Can you CD w/o being TG?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophie86

Perhaps you should ask the ladies in FAB how they respond to the term 'transgender', and whether it puts them off? Do they prefer to think of their husbands as CD?

---

I often mention my SO's TG support group in FAB and elsewhere in this forum, since it is a TG group; there is a healthy mix of TS, CD, and no doubt TS Questioning.

When I refer to the membership as a whole, I use "TG". If I refer to someone's husband in particular, I use either CD or TS (some of our FABs are married to TSs). I've not heard a GG quibble about the terms. I'm pretty sure that most GGs understand that TG is an umbrella term, once they begin to learn about all of this. I refer to my own SO as a CD or dualgender, or transgender, depending on the context and the person's depth of understanding.

I'm here in panties, a dress and a wig. I wouldn't trade it for anything. I Love being a girl/man. I wish I was a woman but don't have a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

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.

---

The WPATH definition is different from the LGBTQ definition. As per the LGBT community, all CD's are TG, but as per the WPATH this is the case only if their gender identity varies (not their gender presentation) see the defns below. Many of you just don't want to believe that there TG has 2 different definitions (at least). This is what annoys me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

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.

---

This is really BS. Kindly have a look at the definition of the crossdresser/TG/TS below. The definition of transgender says that the gender identity of a person must vary to a certain degree, not the gender presentation. And by gender identity, it means the inner sense of oneself not the girl name you give for crossdressed image.

Definitions posted again for those who keep ignoring them or twisting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossdressing (transvestism): Wearing clothing and adopting a gender role presentation that, in a given culture, is more typical of the other sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Gender identity: A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transsexual: Adjective (often applied by the medical profession) to describe individuals who seek to change or who have changed their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics through femininizing or masculinizing medical interventions (hormones and/or surgery), typically accompanied by a permanent change in gender role.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sara ... excluding yourself, since for you dressing is a costume, what do you think drives the desire to transcend gender roles and/or presentation for the bulk of the CDs in this forum who enjoy looking, feeling, and acting like women on occasion?

Also, have you read my post #173?

Crossdressers need to weigh the different meanings of transgender and cisgender to find their
place in the world. If they have done that and still think they are cisgender then they clearly don't understand the meaning of that word.

Cisgender men and women are the north and south poles of the gender world. As far as gender is concerned, the earth is indeed flat, and most people live in the polar regions. However, some people, Canadian crossdressers for instance, live south of the north pole and perhaps were born there. Other people might have been born in South America and moved to Canada. They occupy the same general area but arrived there in different ways.

Crossdressers and other transgender people do not inhabit the polar regions of the gender world. Every time crossdressers put on a dress or a bra they are flying a flag that says so. You can tell people you are flying your gender flag just because it is pretty or feels good and not because it is symbolic of anything that flags generally represent, but no one will understand or believe you. Also, if you try to move to the North Pole, you will be deported as a nonresident alien.

The problem is that through the years the terminology continues to evolve. There have been quite a few shifts in the way these term are used. And they will probably will continue to do so. It does not help that so many people have different definitions...even within the medical community. And the definitions can vary from culture to culture.

Currently, in our culturem, transgender is generally a term used to encompass anyone whose gender expression is outside the norms of their expected gender behavior. That includes all of us, genderqueer, gender-benders, genderf***s, transgenderists, transvestites, TS and all in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sophie86

But there is nothing in the form of the words to indicate that difference. That's the whole point! It's not that I don't believe you when you say that some group of academics have decided that this will be the definition of the word, it's that I don't think that's how the word is commonly understood. Why can't there be an umbrella term that doesn't require me to explain to people that it doesn't mean what they think it means?

---

I agree with you that the nuanced differences between CD, TG, and TS are lost on the general public. Frankly if you plan on telling people then plan on having to explain it and then plan on them still not understanding! No matter what term is invented, TG issues just aren't on the publics radar. I don't see this as a problem with regards to non-TG individuals, I see this lack of understanding and gross misuse of terminology as a problem for the "community". We need cohesive definitions for the people who are new and are trying to figure themselves out.

Again, gender and sex are different things. I take issue with any CDer who wears the full "kit" and claims to not be TG. If its just about the clothes why bother with the wig, fake tits and make up? Being TG has nothing to do with wanting to change ones sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Sara ... excluding yourself, since for you dressing is a costume, what do you think drives the desire to transcend gender roles and/or presentation for the bulk of the CDs in this forum who enjoy looking, feeling, and acting like women on occasion?

---

veronica27 has already added a lot on this side of the discussion, and i can't add to that as i am not "other cd". But a person who "transcends gender roles" on occasion doesn necessarily self-identify as a woman, when dressed. They might feel feminine, but that is different. I have seen posts from cd's saying they cant find inner woman, or just want to feel feminine, or do it as a fetish. I have seen posts saying cd'ing is something which they just "DO". Even drag queens crossdress on the "occasion", but they still retain their male "self-identity". Some cd's don't even have a female name on this site and go with something like "pantywearer", "delaware blonde" etc There are probably million's of cd'ers out there who "get off" to wearing SO's clothes but would never self-identify as a woman and would never come out to anyone as there is no incentive. You said you agreed to my post http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...3F#post2629223

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Also, have you read my post #173?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I propose that a man who CDs knows no other way of being a male, and therefore he imagines that he feels the same way about his gender identity as any male who does not CD. But, if he were to temporarily inhabit the non-CD's mind and body, he might discover a total revulsion for wearing anything that is feminine. Do both these men have the same male-identity?
Just food for thought.

---

non-cders are not monsters and they too feel feminine(calm, caring, weak etc). Even if there is revulsion to others crossdressing, they still have a male identity. And don't expect every guy to give a same answer to "how do you define a male?". Media mostly plays a big role in affecting one's perceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aprilrain

I agree with you that the nuanced differences between CD, TG, and TS are lost on the general public.

---

Probably, April. I checked my company's HR EO policy statement the other day, though. Expression of both gender and gender identity are covered. I take the spread of policies like this as an indication of some level of public awareness.

Lea

You can take the chicken out of Kentucky, but you can't take Kentucky out of the chicken. By chicken, I mean crossdresser. By Kentucky, I mean the femmy transmasculinity of some guys with girl names who live there.

P.S. I know. I know. Guys with girl names only wear them because they look good and feel silky smooth against their skin. Don't bother telling us again, Mary.

The question presented at the outset is quite simple, and by its nature offers an opportunity for some great intellectual discussion. My answer is yes, but as with any such question, either a yes or a no should be accompanied by an explanation. I attempted to provide that, and as I might expect, was challenged by numerous people on the "no" side. And so I increasingly attempted to elaborate on my explanation. As I mentioned, part of the difficulty with the question was the fact that a "no" answer precludes the possibility that for some individuals a "yes" answer could even exist, while the reverse is not the case for a "yes" answer. For that reason, many of the "no" responses were very forceful, and placed the "yes" responders into a defensive position. The "yes" responses appeared to fall on deaf ears, in many instances, and were even met with derision by some. At times, my replies became a bit testy, and for that I apologize.

The reality here is that while the question is quite simple, the answer is extremely complex. Despite what some would have us believe, there is no general concensus on the meaning of many of the terms that have been bandied about here, particularly transgender. A study of the history of the term reveals that its original intent was quite different from the all inclusive approach that many here espouse. Some argue that it has evolved into the umbrella term, but the evolution of most words is more of an elongated process over decades and even centuries with a gradual shifting towards slightly alternate applications of the root word. With transgender, this did not happen, but rather it was suggested by certain activists that this broadening of the original word should take place. While a bit of an oversimplification of what transpired, this was essentially what happened and it was primarily for political purposes.

If you google transgender, you will get an excellent Wikipedia page on the subject. One of the references at the bottom of the page is to a study report entitled "Who put the 'trans' in transgender". This paper outlines four distinct approaches to the term, and describes the ongoing significance and impact of each. We have basically been arguing the first two approaches here, so I will not complicate matters by attempting to explain numbers 3 and 4, which I found somewhat confusing. Number 1 was that of Virginia Prince who coined the term to refer to those who wished to live as the gender opposite to their birth sex, without SRS, while Number 2 was the application of the term as an umbrella term largely for political gain by the activists in the 1980's.

From a strictly linguistic approach, the word combines two root words, trans and gender. The definition of the prefix trans is "across, through, over....etc." For example a trans-continental railroad stretches across a continent. The trains can move back and forth, but the railroad remains a fixture between two end points. The prefix trans describes the railroad and not the train. The train's timetable can be described as trans-continental, but by strict definition the train is not. In applying this prefix to gender what are we really saying? The individual is like the train. He goes back and forth but it is not he who spans across anything. The train's timetable is not transcontinental if it just goes between two towns that are mid-route. Some here say any cross gender or cross dressing activity makes you transgender, but you are only the passenger, and in most cases are not actually crossing the entire gender spectrum. Image is but one aspect of gender.

There are various definitions of the word gender (none of which were included in the sticky about definitions the last time I checked). Most definitions put it as a construct of society. In other words it is not a part of you, like your personality, sexual orientation, right or left handedness and so on. It is purely subject to the whims of society at any time and place. The word is so nebulous that any word such as transgender has very little meaning, except what we want it to mean for our own purposes. It certainly should not be imposed upon anyone by another, if the individual disagrees with such an application.

So why am I so opposed to this term? I am not opposed to its existence as I think it can be useful for some people and groups. It certainly has benefits for the political activists. As individuals, we all have our own identity. It is who we are. We live in a world that from a sexual standpoint is primarily binary. As individuals we identify in most cases with our birth sex. It is who we are. Some identify sometimes or all the time, as the opposite sex, for a variety of reasons. They may "want to be", "feel that they are", not always sure which they are, or at times in their mind become the opposite sex. But to say that something called "gender identity" has to be affected by such a triviality as what clothing we might sometimes wear is preposterous. For a community which for the most part dislikes labels, I find it strange that some of those members want to insist on using this label for its simplicity and all-inclusiveness, when by its nature it tends to create a very false picture of some members. The public does not see the variety that this term supposedly encompasses, it just sees the image that it conveys in the mainstream thinking. It does a disservice to many of us, and is linguistically incorrect.

Veronica

Some people have a peculiarly selective understanding of sex and gender. Is your wife a train
or a woman? How do you know? Are you a man or a box of breakfast cereal? We will understand if you can't answer these questions.

Sex and gender are not linguistic concepts. They exist outside of language not inside of it or because of it. Deaf and dumb dodo birds understand this better than you do.

I was meandering though the web, reading an article from the UK Observer, "20 predictions for the next 25 years". It's an interesting article and has nothing to do with gender or trans. In their prediction #12 for future fashions (scroll to mid page), the paragraph begins with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Fashion is such an important part of the way in which we communicate our identity to others, and for a very long time it's meant dress: the textile garments on our body.

---

Even the reporters at The Guardian know that how we choose to present ourselves reflects who we feel we are. Veronica, what do you think informs our choices to present the way we do? Why do you make certain choices when you dress as a guy? Please take some time to think deeply about this.

It also might help if you stop thinking of your femme persona (the person who presents femme and whom you associate with the name Veronica), as an entity outside of your guy self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara.s

But a person who "transcends gender roles" on occasion doesn necessarily self-identify as a woman, when dressed.

---

No one is saying that crossing gender boundaries means the person identifies as a woman. Please go back and read the posts. Also, gender identity is not "either/or", male or female. There is a VAST range in between the two polarities. I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but please try. If you are unwilling to understand this, that's fine. But please stop insisting that gender is binary. It just isn't.

... also Sara, there are other people posting in this thread, not just me. Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Even the reporters at The Guardian know that how we choose to present ourselves reflects who we feel we are. Veronica, what do you think informs our choices to present the way we do? Why do you make certain choices when you dress as a guy? Please take some time to think deeply about this.

It also might help if you stop thinking of your femme persona (the person who presents femme and whom you associate with the name Veronica), as an entity outside of your guy self.

---

Those are very good questions, and are central to an understanding of this whole topic. Firstly, the gender of what we wear is but one aspect of the overall presentation of "who we are". Our overall personality and the attitudes we develop toward a great many external factors all come into play. The impact of any of those factors, is reflected by the extent to which we present whatever image we are showing, whether consciously or subconsciously. The necessity of any given situation is usually the primary determinant of dressing, but there is usually some flexibility as to how we present it, (i.e. well groomed, sloppy, mismatched colours etc.). But it is reflective of our personality and acquired attitudes. If one were to crossdress in a situation where the necessity as to presentation was strong, it would certainly be reflective of gender importance in our choices. Such individuals would most likely qualify as transgendered. However, in cases where crossdressing is occasional, mostly very private, seldom full presentation, and so on, then gender may be a very tiny aspect or even non-existent element of the dressing. Stress, or frustration of everyday life, as well as personality traits such as curiosity, risk taking, being adventuresome, and the attitudes we develop as a result of our experiences, which can include rebelliousness, sexual inhibitions etc. can all play a much larger part in determining the choices we make as to when and how we dress. The list of possibilities is endless, and the mistake that many in the community make, I believe, is attributing everything to what has come to be referred to as gender identification.

I do not think in terms of my crossdressed "persona" as being an entity outside of my guy self. The name Veronica is simply a screen name or user ID I chose for the sake of anonymity. I use it for internet posting and for e-mail for purposes of privacy, and it has become a handy and consistent identifier for the few occasions when I have attended a CD function. However I am dressed, I am still me, a guy, I do my normal guy things around the house, my wife calls me by my guy name and I always think of myself as being he. I don't believe I have ever posted about Veronica in the third person as some do nor have I referred to myself as becoming Veronica. I simply refer to being crossdressed or not. I have never maintained that how I feel or what I am is what everyone should or must be. I just offer it as my self observation and opinion. I enjoy reading other's opinions and viewpoints and over the years have learned much from them. I welcome any questions about my viewpoints. What I do reject is judgemental conclusions about me that are unsupported by any clear logic

I hope this answers your questions.

Veronica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

No one is saying that crossing gender boundaries means the person identifies as a woman. Please go back and read the posts. Also, gender identity is not "either/or", male or female. There is a VAST range in between the two polarities. I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but please try. If you are unwilling to understand this, that's fine. But please stop insisting that gender is binary. It just isn't.

---

Gender identity is not binary as per the definition, you are right.. But identifying a person's Gender identity is a prerogative of that person and it is not upto other's to judge based on that person's clothing. You can google for the definition of Gender Identity and everywhere you will only find that it is a personal or self-conception or so on. Even in the definition you posted, it says it is "Intrinsic". Will you be able to point me to one single definition, where it says that gender identity is subjective to some other person's opinion? So I am still not sure how you can so easily generalize every CD's gender identity.

What i am coming at is all CD's are not necessarily transgendered (but cisgendered). Better title for the topic would have been "Are CD's cisgendered?", so we would not have had to discuss the whole lot about the definition of Transgender. If you still think cisgender men never crossdress please go through this dissertation, by author with 10 years of experience in this field http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewconte...ontext=soc_etd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

... also Sara, there are other people posting in this thread, not just me. Just saying.

---

My apoligies if you think i am behind you. But you are the only one i disagree with. I mostly agree to every one else, including April's comment about TG being used as an umbrella term, so CD's are also TG in that sense. There is one person who talks about Kentucky chickens and transmasculinity and I have no idea how they are even related to this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica27

However, in cases where crossdressing is occasional, mostly very private, seldom full presentation, and so on, then gender may be a very tiny aspect or even non-existent element of the dressing.

---

Are you describing yourself when you say there is no full presentation (no forms, makeup, wigs, etc)? So you do not attempt to present as a woman? Well, why didn't you say so! LOL. We've been arguing for pages, based on my assumption that you present all out femme like the CDs in the Gallery! If you present as a guy who simply wears women's clothing, then I agree you are not transgender, as I mentioned some pages back. Or, this can be debated by others if they wish, but not by me.

But ... just to yank your chain a bit, you write above, "then gender may be a very tiny aspect". I have a question. If a woman is 1 day pregnant, is she pregnant or not pregnant? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara.s

Even in the definition you posted, it says it is "Intrinsic". Will you be able to point me to one single definition, where it says that gender identity is subjective to some other person's opinion? So I am still not sure how you can so easily generalize every CD's gender identity.

---

It's not just me, Sara. It's almost the entire community, in and outside this forum. Besides, I'm not saying anything about you. I think I told you repeatedly that I believe you when you say you are not TG, since you only use the clothing as a costume. :)

Oh .. and your link points to a graduate dissertation by a transman. He is not published yet. Hi dissertation studies the gender identities of ciswomen who are in relationships with other transmen. Before being partnered, most of these women had affiliations with the LGBT community as lesbians. But once in their relationships with transmen, they changed their sexual preference identities to mostly queer, pansexual, or bisexual. These are sexual preferences and not gender identities. Anyway, this study has nothing to do with CDs who do not consider themselves transgender. But, thanks for the link. I wonder if hetero women married to TGs change their identities to lesbian or bi. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

But ... just to yank your chain a bit, you write above, "then gender may be a very tiny aspect". I have a question. If a woman is 1 day pregnant, is she pregnant or not pregnant?

---

This is an unfair analogy... Try this: if you drop a bottle of poison into the ocean, is the ocean poisonous? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

It's not just me, Sara. It's almost the entire community, in and outside this forum.

---

whoever you are talking about agree with CD'ers are Transgendered as in the umbrella term, but not as in the clinical definition from WPATH. It would be nice if such kind of generalization from you be accompanied from some reliable source. Also by not responding to my previous post on "Gender Identity", you seem to be agreeing with that. Don't you? ;)

One reason we do not like the Transgender term is because we find it offensive to be labelled as something whose definition, meaning, perception in public is so different and not clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Besides, I'm not saying anything about you. I think I told you repeatedly that I believe you when you say you are not TG, since you only use the clothing as a costume. :)

---

I still find it offensive to me when some one classifies all CD's as TG's.

Sara, as much as I like you, I'll just have to bow gracefully out of our conversation in this thread. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. :hugs:

You can boil your gender soup down to your gender identity but that doesn't make one dish the same as the other.

For the record, crossdressing is an ingredient in some transgender soups. It is not an ingredient in any cisgender soups.

P.S. Anonymous crossdressing men with anonymous girl's names are only anonymous to themselves when it comes to their gender characteristics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Are you describing yourself when you say there is no full presentation (no forms, makeup, wigs, etc)? So you do not attempt to present as a woman? Well, why didn't you say so! LOL. We've been arguing for pages, based on my assumption that you present all out femme like the CDs in the Gallery! If you present as a guy who simply wears women's clothing, then I agree you are not transgender, as I mentioned some pages back. Or, this can be debated by others if they wish, but not by me.

But ... just to yank your chain a bit, you write above, "then gender may be a very tiny aspect". I have a question. If a woman is 1 day pregnant, is she pregnant or not pregnant? :D

---

I did not say "no" full presentation.:eek: The exact quote was:

"However, in cases where crossdressing is occasional, mostly very private, seldom full presentation, and so on, then gender may be a very tiny aspect or even non-existent element of the dressing." I used "occasional", "mostly private" and "seldom full". While I was speaking in generalities, the descriptions are pretty close to my situation. (I often use forms, but seldom use makeup or a wig. My own hair is long and kept in a man's style ponytail). I have attended a handfull of CD events, and for those I do try to dress as fully as possible given my limitations, but I am not attempting to convey to anyone that I am a woman, but simply a man attending a crossdressing function. The expression "present as a woman" is open to a lot of different interpretations. It covers everything from a disguise, to living full time as a woman, including costumes, playing "let's pretend", various forms of crossdressing and transgender activity.

Equating gender to pregnancy is like comparing apples and oranges. Oh wait, they are both fruits.:straightface: Perhaps apples and shoes would be more appropriate. Gender is highly subjective for both society and the individual, while pregnancy is an absolute condition.:battingeyelashes:

Veronica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica27

Equating gender to pregnancy is like comparing apples and oranges. Oh wait, they are both fruits.:straightface: Perhaps apples and shoes would be more appropriate. Gender is highly subjective for both society and the individual, while pregnancy is an absolute condition.:battingeyelashes:

---

I was trying to make light of the situation. :)

But, it is clear that you are very comfortable with your choice of identification, and I feel I have :chatterbox: enough, so at this point I will send you :hugs: and :wave: goodbye until we meet in another thread, hopefully not about whether CDs are TGs or not. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Sara, as much as I like you, I'll just have to bow gracefully out of our conversation in this thread. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. :hugs:

---

No love lost.. well, at least we agreed on one thing i.e. to disagree:straightface:

Short answer, it is possible to be a CD without being a TS. Absolutely.

But the definition of transgender is ANY behavior traditionally associated exclusively to the opposite sex. It's a spectrum, much like Kinsey's scale, from 1 to 6, with 1's being 100% gender conformant at all times. Wearing women's underwear, because they are women's underwear, would at least make you a 2.

If your wore spandex men's briefs or your satin men's boxers, you would be "normal", a 1, but if you wore spandex women's briefs you would fit the definition of being transgendered. If that's ALL you wore, that would be a fetish.

However, there are some who cross-dress for professional reasons. Drag Queens and Female Impersonators dress up and sing or lip-sync for money, usually tips, to entertain others. But as soon as the show is over, they rush to the dressing room to get back into their boy-clothes. Even many of these run the range from just putting on a show to pre-op transsexuals.

So if you're one of those who got cast as Charley in Charley's Aunt, or Grandma Burnsides in Mame, then you're just an entertainer, unless, like me, you campaigned for the roles, hoping you would get them, and got upset when you didn't get it. Ironically, I didn't get it because I was too believable as a woman.

If you see a beautiful woman in a beautiful dress and
1 - you want to see what she looks like without the dress, then your "All man".
2 - You wander what the dress would feel like, but don't care if it fits or if you look good, you have a fetish.
3 - You want to wear the dress look at yourself in a mirror - your a casual cross-dresser.
4 - You want to wear the dress, in your size and pass in public - your a cross dresser and somewhat transgendered..
5 - If you want to wear the dress and look as beautiful in it as she does, you're transgendered.
6 - If you want to BE that woman, in the dress, then you're transsexual.

im a gg & is my biggest fear how do u know?

I think I can...but

"I am the lizard king...I can do anything."

but I could be wrong...:drink:

:hugs:

:love: