OK, I'm willing to grant you that an actor may cross dress for reasons other than their gender orientation. And I'll concede that its physically possilble for someone to wear the garments of the other sex without an inner need to cross some gender border. Still, a bit of a stretch isn't it?
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
I agree COMPLETELY with that, but many people here have different definitions for transgender, which is the point I was trying to make. Unless a definitive definition were to be established, a proper conversation couldn't happen.
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.
Here's the new sticky, posted in the M2F: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...16#post2636716
Reine
Kim,
I agree with you that in the case of most of us, CDing is indeed a manifestation of transgender feelings. But, I believe there are people who crossdress out of curiosity, as a fetish to seek sexual arousal only. I don't think people in this situation entertain the idea of TG or TS. My two cents.
Gabi
This list should be made a mandatory read when you sign up in order to ease confusion. Perfect.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.
Here's the new sticky, posted in the M2F: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...16#post2636716
Speaking strictly for myself... yes, I can crossdress and have no desire to become TG and/or TS.
I enjoy my male life and body very much, and when I CD it is because I enjoy it. For example, I enjoy riding a motorcycle, I have no desire to become a "Biker". I don't desire the "Biker" lifestyle.
“They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.” (Eddie Izzard)
Here's my reaction: I don't think one entertains the idea of being TG...or TS. One who engages in CDing, it seems to me, may be expressing transgenderism, whether (or not) they consciously identify themselves as such. And if its curiousity, how long might it take to satisfy that curiosity...an afternoon, til reaching puberty, or until they're 46? As for fetish or sexual arrousal...one might argue endlessly about their motivations - why dressing would be a sexual trigger.
I seldome seek absolute answers, and I'll conceded that the Question posed in the OP, didn't allow much wiggle room. So, would it be fair to say that, with the exceptions noted, CDing is, more often than not, a manifestation of transgenderism?
In addition to needing a precise definition of the word transgender, it is also important to note that there is a difference between femininity and the mental state of "being" a woman. Masculinity and femininity are social concepts that divide some basic human nature and behavioural traits into those that are more predominant in the male and those that are more predominant in the female. The predominance is due to various factors such as hormonal influences, and social conditioning. But all humans are capable to some extent of displaying the entire range of both masculine and feminine qualities regardless of their biological sex. The degree to which it is possible depends upon their genetics, personality and upbringing and varies from individual to individual. The major difference between the sexes is the fact that males are conditioned to suppress most of their feminine qualities to avoid the appearance of weakness, while females are encouraged to utilize their masculine qualities, since they denote strength, so long as they maintain their feminine qualities as well. The continual suppression of a portion of ones personality and being can be stressful, and crossdressing provides a means of stepping outside of ones normal external male imagery, and in a sense stepping into an apparent external female image, all the while remaining the same basic internal person. This enables the suppressed inner feminine qualities to be released in what appears to others to be in harmony with the external image. In reality, the crossdresser has passed from being a man in a man's body, to being a man in an artificially created woman's body.
If we consider gender to be our own internal mental identity, then the crossdresser is not necessarily transgendered, as it is his external image only that may have changed. The external image consists of the characteristics that we generally refer to when describing one's sex as opposed to their gender. To be truly transgendered, the act of crossdressing has to create inner feelings of being a woman in line with the outer appearance, and not simply the releasing of pent-up feminine qualities. I think that some CD's mistakenly identify the release of their own male feminine qualities when crossdressing as mentally becoming a woman, because they are not used to the sensation of allowing that side of their persona to be displayed. This misinterpretation of their actions seems logical to them as it brings the internal and external being into harmony. The outer female "shell" enables this mental deception to occur. On the other hand, some TG's can be in denial of their transgenderedness, as it could cause major complications in their personal lives, because of the assumptions that it could lead them further toward the TS end of the spectrum, or to going full-time. It is a highly individualistic situation, and I think we should respect everyone's judgement as to where they stand.
While transgender is a useful term that can apply to many situations, depending upon how it is defined, I am not an advocate of the "umbrella" approach as we are all individuals. This use of "TG" tends to define us in a very narrow way, but we are all individuals, and should be celebrating our individuality. Also, the origin of the term, was intended to provide a label for a specific type of crossdresser, rather than being applicable to everybody.
Veronica
I hope so!! I'm with Celeste. I embrace different traits that are typically more closely associated with females. I don't plan on living as 100% woman. I'm just me (85-14% ??) I just like to let that +/-15% show more sometimes.
Mary
No, you can't CD without being TG. Cisgender people don't crossdress. Cisgender people
don't dress themselves in a manner that is commonly associated with the opposite gender. Crossdressing is by definition a transgender behavior regardless of personal intent.
People who crossdress and still claim to be cisgender are lying about themselves and lying about what it means to be cisgender. Cisgender crossdressers are fantasy figures, like unicorns. In reality, every crossdresser is a queer transgender duck. You can protest with a quack and waddle for cover, but no one (except you) will mistake you for anything else.
Last edited by Pink Person; 10-26-2011 at 05:27 PM.
Why do we have to worry bout terms names etc like cd tv ts tg just b u an not worry about it I learned it's one less worry
Would you consider an ability to be nurturing, to care for children, to maintain a pleasant home for the family, to be sensitive to a stranger's plight, to share financial and child-rearing decision making with a partner, to shed a tear over a sad movie, the feminine qualities that men are conditioned to suppress?
If so, then what do you make of the modern dad, perhaps a single father, perhaps a partner in a dual-income family who shares or perhaps takes over the household and child-rearing responsibilities with his working wife?
I'm sorry Veronica but although your description might have been valid during the 50s, the times have changed. I've seen men cry who were not ashamed to shed their tears.
Methinks this is a rationalization.The dressed crossdresser is still a man, yes, but a man with a decidedly feminine twist if he aims to present as a female.
Virginia Prince, founder of Tri Ess, was the first to use the term during the 60s. You are correct, her definition was rather limiting and the term was expanded to include other people who cross the cultural gender barriers in some form.
But even then, Virginia Prince did refer to crossdressers as transgenderists? She did recognize that the act of dressing in clothing intended for the opposite sex was crossing a gender boundary?
Thank you.
Reine
There are numerous definitions of transgender, and the broader you make your definition, the less meaningful it becomes. This is an extremely diverse community, but your comments make it sound like we are all identical. I basically reject any term that tries to define "who" I am, which is what the term transgender does. In its basic forms it is either a noun or a pronoun and once so labelled, tends to have a permanence. The word crossdress is a verb and describes what one "does". They can do it frequently, seldom, for brief periods or for extended periods; it does not change the meaning of the term. When you crossdress you are a crossdresser, and when you disrobe you cease to be a crossdresser.originally posted by Pink Person
No, you can't CD without being TG. Cisgender people don't crossdress. Cisgender people
don't dress themselves in a manner that is commonly associated with the opposite gender. Crossdressing is by definition a transgender behavior regardless of personal intent.
A very down to earth definition of crossdresser can be found on Wikepedia and is credited to a well known crossdresser:
"Michael A. Gilbert,[34] professor at the Department of Philosophy, York University, Toronto, offers this definition: "[A cross-dresser] is a person who has an apparent gender identification with one sex, and who has and certainly has been birth-designated as belonging to one sex, but who wears the clothing of the opposite sex because it is the clothing of the opposite sex."
Crossdressing has to do with sexual image, and does not necessarily relate in any way to gender. We dress in clothing associated with the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. This does not mean that crossdressers can't be transgendered, but simply that we are not all transgendered.
Veronica
i love the analogy, i didnt like the definitions what were given to be about ts/tg/tv which is probably a part of the problem, but i feel another problem is labeling ones self.
The term TG really has only one meaning, at least medically speaking!! It means "crossing genders!" And that is all that it means!! Nothing more! If you are a male and you wear feminine clothes you are a TG while doing so.
Veronica, you said that we wear the clothing of the opposite sex, and not of the opposite gender. But those two words, sex and gender, are one and the same! That is why I made the statement in my first paragraph about being a TG if you crossdress!
Stephanie
Lady on the outside, but man underneath!
To ReineD
You are describing mostly the sexual roles that society requires us to perform, and yes, there has been a gradual change in these roles over the past half century for both sexes. However, there remains those "qualities" of human nature that society has defined as being masculine or feminine because of the effects on our minds of things like hormones and the influence of that very society on our upbringing. For example, men are supposed to be more aggressive, and competetive while women are supposed to be more docile and compassionate. And yet we can point out plenty of cases where the opposite is true for both sexes. The point is that boys are taught that they have to "grow up and be a man", and too much of a display of any feminine quality is ridiculed. Men are expected to be less emotional and extremely stoic, whereas women are allowed the free expression of their emotions. Bullying is more prevalent now than ever by a boy's peers. Because of the changing roles of the sexes, there is, in fact, an increased pressure in many instances to maintain the so-called masculine qualities in order to compensate. We never tell a young girl to "grow up and be a woman". It just happens.
As to what you described as a "rationalization", I might tend to agree, but in a slightly different sense than you intended. Presenting as a female, certainly requires a display of femininity, but it is the point of my post that there is a difference between expressing our femininity, and becoming a woman in our own mind. The feminine qualities exist. We are just providing an outlet for releasing them. Some crossdressers do cross a gender line, and internally identify as a woman, or already possess a female gender identity to some degree, but that is by no means universal of all who crossdress.
My understanding of Virginia Prince's motivations for using the term transgendered as applicable to herself, was because she had evolved into living full time and taking hormones in her later years, and no longer felt that she was representative of the membership of Tri-
ess. In any event, her use of the term tended to imply a change of one's mental concept of their "gender" as opposed to simply the external image of crossdressing.
Thanks for your contribution, as these are my theories, not absolute truths, and I enjoy reading any well thought out counter arguments. It is all a learning process.
Veronica
To Sissystephanie
Sex and gender are two different things. The following quote is from Wikipedia:
"The distinction between sex and gender is a concept that distinguishes sex, a natural or biological feature, from gender, the cultural or learned significance of sex.
Where I have a problem with much of the transgender theory, is that we are applying the term gender to "ourselves" but it is more of a cultural thing. It is often written that "sex is what is between our legs, and gender is what is between our ears". Because of the confusion, I tend to use gender to mean our inner feeling of being either a man, a woman, or perhaps some combination of both. Biologically, what we really are is what our physical body tells us, which is our sex.
Veronica
Wikiopedia is a useful starting point for someone wanting to begin research on a topic, but as has been demonstrated countless times, it is not authoritative.
Gender is absolutely not merely a cultural or learned significance of sex. Ask any trans-man whether his (male) gender is a cultural significance of his (female) birth sex. Or ask any of us trand-women whether our (female) gender is in any way learned from our (male) birth sex. You will find the same answer in both cases.
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
I think one reason we don't reach agreement on this is that we don't agree on what "gender" is in the first place.
If you believe that gender is something intrinsic to people -- something they're born with -- if you take all the stuff that we are accustomed to see called "feminine" as being intrinsic to XX people and all the stuff we are accustomed to see called "masculine" as being intrinsic to XY people -- then, from this point of view, it is a meaningful and objective statement to say that an XY person who shows more than N % of "feminine" stuff is crossing the gender line, i.e., "transgender."
But if, like me, you believe that gender is ultimately a set of learned behaviors, preferences, attitudes,etc., which society tells us is "for boys" or "for girls," which you learn at an early age, and if you believe that the choice of what is considered "masculine" or "feminine" is ultimately arbitrary, as shown by the fact that it changes over time and from culture to culture (for example, the assignment of gender to the colors pink and blue), then to call anything or anyone "transgender" you have to first of all accept society's arbitrary division of the world into "masculine" and "feminine." Otherwise, the word doesn't make any sense. So when you use the word, you may think you're just making a neutral descriptive statement, but you're really making a political one.
This is why it bothers me when people try to label me "transgender" for how I choose to dress. It's like when Freudians would say a girl who like to climb trees was showing "penis envy": the idea that she might not be climbing trees because she wanted to be male, but because she just liked to climb trees wasn't allowed to be even considered. Nowadays, we would consider it sexist (and stupid) to assume that girls climbing trees or playing baseball (or even football) are showing signs of gender dysphoria. But a lot of people still can't consider the possibility that I'm not wearing skirts and dresses because of some sort of gender issues (like having a "feminine self", whatever the hell that is), but just because I like skirts and dresses.
And we don't just see this with crossdressing. They didn't have the term "transgender" back when I was a kid, but it was made very clear to me that the fact that I didn't like to fight or have my head stuffed into a toilet, didn't like football (or any sport, for that matter), that I liked music and reading, knew how to cook and sew, and even took ballet for a few years was a sign that I was crossing gender lines. (In those days, the word was "sissy.") Back then, I didn't see what having a penis and a Y chromosome had to do with all that stupid stuff or with having to want to do it, and some 50 years later, I still don't. I'm in a different place and time now, and some of those things that used to count as "crossing the gender line" no longer do, but the line is still alive and quite strong for others.
Last edited by Asche; 10-27-2011 at 09:09 PM.
Oh, this has an easy answer, if you know any feminist theory.what is it about the dressing that is so sexually stimulating, and why is this? Hmmmm?
One important part of the feminine role is to be an object of men's sexual desire, and in particular, to embody men's sexual desire and all that is sexually attractive to men. Women's clothing, the ideal female body type, the make-up, the hair, feminine behavior, all are intended to contribute to making women into the sort of female object that men most desire sexually -- or have been trained to desire. Twisty Faster refers to this as women being "the sex class."
All that sexuality is sort of like manna (in the magical power sense) which infuses everything that the object touches. That includes the high heels (shoe fetishes), the clothing worn by the object (e.g., used panty fetishes), individual body parts, and, of course, the manner of dress.
BTW, this also can be used to explain why fetishes are less common among women: women simply aren't subjected to the same sort of 24/7 propaganda and brainwashing intended to make them see anything male or associated with maleness as an embodiment of female sexual ecstacy. (How many TV ads do you see trying to sell cars to women by showing them with a hott! and available looking hunk?)
Kim, sorry I took so long to get back to this thread. I used the actor analogy to point out there are many ways to "act" and for many reasons. We had friends where the husband agreed to dress as a woman for a Halloween party because his wife asked him to. That one is clearly not transgendered. There could be all manner of intimate desires couples could share that would be related to dressing in the other's clothes strictly for their personal interaction. Is that transgendered...I think probably not.
Do i think that the vast vast majority of those who dress in the clothes of the opposite sex are transgendered? Yes, I do! But your question was about possibilities, and I do think there is a small percentage of part-time crossdressers who are not transgendered at all, but who see other advantages in crossdressing.
I do agree it would be a small percentage.
tina
PHEW - you had me a little scared there... I'm glad I can agree with the defs....The definitions come from the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), their latest Standards of Care (SoC), version 7.
... 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.
Here's the new sticky, posted in the M2F: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...16#post2636716
.
If you address the complete thread;
.
.
IMHO: You see that the author clearly defines how she means what is being said and withing that context of course a person playing dress-up is not by definition a transgendered person.
Well, simplify it like this... a human with a penis, is male; a human with a vagina is female.
Who cares if they're wearing a dress, pants, boots, or bra... the clothing doesn't matter, and the XX/XY/YY/DNA thing doesn't matter. Penis = Male Vagina = Female
Pretty simple. You are a woman if you have a vagina, either from birth or post surgery - you are a woman. You are a man, either born with a penis, or post surgery. I hate all the hair-splitting crap. The whole "I was married to a CIA Hit man, Lumberjack, Gator wrestler, Pre-Op Transexual but he, I mean "she" is still a nice person and I care about him, oh, I mean "her"... get over it. Why can't a female be a "CIA Hit man, Lumberjack, Gator wrestler"?? The roles of male and female have been blended for decades, if not centuries. Women's equality is a female attempt to become male... but men don't freak out when a woman shows up at work wearing jeans, work boots, a flannel shirt and baseball cap?? So why should women, or men for that matter, freak when a guy show up to work wearing a suit and tie, perfectly pressed skirt and proper heels??
Just my two pennies, and some thought provoking questions... YMMV
Last edited by Toni Citara; 10-27-2011 at 11:35 PM. Reason: typo
“They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.” (Eddie Izzard)
I totally agree with you, Piora. CD'ing does involve inner feelings. We do feel the femininity inside of us coming out. I know that in drab I feel comfortable in my masculinity. But I there are times when I do feel the desire to express that side of my inner self associated with feeling feminine. Some take that expression to greater lengths and make permanent changes to their outer selves with hormones, surgery, etc. in an effort to make their outer selves align more with their inner selves.
Sissystephanie said that crossdressers manifest the concept of TG. I would tend to agree with that statement. In that respect, crossdressing seems to be one aspect of a TG continuum. My belief is that all people have elements of the opposite sex within themselves. Today I saw a very buxom woman who was dressed just like a man and wore her hair short, walked with a swagger and presented as a man would. Is that woman a man? Certainly not. But she is expressing her persona in a very masculine way. Now fifty years ago, she would have been labeled a dyke. But with the shifting of our societal norms, today she is just regarded as a more of a tomboy type. We don't regard such a masculine public expression today with transgenderism but there was a time when gender identity was more rigidly defined than it is today. Back in the fifties, women were not allowed to wear pants. They generally expressed themselves with greater femininity as a whole than they do today. Our society has changed, allowing women to present in a more masculine way, but it has not allowed men to present in a more feminine way publicly. But the inner selves of some men who feel feminine feelings still yearns to be expressed.
Some of us who cross dress leave our femininity in the closet when we shed our feminine clothes, and some of us carry it with us to a greater extent in our personal lives. Some maintain it to a greater degree. But ultimately, it is a TG expression whether we decide to act on hormones and SRS or not. It is a matter of degree to me.
I think more men have the inner desire to express their femininity than admit it; but in our society, we are encouraged as men to maintain an outer persona of masculinity or face ridicule and loss of esteem. It is part of being a man. There are parts of being a man that are enjoyable and parts that are not so fun. So it is the same with being a woman. I think it is fun enjoying the best parts of both.
Last edited by Dana7; 10-28-2011 at 01:21 AM.
Posting Permissions
