Labels for CDs

I don?t want to pick a fight here. I?m trying to address some characterizations of people like me (straight CD).
In a previous post I noted how my electrolysis tech told me that the small sample of trans she works on told her that CDs just had a kink or fetish, which suggests trans do not have this fetish. I also read in a recent post on this forum the same thing, that CDs and trans differ in that CDs have a fetish or kink.

Here?s the definition of fetish.

a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
"Victorian men developed fetishes focusing on feet, shoes, and boots"

So I agree there is a sexual component especially when you start. But it isn?t always true and at least for me, the sexual aspect isn?t the main driver anymore.

I know it is an obsession. I?ve tried to quit numerous times and failed. My opinion is that a better characterization is that CDs have an obsession versus the more narrow term, fetish.

Ok, the gates are open. I?d like to hear your views. Is this a small distinction or do you agree with either of the terms?

Well, I think it STARTS with a kind of "Fetish" in early adolescent years, but as time goes on we discover other aspects of CDing, E.G. The joy of "Feeling pretty", the "high from breaking a Taboo, the stress relief, etc., and the person gets MORE reasons to CD than what initially kicked it off. Trans people CD for the obvious reason---They IDENTIFY with the opposite sex, so naturally they would want to present and dress like them. Homosexuals have their reasons too. Those of us who are straight and do not identify with the opposite sex are simply classified as "Crossdressers" although Trans and Gay folks ALSO are known for crossdressing, but for them it is part of their "Condition" which has a name. Us straight CDs have more varied and complicated motivations, that have little to do with who we identify as or are attracted to, that puts us into another class entirely. ------It frustrates me that many people tend to think that "Crossdressers" are put into the same "basket" with Gays and Trans as crossdressing is the only thing we have in common.

Depending on whose dictionary you're using, the term "fetish" may, or may not, have a sexual component attached to it. To be sure, that covers a lot of CD's, but there are many who fall under one of the Merriam-Webster definitions, "...an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion".

Look, there is a tendency here to try to diagnose by applying labels, or at least to pigeonhole people by insisting that this or that label applies to them. It is a fool's errand. Since you don't get the sexual charge out of it, I could argue that you're not a CD, but rather a transsexual who is in denial, but I'd probably be wrong. We are all complex individuals, and for each one of us, this or that label is probably inaccurate to some degree.

My advice? Stop worrying about which box you fit into and just get comfortable with who you are and where you are.

Here we go again. Remind me why we care. Your tech is far from an authority on this subject that has been addressed on this forum multiple times. Nowadays transgender is thought of as an inclusive term that would include the so-called fetishistic crossdresser and the “woman in a man?s body” person. These are different aspects (ends) of the transgender continuum. Many crossdressers do not want to be called trans (or admit that they are). Many who identify as transgender have eroticized some aspect of dressing because, after all, they went through puberty with testosterone and male genitalia. Having some fetish does not disqualify you as trans, btw.

My personal view is that if you crossdress at all, any little bit, for sexual gratification or not, you are at least somewhere on the transgender continuum. Some of us are just further down the line than others…. Nancy

Only the mods know for sure how many members there are in this group, but each one of us has a different motivation for what we do.
It is human nature to try and categorize things, to look up words in the dictionary of the day and try to quantify them.
I think saying that all Cd's have a kink or fetish is first, wrong, and second, limiting.
Some do and some don't.

I've been dressing since I was five or six and it has never been sexual for me.
I do think I have some form of gender dysphoria, but am still just a cross dresser; no kinks or fetishes by my definition as I infer a sexual connotation on both.
Perhaps you could call it a compulsion as it is an overriding need. Satisfying that need validates who I feel I truly am.

PS. if you're doing electrolysis, you are braver than me, girl. I've heard that stuff hurts. :)

Val,

There are so many paths that a cross dressers journey can take that it is difficult to boil it down to one definition. There are some CD's who start off with it being a sexual fetish and continue that way all their lives. There are others (like me) where it started as a sexual fetish then morphed into an obsession. Others start as it being an obsession and remain that way. Still others start one way then decide to live 24/7 as a woman either with or without HRT therapy and/or surgery. So it is a very complex situation.

Unfortunately society seems to fixate mostly on the sexual fetish aspect which accounts for your electrolysis tech's response, which is common. Also common is society's tendency to assume all CD's are gay.

WELL !
I don't know witch box I am in, but what I can tell you is that since I have had prostrate surgery, I can no longer have erections so dressing fem has nothing to do with sex.
I am under dressed today with panty,bra,forms and fem jeans. I can honestly say that in my condition sex has nothing to do with dressing fem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valerie Louise

my electrolysis tech told me that the small sample of trans she works on told her that CDs just had a kink or fetish, which suggests trans do not have this fetish. I also read in a recent post on this forum the same thing, that CDs and trans differ in that CDs have a fetish or kink.

---

I'm appalled that even some trans people have no idea what they're talking about regarding crossdressers. If they don't "get" us, there's little hope that the general population ever will. I think labels are ridiculous. As others have pointed out, there are so many variations along the trans spectrum that it's impossible to name them all. The only "label" I will accept for myself is "crossdresser," since that succinctly describes what I do. To say that all CDs have a fetish or kink is utterly absurd!

I would say the sexual aspect was there when I was young but at some point that disappeared and it became an obsession, sometimes more then others.
I also agree we are all on the Transgender spectrum but it has to be a wide spectrum since we are all different.

I agree with Larissa, I am definitely in the Crossdresser area.

This dives to the heart of a quandary I'm facing right now. I posted earlier about wanting to get the local LGBT+ center to host a monthly support group for Crossdressers. The only hang-up on their end was the use of the term "Crossdresser". The younger people I was working with represented the other letters in the alphabet and thus had no personal experience as a crossdresser. However, they had the same impression that it represented some sort of fetish and didn't know if it was appropriate to advertise that kind of group. I explained I self-identified as a crossdresser for 20+ years before I realized I was going to eventually transition and none of the other crossdressers I had associated with felt there was a problem with that term. Still, they wanted a different term to be used.

I asked friends, including one who had served as the chair of the board of that organization, and they were all confused by the Center's reluctance. Phone calls were made, and emails exchanged, and I think we will be using Crossdresser when those gatherings begin.

The point it's making to me is how stigmatized the image of crossdressers is pretty much across the board, from the general public to members of the LGBTQ+ community. We really need more education to help people understand most crossdressers are looking to validate a sense of gender, relax and enjoy fashion that is restricted to women. That and if we do have a fetish, we tend to keep it to ourselves or with other consenting adults. It looks like it's time for increased visibility and finding ways to drive home the point that we are not a threat, we aren't grooming children and gender expansive kids won't grow up to predators with ruined lives.

People constantly conflate gender with sexuality, and similarly seem to conflate cross dressing with fetishistic behavior. I suppose that is understandable because of the highly sexualized culture we live in? cars, beer, cigarettes, politics even?all are so fixated on sexuality, and lately curiously obsessed with gender identity. Cross dressing gets dragged along because humans are generally too lazy to sort things out and think, and instead see patterns and reach conclusions based on the thinnest of justification.

Humans don?t react well to ambiguity either, and there certainly is ambiguity associated with cross dressing, gender identity and sexuality. I recall being part of a brief debate with a young gay guy who insisted that cross dressers had to be gay. He could simply not grasp how a GM could CD without being gay, but that really only reflected the limits of his experience and knowledge.

Thanks to all for your responses. Those of you who have a negative reaction to saying all cross dressers dress because of a fetish are in my camp. But I think that this belief is more widespread than we know in the overall population. I have found posts on this forum which say it.
I find it as demeaning as many of you and is the reason I posted.

As far as electrolysis pain, well, I was ready for a bad time. I didn?t have the opportunity to apply numbing gel, and I was a bit fearful.
It didn?t hurt at all. I?m not being tough here. She put a cotton cylinder in my left cheek to stretch the skin and used the thermal method. Honestly I didn?t know exactly where she was working. Now it was only thirty minutes and she hasn?t started the upper lip yet. But I think she?s just really good at it.

The relatively few times I wore my mother's bras I attribute to simple adolescent curiosity. It was not sexual that I can recall. What I do recall is putting on her bras and putting an orange in each cup. I was simulating what I might look like as a woman. To me, it was normal adolescent curiosity. I didn't do this regularly. I didn't suffer emotionally when I wasn't doing it. I suspect if it had been a fetish, I'd have been driven to do this behavior much more or, at least, be anxious when I hadn't done this for any period of time.

As an adult, I did put on my wives' pantyhose probably 10 times over 50 years. The first time resulted in the raising of my flag. Every time after that had the same result. There was definitely a sexual aspect to it these times. Since I lost my prostate to cancer in 2007 and I started crossdressing in 2020, I'm in the same camp as Sara - there is nothing sexual about it for me. That said, while there may be no physical sexual aspect to crossdressing, there could, I suppose, be a mental sexual aspect to it. I really don't know. I never have sexual thoughts when crossdressing. At least, not any more than when I'm in drab mode.

I would tend to agree with Shelby as I do believe it is a compulsion for me. Considering I only started crossdressing in June, 2020, with just panties and just went out en femme this past weekend and shopped at multiple stores with multiple interactions with others, I'd say the compulsion is strong with me. I feel as though I went from 0 to 60 rather quickly (less than 28 months). BTW, I am a straight male so far as I know.

A fetish is a sexual attraction to an object.

For many of us, we were attracted to dressing at a young age, prior to developing any sexual thoughts. How can dressing be a fetish when it predates our sexuality?

On the whole, most people could give a rat's ass about crossdressers. As Aunt Kelly correctly notes, it's a fool's errand to try to interpret what most people think, and in the end, it doesn't make of whit of difference what they think.

Go out and live your life the way YOU want to, otherwise you are ceding control of your life to others.

In every aspect of my life except my crossdressing, I don't give a rat's ass about what other people think of me. But crossdressing is different because, as we've pretty much all agreed on, the general public can't or won't distinguish us from, and LABEL us as, trans women or gay men. OK, so what? Well, if a drunken slob clocks you at a bar (or even not drunk, out on the street in broad daylight or in a store), they might very well assume, through their ignorance and hate, that you are a trans woman or gay man. OK, so what? Well, if you're a trans woman, you must support the complete transition of children through puberty blockers and surgery (controversial, but to those of us rational thinkers worthy of discussion and debate), and if you're a gay man, well then the hatred and vitriol go way back, so you're not worthy of inclusion in their "civilized" society, and perhaps worthy of a beatdown. Yeah, I'm paranoid, and for good reason. According to stonewall.org.uk, "Two in five trans people (41%) have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity." I admire and respect all of you who venture out into the world en femme, but I'm probably going to remain closeted at home until I can see that the situation has improved considerably.

I LOVE these "labels" threads!:)

But, I thot us "fetish" dressers were referred to as "trannys"?:devil:

That's a good one, Sherry! (from one "tranny" to another.....)

I am one in the group that started around 4 or 5 years old. Ie not sexual when I started crossdressing.
The need to crossdress is deep in the depths of my brain. Crossdressing at that early age was to satisfy the issues I had in my brain. Weather playing dress up with my female friends at that early age was satisfying. The first time to wear little girls panties my friend and I switched underwear in her bedroom at about 4 or 5 (estimated age) her panties the short time I wore them felt right in my young mind.

Puberty was very hard on me in the 1960?s, my brain had a very hard time with my bits developing and my upper body not developing as female. So crossdressing became sexual for awhile. So I can relate to these young kids today wanting to come out at an early age.

My brain still says female, but my body still is male. So thus the conflict all my life.
Married had kids, etc. To help satisfy my brain needs mostly panties daily is the best medicine. Bra and forms helps also, some days it requires outter clothing. Ie I learned to mostly manage my needs over the 60 plus years with this issue.

Do I need a label no, I?m different than what society thanks as normal. But it is my normal I live with.

Do I use this forum yes typically daily. Do I need to post daily heck no. Do I benefit from this forum.

Sadly labels cause problems as not everyone uses the same meaning of a particular word.

This can be influenced by where you live. Sometimes the media will use words to sensationalise a story or twist the meanings for their own purpose.

Also language evolves over time. I am sure some here can remember when the the word Transgender was never even mentioned.

Quote:

---

Oliven of Columbia University coined the term transgender in his 1965 reference work Sexual Hygiene and Pathology, writing that the term which had previously been used, transsexualism, "is misleading; actually, 'transgenderism' is meant, because sexuality is not a major factor in primary transvestism.

---

Well Val, I'm not sure if I should be responding to your question, since I tend to think of myself as a bit more on the trans side of the spectrum than the CD side, but since I DO wear things that aren't in sync with my "assigned" gender, I guess I qualify - maybe?

For years, I struggled with worrying whether of not my dressing was some sort of fetish-like thing, since I did find myself getting turned on.
The problem is, I started my journey long before sexual feelings came into the mix, and I still continue even though that thrill is no longer there.
Also, the clothes themselves aren't what get me going. I don't have a "thing" for a particular item of clothing, like a bra, skirt, or whatever. When they're hanging in the closet, or stuffed in a box, they're just clothes. Only when I wear them does the magic happen.

Eventually, I came to realize that for me at least, it was the excitement - the thrill - the (dare I say it?) sense of feeling feminine that did it. For those moments, I could have my Cinderella fantasy, where I was the mysterious beauty who attracted everyone's eye. I could imagine being the girl who is admired, loved, and yes, desired!
For me, THIS was the turn on.
(But like I said earlier, I tend to range towards the T end of the spectrum)

So - for me, at least, I'd say "No, not a fetish."
Obsession? Maybe. It doesn't rule my every waking thought, but it's always there in the background.

From MY POV, being a Scientist, "Labels" ARE necessary. A person cannot THINK about something and turn it over in the mind if it does NOT have a name. Of course it cannot be TOO GENERAL and must ALWAYS be defined for one's own use, and those who the thoughts are shared with. Even the term "Crossdresser" must be defined, in one's own mind at least, along with subdivisions, such as "Escapist", Fetishist, humiliationist, taboo-Tripper, etc. THIS is if we are THINKING about it. Some of us, however, approach things EMOTIONALLY. I believe it is possible, "lables" may not be necessary in this case---but it is another "kind" of understanding not satisfing to ALL of us.

Much of label application or classification if one wishes to call it that is based upon a selection of criteria rather than the total details. To really grasp this it is often useful to look at the taxonomy of biological organisms. Organisms are usually classified by examining what is visible and finding similarities between organisms that have a genetic relationship of some kind linking them into a common species. But species are repeatedly examined using different criteria and thus, sometimes, split into different species or subspecies or any other category. Even the categories are ambiguous to some extent.

Thus classification is synthetic and based on what criteria one uses. They are generalizations based on what we consider important and which distinguishes individuals as well as what links them together. But organisms are incredibly complex and thus any classification contains some degree of bias. In New Guinea the natives that live in the jungle may have many names based on certain characteristics for what is viewed as a single species in scientific classification. Who is right? Both.

In the world of the many kinds of gender reversal the same problem exists in distinguishing CDs and Trans - the boundaries are very wide transition zones keyed into certain criteria. Change the criteria and the boundary changes. So what is the reality? Gender reversal has so many criteria nobody can really say what the reality is. Thus the continuum concept applies best. But we still need to classify so we can talk about things. The point is that whatever classification you use, whether it is based on appearances, individual concepts of self, genetics, neuroscience or something else it is artificial. Science doesn't even know for sure how gender reversal happens, but there is no lack of theories and each theory is based on selected criteria. Thus arises ambiguity in the big picture.

That said, it is still not a matter of "in the eyes of the beholder" but it is still very far from being fully understood. It is now known that what we call and consider to be the pure male or female actually contains some degree of gender reversal simply because that is needed to get buy effectively in this world. Very few people (and perhaps none) are purely male or female. According to the neurological view, only about 2% and even those will be different the next time they are examined. Gender details change as we experience new things. Purity probably doesn't even exist.

So where do you draw lines or establish boundaries and transition zones? Wherever it fits your criteria and thus it comes down to a matter of selecting the criteria that you use. Bottom line, no classification reflects reality because we don't really know what the reality is and it is always changing. Labels are inaccurate by nature. We can still use labels but each label must carry a description of the criteria used to delineate that label. We are all different because we have different histories and the moment is defined by the history that has lead to that moment. But underneath all of that the genetic combinations we each received which are unique for each person sets the baseline and defined the degree of variation possible for each individual. It is what distinguishes maple trees and palm trees and they can't switch back and forth. So for each person there are limits that the person probably is not even aware of unless you move into an area that is uncomfortable. But then we can potentially adapt to that new experience so long as our adaption stays within the genetic boundaries, wherever those are. Acceptance of diversity is the only real solution that works. And acceptance of diversity requires us to respect the boundaries we each have which can potentially change with adaptation. Gets kinda complicated!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valerie Louise

. But I think that this belief is more widespread than we know in the overall population.

---

You will find that it's a human very common behavior, to think that they are 'just like everyone else', in order to feel like part of society. This comes into play, as we, especially, need to believe that what we do, is due to the same cause as all other crossdressers. Then we project OUR feelings onto everyone else, so we can feel that WE are normal (or, normal crossdressers, anyway).
I know; because I went through this myself, some 30 years ago, before there was a world wide web filled with every sort of forum for every different type of person. As time went on, I would discover that there were lots of different paths to becoming a crossdresser. Some gay, some trans, some straight, some with a sexual fetish component, and some without.
There are far too many crossdressers and transgendered here who have zero sexual connection to their dressing as female. ZERO. One of the biggest reasons the confusion starts, is because many who are already prone to crossdressing, get the final push for it, when they get to puberty, and as 'horny all the time' males, they masturbate whether crossdressed, regular dressed, in the shower, or not dressed at all. That can make an erroneous connection where they will connect other behaviors with the crossdressing, whether it is, or it isn't.
So, sure, YOU may have a sexual fetish which is connected to YOUR crossing, but that doesn't mean it's universal.
Talk to 100 crossdressers, and you may very well get 100 different answers about why they do it. So don't jump to conclusions just because that's been your personal experience.

Val, I started dressing long before there was any sexual component, so I'm not sure that my initial dressing was a fetish. At 61 years of age there is not a sexual component, so not a fetish. The need to dress is just who I am, not a fetish. So I don't really care about the label. But I do consider myself a crossdresser.

It's a shame that people feel the need to "label" everyone. They have this drive to put everyone in a box, probably to satisfy something inside them.
As for someone saying CD's have a kink or fetish, coming from a TS it seems to me they are trying to validate themselves by removing us from a certain category. The spectrum theory is more to my liking in that regard. It's not that we are one thing and a TS is another it's that we are all at a different point along the line.
Anyway, I hate labels, be they here or in other areas of society. We are just people. Stop trying to put me in a box so that you can feel superior. That's all it is in my eyes.

Since there doesn't appear to be a label for women in trousers, I don't want one either.

Somewhere in my history I'm sure I've said that it's not sexual for me. I'm going to amend that a little. I think that, broadly, to refer to it as sexual means that it includes or ends with orgasm. I can't say that it never has for me, but I can say that for decades that has not been the driver. I can also say that during this recent time of hiatus, when I quit dressing entirely, my libido fell off a cliff. Guess we'll see if my libido returns as my return to dressing progresses.

I think that some of us have the idea that to label it as sexual reduces our legitimacy/authenticity. We may also have a narrow definition of what constitutes "sexual". Based on my recent experience and allowing a broader definition of what constitutes sexual I have to say that for me I hope that it is!! If I get my libido back by ___ (insert favorite CD thing here), then I'm all for it! Another thing, if it does I don't see anything wrong with that and I'll freely admit to it. Having been without libido, if all it takes to get it back is to wear nail polish or makeup, a sexy nightie and high heels or go out in a dress, sign me up!

For some, it's sexual (and that's alright! As far as fetishes go, it's one of the milder ones, and harmless).

For some of us, it isn't. For me, it started as curiosity, as a child (I doubt I had a fetish when I was 8 or 9) and now it's just a matter of wearing the clothes I like.
It's not even about feminity anymore (if it ever really was), as my recent escapades showed, wherein I went out in a skirt and ballet flats, but men's T-shirt and big beard.

"MIAD", Georgina. I guess u didn't receive the memo on this?:straightface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgina

Since there doesn't appear to be a label for women in trousers, I don't want one either.

---

Before posting I did not read any of the other responses. I did notice you defined "fetish" but you did not define "obsession;" a idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind." Maybe, cross dressing is neither, This sexual component thing is overrated or over stressed. Based upon my own experience and locker room talk, self gratification for a young male was a normal stage of life. Surveys indicate men or all ages engage in the practice of self gratification. To me characterizing cross dressing as a fetish is a non-starter. Any activity or object can be an obsession. That's just a measurement of attention to something. If someone is so engaged in tricking out his hot rod to the exclusion of anything else, is that not an obsession?

I tried to quit cross dressing because society said I was a defective human, destined to go to hell as a terrible sinner. I would be shunned, discriminated against, physically and mentally abused if word got out. The issue for me has always been the "why" question. I am a cross dresser because it is in my dna. I just have to figure out how to direct my cross dressing when the "need" comes calling. This is me, not you talking. You may view things differently.

Never found the need to have a label but a lot of people do.
I guess they have this internal need to belong to something.
To some it may be a fetish and those types of CDs are easy to spot.
1. they only wear dresses never pants.
2. they only wear high heels.
3. they only wear expensive brands and brag about how much they paid for it.
All of which is fine and nothing wrong with any of that but to me those fall into the "fetish" category.
There are tons of different fetishes and thats fine.
When I started there was a sexual thing to it but that faded quickly and for some it never fades.
We are all different so there is no black and white answer to any of it.
I have been 24/7 and semi transitioned for so long its not CDing anymore its just normal.