you don't care about understanding yourself, communicating with other people, and having productive social relationships with them .............

---

this is a productive way to think of this question...its a cop out to say labels are bad, or "im just me"
...it's a valid point of view, but you are reducing yourself to 1 in 7 billion...nobody cares who you are...there is no Kaitlyn nite at the club..but there is ladies night.. and i care that people communicate to me in a meaningful way..

As you have a healthy respect for your own sense of self, you should be willing to accept that the cost of belonging is sometimes to compromise on who you belong with..

if you ascribe no value to belonging, who cares what you think?? why are you even here?

so even though I'm not a fan of the word transgender to describe crossdressing, it's fine.....lots of ts women say they are woman, and refute being ts....i have learned however that the "ts" label is sometimes neccessary and i use it to as such..

I've already stated my position. I view labels as useful tools for understanding...and I'm perfectly happy to ascribe the term Transgender to myself and to associated myself as part of that universe. I find I'm increasingly both happy and proud to be TG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aprilrain

Wether people like it or not the word Transgender is now an umbrella term used to include all gender variant people.

---

No one ever asks the platypus how he thinks he should be classified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kimdl93

I began this thread with what was a loaded question...and obviously, I have a point of view on the subject. It has precipitated far more and more heated discussion than I would have imagined. Perhaps I could have asked the same question in a less provocative manner...but it certainly has been interesting to see the reaction.

---

Kim, it's impossible to convey tone through text, but I just want to say that for me this is a discussion, an exchange of ideas, and nothing more than this. I see the conversation between Veronica and I, for example, as an attempt to determine which concepts we agree with, and which we do not. The overall topic of "Gender" has many components.

How else are concepts developed other than through discussion?

I think this thread and others like it will be helpful to someone down the line who might be asking himself a few questions. He'll be able to identify with what fits here and discard the rest, but most importantly he'll have developed the beginning of a language that might better describe how he feels.

:hugs:

Reine, I don't object to the tone, for the most part, even when it gets a bit heated. And I do agree that the principle value of these discussions is to help individuals sort things out for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

How else are concepts developed other than through discussion?

I think this thread and others like it will be helpful to someone down the line who might be asking himself a few questions. He'll be able to identify with what fits here and discard the rest, but most importantly he'll have developed the beginning of a language that might better describe how he feels.

:hugs:

---

exactly......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Don't these two thoughts contradict each other? If identity cannot be separated from gender expression, doesn't it follow that gender expression is to varying degrees tied to identity even if minutely?



.

---

There is no contradiction here. I was replying to your assertion that CD's who do not consider themselves to be TG are considering only two gender factors, their biological sex and their gender identity, and not the third component which is the gender role/expession. I pointed out that gender identity is based upon gender roles/expression by definition and that gender roles/expression are much more than clothing and appearances. Putting on a dress does not necessarily mean that your whole sense of being is now that of a woman. If all of your other major interests, and thought processes remain masculine, then you are hardly becoming transgendered.

Quote:

---

It is also true that transgender implies constancy, but so does crossdresser.

---

I was referring to the concept of transgender as being a condition of the individual. It remains constant, regardless of where they are and how they are dressed. It is who they are. The desire to crossdress may not go away, but it does not define the individual in the same sense as transgendered. Crossdressing is an activity in which the individual engages, and he is a crossdresser only with reference to this one activity, just as you are a skier if you partake in that activity. But skier does not define you as an individual. Transgender is not what we do. I have never seen it used as a verb, but rather it is an adjective.

Quote:

---

How would you define someone who comes into this forum identifying as a CD who is looking for breast creams to enhance his breasts "just a little bit so it won't show in guy mode, even if only to fit into a 36A"? And what is the difference between this person, and another who is satisfied with only donning breast forms while dressed? Don't they both want to appearance of breasts when they are dressed?

---

My definition of such an individual is not the relevant one. However, I do think that such an individual may have some TS tendencies, but is it my place to say? People do a lot of things to their bodies that I may not agree with, or choose for myself such as tatoos, piercings, and enhancements of various sorts, and they do them for a myriad of reasons. There is a big distinction between that person and the person who uses breast forms, but I wouldn't necessarily say it distinguishes a TG from a CD. Breasts are a part of the external image being created by a crossdresser. Seeking to physically enhance oneself, may go beyond the desire to make the image more realistic. As this is not an aspect of my activities or desires, anything further I might say is pure speculation.

Quote:

---

What is the motive for presenting fully as a woman, even if it is only done occasionally? If it is only for pleasure, then the question remains, what is it about crossing the gender presentation boundary that gives you (and others) pleasure or comfort, and how can it not be a sense of identification with the opposite gender even if this is experienced only during the crossdressing?

---

It is not a sense of identification with the opposite gender, because it has no impact on my gender identity. That is a back door way of trying to elicit the desired response. Are you a lawyer by any chance?:heehee: Crossdressing is really quite simple. You are experiencing some of the tactile sensations in which you observe women being allowed to indulge, but which are denied to you as a man by society's conventions. It can be relaxing, exhilerating and much more as it allows a temporary respite from the monotony and boredom of certain aspects of the masculine image to which we are expected to conform, while allowing the expression of certain parts of our persona that as men we are expected to suppress. These elements of our personality exist regardless of how masculine (or cisgendered) we might be, because they have little to do with gender which is a societal construct, not an individual one.

Quote:

---

..it is difficult to understand that a man presenting as a woman does this completely divorced from his sense of self. This just seems too disjointed.

---

As you are of the opinion that you are transgendered, then you would be looking at crossdressing from that point of view. Your sense of self, at least at times, is probably that of being a woman. Your statement in the quote assumes that my sense of self must also be that of a woman. Again, sounds like one of those lawyery twists. My sense of self is that I am a man, and crossdressing has no impact on that sense, and is not indulged in because of any latent or repressed thoughts of being a woman.

Part of the misunderstandings might have to do with the meaning and concept of being transgendered. I think the term is applied in far too loose a manner, but that is just my opinion. I have a sense that the desire to make it an umbrella term is for political gain, as it swells the numbers. The same goes for aligning the term "T" with LGB. The aims of these activists in gaining recognition for trans people is in fact a very noble one, but the watering down of the term by the inclusion of people like myself does nothing to help the cause. As long as crossdressing is not a criminal offense, I have no personal need for transgender rights, but the same does not apply to a TS or full time TG who is seeking workplace recognition. When every crossdresser and drag queen as well as others is seen as being a part of TG, it makes that recognition more difficult to achieve. It also creates false stereotypes that are assumed to apply to everyone.

What started out as a simple answer to a question "can you CD without being TG" has somehow gotten out of hand because people refuse to acknowledge the opinions of others. Again, if you answer yes, you are not claiming universality to that answer, but if you answer no, you are denying the existence of yes, and therein lies the problem.
I feel that enough has been said on the subject and don't wish to be drawn into any further debate. Crossdressing is too enjoyable and should be fun. Let's let everyone enjoy it in their own way.

Veronica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

... for me this is a discussion, an exchange of ideas, and nothing more than this. I see the conversation between Veronica and I, for example, as an attempt to determine which concepts we agree with, and which we do not.

---

Actually, I have found it more useful for helping me clarify my own ideas.

I've discovered that much of my thinking is not on a verbal level and I don't have a lot of practice translating it into words. Especially on topics like this, which are not exactly the sort of things one talks about at a coffee break at work.

I'm also grateful that people have been pretty decent to one another on this thread, if not always as understanding as I would have liked. (But, as an old physics prof. of mine once [should have] said, "if you really want people to completely understand you, you'll have to turn into a hydrogen atom.") Some of it has been tough for me, and there have been times when I wanted to jump up on the table and shout, "you've got it all wrong, listen to ME!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

What is the motive for presenting fully as a woman, even if it is only done occasionally? If it is only for pleasure, then the question remains, what is it about crossing the gender presentation boundary that gives you (and others) pleasure or comfort, and how can it not be a sense of identification with the opposite gender even if this is experienced only during the crossdressing?

---

This is IMHO raising the questions: what is crossdressing? What constitutes "presenting as a woman"? Is it enough to wear some "women-only" clothing? Or does one have to intend to pass as a woman?

If I put on a dress, tights, and petticoat and go off to a Contra dance (which is pretty much what I do several times a month), am I crossdressing? Am I presenting as a woman? Does it matter that I have a beard, am balding, and don't wear a wig? Does it matter whether I dance the woman's role or the man's? How about if my body type were androgynous enough that people might mistake me for a woman even in drab?

It's easy enough to say that what the majority of guys here are doing is "crossdressing" and that they at least intend to present as a woman (I refer to this as "orthodox crossdressing.") But what about the people who don't fit so neatly into the ISO standard crossdressing box?

And even for those whose crossdressing is quite conventional, how many are, underneath it all, really interested in the "being a woman" part, and how many simply interpret their desire for the pretty clothes and the makeup &c. as "wanting to be a woman," because they've been taught from the age of 3 months on that wanting or enjoying this stuff makes you a woman?

Veronica, I'll get back to you on post #136, but just to answer Asche real quick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asche

If I put on a dress, tights, and petticoat and go off to a Contra dance (which is pretty much what I do several times a month), am I crossdressing? Am I presenting as a woman? Does it matter that I have a beard, am balding, and don't wear a wig?

---

Asche, I do see a difference between a man who presents as a man but who wears women's clothing, like you do. I personally don't understand what motivates your clothing choices, but you are not attempting to present as a member of the opposite sex. If you say you identify as a man it makes sense to me, since you are presenting as a man (albeit with unconventional taste in clothes :p). I also imagine that if by chance all men were to suddenly tomorrow prefer to leave the constraints of wearing men's trousers and adopt the wearing of skirts, then you'd be happy as a clam. :)

BUT ... a crossdresser who desires to emulate the appearance of a woman with breast forms, makeup, wig, shaving, hiding facial hair, etc (not just wearing the clothes), I don't think would be happy wearing the same skirts that all the other men would wear if again, it were to become wildly popular tomorrow for all men to wear skirts. Such CDers would still choose the styles that the ladies wear, and would still wish to mask any maleness from their appearance.

This is not what you do, Asche, judging by your description. I dare say, I think you are in the minority here, but that's OK. :hugs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Asche, I do see a difference between a man who presents as a man but who wears women's clothing, like you do. I personally don't understand what motivates your clothing choices, but you are not attempting to present as a member of the opposite sex. If you say you identify as a man it makes sense to me, since you are presenting as a man (albeit with unconventional taste in clothes :p). I also imagine that if by chance all men were to suddenly tomorrow prefer to leave the constraints of wearing men's trousers and adopt the wearing of skirts, then you'd be happy as a clam. :)

BUT ... a crossdresser who desires to emulate the appearance of a woman with breast forms, makeup, wig, shaving, hiding facial hair, etc (not just wearing the clothes), I don't think would be happy wearing the same skirts that all the other men would wear if again, it were to become wildly popular tomorrow for all men to wear skirts. Such CDers would still choose the styles that the ladies wear, and would still wish to mask any maleness from their appearance.

---

There are other factors at play here too. Even when some CD's have their personal lives messed up (SO issues, TG/TS confusion...) the number of their pics(some CD's have like 1000 pics); their beautiful makeup; the smile, joy and contentment on each pic and their outdoor adventures paints a totally different picture to the outside world. The before and after transformations posted online are truly amazing. Any guy would be curious after seeing these pics. A CD in the closet might just be envious, that he is unable to have fun like others. So, full transformation and outing would be like an ultimate goal. I hope i am not wrong on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara.s

I hope i am not wrong on this.

---

No one is wrong. :hugs:

Everyone has their own opinions. My views are just that too ... my opinions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I personally don't understand what motivates your clothing choices, but you are not attempting to present as a member of the opposite sex. If you say you identify as a man it makes sense to me, since you are presenting as a man (albeit with unconventional taste in clothes :p).

---

I present as a man because, with my body, I figure I would have as much success presenting as a woman as I would trying to present as a flying squirrel. If I woke up tomorrow morning in a female body, I guess I would start presenting (and "identifying") as a woman -- but still with unconventional taste in clothes. I can't speak from experience, but I imagine I would feel like the same person, just with a different body and having to deal with a different set of expectations from the people around me.

I still don't know if people here would call what I do "crossdressing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I also imagine that if by chance all men were to suddenly tomorrow prefer to leave the constraints of wearing men's trousers and adopt the wearing of skirts, then you'd be happy as a clam. :)

---

Not necessarily. I suspect that then the fashionistas would start trying to tell me what kind of dresses were OK and which weren't. (The sort of c*** women have to put up with all the time.) As it is, the fashionistas take one look at me and give up on me as a lost cause, and leave me in peace to wear what I want and to be as "masculine" or "unmasculine" as I want. Which suits me just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

BUT ... a crossdresser who desires to emulate the appearance of a woman with breast forms, makeup, wig, shaving, hiding facial hair, etc (not just wearing the clothes), I don't think would be happy wearing the same skirts that all the other men would wear if again, it were to become wildly popular tomorrow for all men to wear skirts. Such CDers would still choose the styles that the ladies wear, and would still wish to mask any maleness from their appearance.

---

Maybe some -- or most -- would.

And maybe it would depend upon what those "skirts that all the other men would wear" are.

The thing is, I suspect that there are many underlying motivations for crossdressing, but because the only socially acceptable way to dress in women-only clothing or to take on any other characteristic that society deems "feminine" is to be a woman, men who aren't social refuseniks like me will tend to frame it as in some sense being a woman, and feel they have to become a woman (if only in their imagination) in order to allow themselves to do it.

However, I grant you that this last paragraph is something of a moot point: society isn't going to change in that way any time soon, and even if it did, crossdressers' attitudes wouldn't change that fast.

What I mainly wish for is that people would simply keep an open mind. Just because it looks to you like a man wants to be a woman (or be taken for one), or like a boy wants to be a girl, doesn't necessarily mean that that is what is going on. Sometimes a pretty dress is just a pretty dress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asche

What I mainly wish for is that people would simply keep an open mind. Just because it looks to you like a man wants to be a woman (or be taken for one), or like a boy wants to be a girl, doesn't necessarily mean that that is what is going on. Sometimes a pretty dress is just a pretty dress.

---

No, no don't get me wrong! I'm not saying that CDs who fully present/emulate women when they dress WANT to be women!!! Not at all! A CD feels no disconnect between his male gender identity and his biological sex (except perhaps the CDs who want real breasts or vaginas, or who want to be a wife to a husband, or who dreams of being a woman in bed with a man while dressed ... but that's a different topic :p).

I'm saying that a CD who crosses one of the gender boundaries (the gender expression), is "trans"gender (a.k.a. crossing a gender (expression) boundary). Doing this, and wanting to be, or believing oneself a woman are two entirely different things! :)

"trans" = to cross over (and come back. lol)

In my post on the previous page I wrote about the three components of gender: biological sex, gender identity and gender role/gender expression. A person of one biological sex who crosses either one or both of the other two gender markers is by definition crossing=trans gender. A man who knowingly presents as a man even if wearing a skirt is not fully adopting the gender expression of the opposite sex, and so in my view, does not fully cross the gender expression boundary. He is not wanting or hoping to convince others that he is a woman.

A CD who identifies as a man but who wants or hopes to convince others he is a woman while dressed, is still a man who crosses the gender expression boundary. So, he is a transgender male.

I have dipped in and out of this thread as I have been away a lot and not able to provide focused concentration.. BUT... it has been enormously rewarding and helpful in the insights that people have provided.

Yes, we are all different, and yes, we have areas of similarity and isn't this so confusing when we try to categorise?

Kim's original post has created an opportunity for us to really question why we do this... and fro me this has been extremely helpful, both in my own reflection and in my developing understanding of what others have posted that don't immediately hit my frame of reference.

What am I saying? If we are all the same, then we fit under a normal distribution curve with vaiance. If we are not all the same, there will be a seperate distibution for each 'category'... and the categories will overlap... so we will think we are part of something that we aren't.

Difficult to explain in text... much easier with pictures...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Hmm. I was working on a list of definitions to post as a sticky, and it went on the back burner. I think it's time to post it now. The definitions come from the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), their latest Standards of Care (SoC), version 7.

You can't get any more definitive than that. And anyone who reads it and disagrees, ... well, then they're just speaking a different language than everyone else. You know, like someone who refuses to call a television a television because they think that "DFWMP" (device-for-watching-moving-pictures) is a better and more descriptive term. Or, someone who doesn't want to call it anything because, well, there are too many different opinions as to what a television should be called. :p

Here's the new sticky, posted in the M2F: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...16#post2636716

---

It was then in post#29, you gave the definition of TG from WPATH and said that this is the most accurate source and i have marked your quote in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I'm saying that a CD who crosses one of the gender boundaries (the gender expression), is "trans"gender (a.k.a. crossing a gender (expression) boundary). Doing this, and wanting to be, or believing oneself a woman are two entirely different things! :)

"trans" = to cross over (and come back. lol)

A CD who identifies as a man but who wants or hopes to convince others he is a woman while dressed, is still a man who crosses the gender expression boundary. So, he is a transgender male.

---

Well, now in total contradiction to your earlier post, here you say: TG = crossing over from one gender to another. This is not in any way related to the clinical term. If we just keep changing the definition to whatever suits our fancy, I just don't see any point in subscribing to this thread. Sorry, but I am out of here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

No, no don't get me wrong! I'm not saying that CDs who fully present/emulate women when they dress WANT to be women!!! Not at all! A CD feels no disconnect between his male gender identity and his biological sex (except perhaps the CDs who want real breasts or vaginas, or who want to be a wife to a husband, or who dreams of being a woman in bed with a man while dressed ... but that's a different topic :p).

---

*hugs you tight* You left out the idea of TG's who want to dress and not emulate a woman. But the Hug was to cover lots of things I have felt and wondered on that no other TG chat I have been on before mentioned. The concept of IDing as male but dressing, and having breast envy, and wondering on being/having a male girlfriend emphasis on male, etc.

On most sites I seen over the years accepting male as your identity and especially your and your partners Identity while crossdressing gets you rejected. This is the first time I seen anyone but me acknowledge this as a real possibility in my years searching TG sites looking for a place to fit in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kimdl93

I read this in another thread and wondered, is it really possible to be a CDr but not be TG.

In my view, CDing is a manifestation of transgenderism. I would concede that individuals may be more or less TG, but I have a hard time imagining anyone CDing without being TG.

What are your thoughts?

---

I think it is possible for someone to CD without being TG of it is a one off joke, a costume for halloween, or for an acting role. But if it becomes more than that they fall into the TG spectrum in its broadest definition. (Though I have met some narrow minded people who tried excluding CD's from the definition of TG but that is a rant for another day).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica27

Crossdressing is really quite simple. You are experiencing some of the tactile sensations in which you observe women being allowed to indulge, but which are denied to you as a man by society's conventions.

---

And do you still say that this is the opposite of the internationally agreed definition of Transgender which Reine linked to previously?
As a reminder, that said:

Quote:

---

Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender.

---

So you confirm that you are experiencing sensations which are culturally restricted to the gender role opposite to the one with which you are identified but also affirm that you are not transcending any culturally defined categories of gender?

I am sat here with a class of four students. 3 are GGs and each is wearing a pair of jeans. Are they CDs? I'm assuming they're not TG... TG seems to cover everything in this forum from wearing a pair of panties under your trousers to trans- and inter-sex up to post op and living their preferred and chosen gender role. Someone like me who enjoys the look and feel of the clothes and expresses his feminine side happily and easily in his day to day interactions as a man is just a mild case of the same things as someone who cannot bear to live as male any longer.

I think we want to be very wary of falling into the same taxonomic trap that the rest of the world wants ot put us into.

Let's reject the idea that people are EITHER male of female, EITHER gay or straight which is society's current position, but with it let's also abandon the craziness that has us doing the same polar thinking among ourselves. It's not only a spectrum, it's a continuous spectrum and no two people are exactly the same cmobination of genetics / anatomy / brain chemistry / preference / identity / presentation. I don't see why the spectrum can't run on at either end to incorporate people who are fully settled in their chosen gender.

And clothes aren't evolutionary, they're constructed. - wearing lovely silky, shiny, sexy, lacy, stuff is only girly because society says so. Society is wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel Flowers

I think we want to be very wary of falling into the same taxonomic trap that the rest of the world wants ot put us into.

Let's reject the idea that people are EITHER male of female, EITHER gay or straight which is society's current position, but with it let's also abandon the craziness that has us doing the same polar thinking among ourselves. It's not only a spectrum, it's a continuous spectrum and no two people are exactly the same cmobination of genetics / anatomy / brain chemistry / preference / identity / presentation. I don't see why the spectrum can't run on at either end to incorporate people who are fully settled in their chosen gender.

---

There are three traps. The first is an attempt to undermine classification. That's a mistake as classifications have endless utilitity. I view your spectrum argument as a variation of this. Not that the TG spectrum isn't wide and varied - it is - but that in deliberately extending beyond certain boundaries ("... incorporate people who are fully settled in their chosen gender"), you've destroyed the utility itself.

The second trap is trying to have classification both ways. This happens in the attempt to redefine from both the trans and cisgender points of view. The non-TG population is not prepared to accept behavior like CDing in their view of gender-normal behavior. Recasting cismale from the trans point of view (or CD POV, if you like) accomplishes nothing for them.

The third is a logical trap, arguing the specific vs. the general. The fact that any classification system encompasses wide variation doesn't invalidate the classification. That's like arguing that bluebirds are, after all, just birds, and shouldn't we view them as a spectrum? The answer is yes and no. No, because the narrow classification (bluebirds) has utility, including understanding such things as specific habitat, nesting and feeding behavior, and conservation needs. Yes because there is a hierarchy of bird classification, wherein each becomes more generalized. You don't eliminate one for the other, you deal with the utility of the respective classifications.

Utility is an extremely important concept in classification systems. Ultimately, it's the differentiator between superficial and non-superficial differences. Sometimes it's a biological function (e.g., one species can't mate with another). Sometimes it's a social difference (e.g., norms, acceptance, and role). Unilateral declarations don't eliminate real differences. Legitimate attempts at classification recognize them, even when they are subject to change over time, as are many real-world social issues.

Finally, to focus on concepts of right and wrong also misses the utilitarian point. Norms may be "enforced" by social pressure, but their function is different than proscribed behavior which is reflected in explicit rules and in law. Norms are social lubrication, the (mostly) unstated and unthinking assumptions that underpin interaction and relationships in any society. They trigger reactions along right and wrong lines when boundaries are crossed, but, unlike legal boundaries, are still only subject to social pressure.

Lea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara.s

It was then in post#29, you gave the definition of TG from WPATH and said that this is the most accurate source and i have marked your quote in bold.



Well, now in total contradiction to your earlier post, here you say: TG = crossing over from one gender to another. This is not in any way related to the clinical term. If we just keep changing the definition to whatever suits our fancy, I just don't see any point in subscribing to this thread. Sorry, but I am out of here.

---

Here;s the definition in the sticky..

Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth.

what exactly are you talking about??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara.s

It was then in post#29, you gave the definition of TG from WPATH and said that this is the most accurate source and i have marked your quote in bold.



Well, now in total contradiction to your earlier post, here you say: TG = crossing over from one gender to another. This is not in any way related to the clinical term. If we just keep changing the definition to whatever suits our fancy, I just don't see any point in subscribing to this thread. Sorry, but I am out of here.

---

It's certainly your prerogative to choose which threads you will participate in.

My statements aren't contradictions.

I am of the opinion that the people who dispute the WPATH definition speak a different language than members of the LGBTQ community and also the professionals in the field. I also later said, "crossing gender expression lines [and coming back]" to illustrate that the crossing need not be permanent as it is with transsexuals who transition. This was to answer the concerns of the CDers who erroneously equate "transgender" with "transexual". The definition of transgender does state "to varying degrees", and this includes people who present as the opposite sex occasionally. I know of no transsexual who is TS one day, and not the next.

You can agree with this or not, it is still your prerogative.

Last weekend I sent my boys an email telling them I crossdress. The only purpose in telling them was not for validation or acceptance, but living alone with my dog and being 59, might be police who find my female clad dead body, when that happens..:). The female clad would probably be considered news worthy, so I told my boys so they would hear it from me first..:). I also told them, that if my passing is a public outing..:), just let those questioning know you knew and your dad was a Free Spirit..:).

That's the best label that I think really describes me..:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randi_TGFM

.... living alone with my dog and being 59, might be police who find my female clad dead body, when that happens..:). The female clad would probably be considered news worthy, so I told my boys so they would hear it from me first..:).... just let those questioning know you knew and your dad was a Free Spirit..:).

That's the best label that I think really describes me..:).

---

Hopefully it won't be any time soon! Have you gotten any reaction from your sons?