Are All Crossdressers Transgendered

[Sophie_C]

It does, if the person dresses specifically to portray a different gender than assigned at birth and does not do it on a lark. We all choose to present ourselves in a manner that reflects who we feel we are.

Even if a CDer dresses purely for fetish or sexual reasons in private, the expression of his sexuality is deeply ingrained with who he feels he is as well, even if it is still at a deep subconscious level. IMO. Now if the fetish is interchangeable with other fetishes, such as latex or any number of other non-gendered fetishes, or even items of clothing be they shoes or gas masks, then I agree such a person does not cross the gender lines. But, a fetish CD who gets off on the "idea" of being a female (autogynephilia) most definitely crosses the gender barriers. IMO.



No. As a few others have pointed out before me, physical gender has been defined through primary sexual characteristics, i.e, having a penis or a vagina. It has nothing to do with "sexuality", or a person's sexual orientation. A TS wants to change her primary sexual characteristics to match who she feels she is internally. "Transsexual" is a perfectly good description for this.

I agree that modern forms need to change their question from 'what sex are you', to 'what gender are you', when they ask whether someone is "M" or "F", and also they need to include another box "B", for a combination of both. Or, "B" could stand for bigender. But, I think it will take time for society in general to come to accept the concept since it goes against everything we know about evolution (in a general sense) and also since most people do identify as the gender that matches their primary sexual characteristics, independent of their sexual preferences.



Many TSs have told me they don't understand CDers and I can certainly understand why this is. Both TSs and cisgenders fit within the binary view of gender: either/or, male/female. A MtF TS is solidly on the "F" end of the spectrum (as is the FtM TS who is solidly on the "M" side). But, there are in fact many gray shades and gender mixes in between. It's just not accurate to say that all CDs are male identified who dress for fetish or feel-good reasons. I believe there are more than just the two, M/F genders. I do see bigenders and dualgenders as being a gender, an identity, all their own that is a mix of the two, and this alone signifies they do cross the standard M/F gender identities.

Reine, I think you may have breezed over what other people said (and I was implying):

I think you misinterpreted what was said. Here's the exact quote:

"It confuses people to think that it's sexuality, not gender identity (between your legs vs between your ears)."

Sophie_C said that it CONFUSES people to think that it's sexuality, not that it is sexuality.

I'm just pointing out an angle to better negate the misconceptions - I am not agreeing with them! If 'sex' can be avoided as part of the description, it helps. "Primary sexual characteristics" can be described as "genitalia" in the context of what you said, keeping the focus on on the heart of the matter, which is gender, which is what the body changes are addressing. I don't mean to go into deeper into this, since it's a sore spot, being transgendered and closeted myself, but you can't give the situation justice in a word or two, so I don't demand perfection. It's just something that could help.

[SweetIonis]

Friends, there is no need for anyone here to become disturbed over this discussion. No one is being denigrated here. It is merely a discussion on the perception, in the mind of a LAY person, that is created when the term transgender is invoked. As such it is not DISTINCTLY a transsexual issue, but it is one that concerns ALL persons who crossdress and also those who are involved in the LGBT movement. The intent here is to give an idea on where SOME of the misconceptions, that people have concerning people who crossdress, originate. No one likes to be perceived to be something that they are not, at least not when it carries a negative connotation. I know this because one of the reasons that I have such an independent streak is that I am a black person who comes from an area where discrimination and negative stereotypes were, and still are, especially rampant. If you are black, AUTOMATICALLY you are supposed to be dumb and AUTOMATICALLY unfit to engage in certain types of activity, ESPECIALLY those involving intellectual endeavor. As such, when some one tells me to shut up and simply believe what I am told, it invokes that type of mental imagery in my mind, and as a consequence, I fight back against that vigorously. Do you realize that for some people, black people are no better than animals? Imagine how you would feel if your whole life you were constantly struggling against such misconceptions and then to add insult to injury someone told you to shut up and believe what you are told.

Therefore I feel strongly about the use of terminology that can help foster misconceptions. For example let's suppose all of the people in the US who have androgynous features decided to get together and form a group. Let's suppose they decided to call it the Transgender Society of America. After some discussion they decide that the use of Transgender is appropriate because their anatomical features cause them to cross gender boundaries. There is nothing wrong with that conceptualization and as they use the term amongst themselves they know exactly what they mean. So far so good. But let's suppose that Dorothy, from some small Midwest town, hears that the members of the Transgender Society of America will be speaking to students at the local high school. Immediately she is upset because to her, transgender means someone who thinks they are a member of the opposite sex, and she doesn't want any such persons speaking to her son Johnny. Let's suppose someone, who sees that such a misconception could occur, simply points out to the members of the Transgender Society of America that although your choice of nomenclature is not necessarily wrong, it can create misconceptions, and perhaps you could choose something that does not cause such confusion. That's all that I am trying to do. I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, and there is no need for someone to feel that I am some sort of enemy for doing this.

I'm just pointing out an angle to better negate the misconceptions - I am not agreeing with them! If 'sex' can be avoided as part of the description, it helps. "Primary sexual characteristics" can be described as "genitalia" in the context of what you said, keeping the focus on on the heart of the matter, which is gender, which is what the body changes are addressing. I don't mean to go into deeper into this, since it's a sore spot, being transgendered and closeted myself, but you can't give the situation justice in a word or two, so I don't demand perfection. It's just something that could help.

I understand precisely what you are doing, and that is the essence of the subject at hand.

[CynthiaD]

OK Cynthia. Let's suppose someone is inclined to believe you. Can you offer a rationale or proof to support your assertion?

It's like trying to prove that there's water in the sea. Collecting stamps is a hobby, skydiving is a hobby, crossdressing is something more (and better) than a hobby. The world tells us that everyone must conform to their birth gender and be 100% distinctly male or female. The world says if you don't do this, you aren't as good as other people. It's really, really hard to deal with this. I think the world is wrong. I think that being able to step out of your birth gender is a very special gift, whether it's all the time or just occasionally. Still, we have to live in the world, and we have to cope with it the best we can. If a person chooses to deal with the world by calling crossressing a hobby, well ok "I believe you."

[Kaitlyn Michele]

I'm not suggesting people stop having discussions about how they feel, but rather stop arguing about the meaning of basic words such as transsexual and transgender.

It's obvious by the discussion that those words are not basic enough....

[linda allen]

Well, I'm sitting at the computer in a bra, forms, panties, and hip and butt pads. That probably makes me a "crossdresser", but I've never thought of myself as "transgendered". If it makes someone feel better or helps them to understand or put things in their place, they can call me what they want to. If you ask all the crossdressers to take one step forward, I will be in the group that does. If you ask all the transgendered people to take one step forward, I will remain in my place.

[ReineD]

Reine, I think you may have breezed over what other people said (and I was implying)


I'm just pointing out an angle to better negate the misconceptions - I am not agreeing with them!

Mea culpa.

.............

[vetobob9]

i have read similar things and would have to agree in a general sense. there is growing consent among professionals and lay people that people who cross dress are transgender. although as you'll find on this site that people who cross dress do it in many different ways. some like myself go all out and want to spend part of their life living as a woman. some just wear lingerie around the house and never go out of the house. Some are gay, some are bisexual, some live alone and some live with a SO. Some people are lucky to have an SO that knows about our feminine ways and some do it behind their backs. I don't know what the percentages are, but do some research and take this thing called the COAGTI test. I consider myself a no-op transgender, since I live part-time as a woman and will be going out in public as Cassandra. However I think the term needs to be qualified as to the degree at which one is involved, for example, one might be TG curious. Just remember just as with ones sexuality, sensuality, eroticism, and sexual persuasion, everyone has different boundaries and perceptions of what they are or are not. Labels are a good starting point for describing yourself. For example if you were talking about your car, you would state the year, make and model. There may be modifications to car which might make it one of a kind but still it is essentially that particular year, make and model. Don't know if this helps or not.

I'd be careful promoting that test. While fun to take, it does have certain scientific and reliability issues.

[Frédérique]

According to this person, crossdressers, regardless of their gender identity, fall under the Transgender portion of the LGBT community because they are engaged in defying gender stereotypes with regards to dressing.

[SIZE="2"]“According to this person” is the key piece of information here – I do not feel I am actively engaged in defying gender stereotypes when I dress. In fact, many GG’s feel that we MtF crossdressers are actively perpetuating gender stereotypes by dressing the way we do, and I can see their point, but there’s more to it than that. I, a male, wish to wear clothing that is more comfortable, or I wish to express my hidden persona (be less male), or I wish to wear the things I worship. The clothes just happen to be those worn by girls/ladies/females, and I put them on with absolutely no ulterior motive, i.e. supporting a “movement” that is at odds with stereotypical behavior…

As such, I exist outside of the LGBT “community,” and I aim to keep it that way. There are people that go through life and live it according to their own standards, not the wishes of other umbrella-dwellers. It’s not “I hate being a male, so I naturally dress as a woman,” it’s more like, “I am both male and female, and my clothing choices are an expression of this fact.” There are visual signposts along this journey into one’s own interior, and they manifest themselves as the clothes, or outfits, that we wear. I am dismayed that some individuals talk about gender stereotypes in this context, because crossdressing can be fun and beautiful, no defiance required… [/SIZE]

[ReineD]

[SIZE="2"]it’s more like, “I am both male and female, and my clothing choices are an expression of this fact.”[/SIZE]

I think this probably fits a huge chunk of our membership here, with varying percentages that comprise the total mix, and a miryad ways to express this both in deed and in word.

[SweetIonis]

It's like trying to prove that there's water in the sea.

LOL!!! Well it is a tough one. I just thought I would give a chance to grapple with that rather challenging problem.

[SIZE="2"]“According to this person” is the key piece of information here – I do not feel I am actively engaged in defying gender stereotypes when I dress. In fact, many GG’s feel that we MtF crossdressers are actively perpetuating gender stereotypes by dressing the way we do, and I can see their point, but there’s more to it than that. I, a male, wish to wear clothing that is more comfortable, or I wish to express my hidden persona (be less male), or I wish to wear the things I worship. The clothes just happen to be those worn by girls/ladies/females, and I put them on with absolutely no ulterior motive, i.e. supporting a “movement” that is at odds with stereotypical behavior…

As such, I exist outside of the LGBT “community,” and I aim to keep it that way. There are people that go through life and live it according to their own standards, not the wishes of other umbrella-dwellers. It’s not “I hate being a male, so I naturally dress as a woman,” it’s more like, “I am both male and female, and my clothing choices are an expression of this fact.” There are visual signposts along this journey into one’s own interior, and they manifest themselves as the clothes, or outfits, that we wear. I am dismayed that some individuals talk about gender stereotypes in this context, because crossdressing can be fun and beautiful, no defiance required… [/SIZE]

Nice post Frederique. Done with your usual eloquence! You have highlighted the types of problems that come about as a result of trying to use that nomenclature in that way.

[SabrinaEmily]

I think this probably fits a huge chunk of our membership here, with varying percentages that comprise the total mix, and a miryad ways to express this both in deed and in word.

It fits me, and I do feel like an interloper here. I've never identified with the word "crossdresser" -- I only ever wanted to wear the clothes I wanted to wear. I've actually never tried to pass as a woman, and I'm not androgynous enough for it to happen on its own. I do experience dysphoria from my male body, and identify more as female than male, but I don't feel connected to "transsexual" either. I definitely fit somewhere under "transgender", so I use that a lot.

I also find it a much prettier word than most of the alternatives, and I do love pretty things. ;-)

[Sophie86]

I think it may be time for people to start reading the latest in transgender studies for correct terminology, rather than perhaps blogs or personal web pages, or maybe even making up their own because they disagree with established terms.

The issue is that these terms are only established among academics. They are not established in Middle America where we live, or among the people with whom we have to communicate. If academia decided to call us all teapots, would that be reason enough to accept the label and try to use it when talking with regular people? There are valid objections to the term transgender based on etymology, and how easily it can be conflated with transsexual in the minds of the masses. I understand that for political purposes, activists want to create a group identity that unifies all gender rebels. Politically, I stand with those who believe we have the right to present our gender any way we like without harassment. When I'm talking with family and friends, though, I want to be understood.

[Lorileah]

I am me you are he and we are ....whatever. Has it been two months already? This has been hashed and rehashed and corn beef hashed forever.

Be what you want to be, if you want to be called a tree, be a tree. I think if you do a little research of this site you will find at least a dozen threads about his and they always end the same, nobody has an answer that everyone likes. It has been generally agreed that we are all transgender in some sort of fashion and that the rest is a sub-set of that DQ, CS, TS, LMNOP.

I guess I don't understand the argument anymore. Was the OP insulted by being included in the LGBT umbrella? If so stand aside because some of here would like to get some of the rights the LGBT(Q) group is fighting for

[ReineD]

The issue is that these terms are only established among academics.

I hear what you're saying Sophie, and I must admit I posted this out of a moment of impatience (it happens) ... possibly because I've just seen sooo many threads debating the same issue over the years.

But when you think of it, many of our new terms are coined by the scientists or academes: I can't think of many examples off the bat, but words like personal computer, laptop, HDTV, heck, any new technology. People don't go around saying, "I don't like the term 'television' ... I think I'd rather call it 'audiovision'.

It's true that our thinking about technological toys don't run as deep as gender identity, but even newly coined psychological or mental conditions such as ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) don't get called 5 or 6 different things just because people feel the words used don't fit them exactly. Can you imagine a parent going to school and asking the teacher to be aware of her child's MID (Mindfulness Inadequacy Disorganization), or OPC (Observation Paucity Chaos)?

Just saying.

"Transgender" is a universal word used to describe a variety of people who cross the gender lines. Wearing the clothes of a gender opposite than birth does cross the gender lines, unless it is done purely for fetish, except in the case where someone's fetish is about "being" a woman more than just getting off on the shoes or whatever. "Transsexual" is a universal word to describe a person whose primary sexual characteristics do not match his or her gender identity.

I know that "crossdresser" by itself is a catchall. But, there are other terms available if someone wants to be more specific: transvectic fetishist, bigender, dualgender, just to name a few, or just plain "crossdresser" if it fits.

[SweetIonis]

I guess I don't understand the argument anymore. Was the OP insulted by being included in the LGBT umbrella? If so stand aside because some of here would like to get some of the rights the LGBT(Q) group is fighting for

Sorry if things got confused Lorileah. No, I'm not insulted at all. My point is that using the nomenclature Transgender to label ALL crossdressers creates confusion. I have said why many times in the thread, if you want to go back and look at it. I didn't say that to insult you, I just don't think it's worth covering all that ground again.

[Rianna Humble]

I do not feel I am actively engaged in defying gender stereotypes when I dress.

Why are you introducing the idea that crossing must be done to defy something. If you take a transatlantic journey, are you doing it to defy the Atlantic or to cross it?

it’s more like, "I am both male and female"

Yet you insist that you do not cross the boundary of a stereotype which says you have to be male or female?

[LeaP]

I say yes. While accepting the notion of socially-constructed gender, CD'ing by definition places one firmly into the trans range of identity and activity. I have a problem with the idea that because gender expression has an accepted normative *range* that gender is therefore rendered meaningless. I think this is especially so given the tiny percentages of the population that fall outside (inside?) social norms. In the end, I like the constructs of cisgendered (with a range of norms), and transgendered (with a large range of variation, which, unfortunately cannot be termed norms). I also reject the notion that cis women crossdress, as this is CLEARLY not their intent. In fact, this is a good illustration of not how trans behavior is accepted, but of how cis norms change. It's not the same thing.

Lea

[Julogden]

Can you all imagine a classroom in a primary school - say grade 5, where children are learning how to parse sentences in grammar class. Each child is an avid reader, but they cannot agree on grammar rules; one child calls the subject of a sentence an "adjective", while the other child calls it a "verb", and no one believes the teacher who correctly identifies it as a "noun".



I think it may be time for people to start reading the latest in transgender studies for correct terminology, rather than perhaps blogs or personal web pages, or maybe even making up their own because they disagree with established terms.

I couldn't agree more, Reine. You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

Carol

[Schatten Lupus]

Transgender is just an umbrella term that includes the broad spectrum of gender variants. The term transsexual is thus because sex is the physical aspect of being male or female, while gender is a social construct especially in regards to gender roles and expected behaviors. While both sex and gender are altered for a transsexual, there are many other groups that do not ascribe to their prescribed gender roles, which makes the focus on altering one's sex the better description for people who desire to transition from one gender to the other when labeling such a group.
Labels exist because we are human, and because society needs labels to flourish, evolve, and to aid in communication. Not all labels are good, such as racial slurs, but terms like transgender, transvestite, transsexual, cross dresser, etc., are medically and scientifically accepted and defined terms.

[Rianna Humble]

hmmmmm

Do the latest in transgender studies say anything different from the studies that are "next to latest" or the ones before that??

Let me see, do the latest studies on transgender differ at all from those which had it down as a mental disease or defect? You tell me.

[kimdl93]

I won't get bogged down in debating the merits of various terms. For me, transgender is a satisfactory umbrella that covers a wide range of gender related issues, whether its MTF or FTM dressing, transexuals and so on. Some people may find it confusing, but then people are easily confused.

[SweetIonis]

Some people may find it confusing, but then people are easily confused.

That's the point I'm trying to make, that it confuses people, and therefore a better term should be found. That said, I personally don't have a problem with it, because actually I am transgendered, no matter how you look at it. But that's me.

CD'ing by definition places one firmly into the trans range of identity and activity.

I also reject the notion that cis women crossdress, as this is CLEARLY not their intent.

You are confusing me here. So you mean to say that if a woman dresses as a man, but does not intend to dress as a man, she IS NOT crossdressing, but if a man dresses as a woman, but that is not his intent to do, so he IS crossdressing? What kind of logic is that?

[Sophie86]

It's true that our thinking about technological toys don't run as deep as gender identity, but even newly coined psychological or mental conditions such as ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) don't get called 5 or 6 different things just because people feel the words used don't fit them exactly.

I can think of a number of possible reasons for that: 1) The name doesn't conflate ADD with other similar developmental problems. 2) Children with an ADD diagnosis can receive special help, but by fighting the diagnosis, the parents would be rejecting that help. 3) The stigma attached to being ADD is not nearly as severe as that attached to being "gender variant."

I know that "crossdresser" by itself is a catchall. But, there are other terms available if someone wants to be more specific: transvectic fetishist, bigender, dualgender, just to name a few, or just plain "crossdresser" if it fits.

I like the term crossdresser, although, as you say, it is itself a catchall. It's made up of two good Anglo-Saxon words, rather than that clinical sounding Latin. Best of all, it simply describes what I do without trying to make a statement about why I do it. I don't want a word that's going to make people think they know all about my motives when I'm not even sure why I do what I do.

[ReineD]

You are confusing me here. So you mean to say that if a woman dresses as a man, but does not intend to dress as a man, she IS NOT crossdressing, but if a man dresses as a woman, but that is not his intent to do, so he IS crossdressing? What kind of logic is that?

Discussions about this have been a major bee in my bonnet, so if you don't mind, Lea, I'll answer.

Some months ago there were a slew of threads posted by CDs who postulated that women who wear pants (women's pants purchased in women's clothing stores) are CDing, since pants were originally worn by men, and women have "appropriated" them, but, you know ... women should "really" be wearing dresses. lol The goal in saying these things was to complain about the injustice of women being "allowed" to CD, while men aren't.

I do agree that women's fashion choices are more varied than men's. But, it is preposterous to suggest that women are CDing when they wear pants or blue jeans that are designed for women.

[SweetIonis]

Discussions about this have been a major bee in my bonnet, so if you don't mind, Lea, I'll answer.

Some months ago there were a slew of threads posted by CDs who postulated that women who wear pants (women's pants purchased in women's clothing stores) are CDing, since pants were originally worn by men, and women have "appropriated" them, but, you know ... women should "really" be wearing dresses. lol The goal in saying these things was to complain about the injustice of women being "allowed" to CD, while men aren't.

I do agree that women's fashion choices are more varied than men's. But, it is preposterous to suggest that women are CDing when they wear pants or blue jeans that are designed for women.

I see the point. But what I would say is that at one time it was outside of the norm for women to wear such things. And actually when things like women's pants suits first became popular, they were somewhat controversial. It's pretty much accepted now, but at one time, it was somewhat controversial. Since it was outside of the norms at one time, were women who did so at that time crossdressing? What if tomorrow, Ralph Lauren started to make "booty" shorts for men. Would a man, who had no intent to crossdress, NOT be crossdressing if he wore them, just because they were designed for men?