That's an excellent article, Reine. Thanks for posting it!Originally Posted by ReineD
I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto.
http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97...on/gilbert.htm
It was an excellent article. It does use "trangendered" in the broadest sense (in this case covering someone who, though completely out, is "just" a crossdresser).I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto.
http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97...on/gilbert.htm
Lea
Have you even read the article? From what i have read, it does not define TG in broader sense, but in a more specific manner.
The 1st comment in red, basically talks about discomfort by one confusing their gender identity as different to the gender assigned at birth.Quoting from York University Professor.
'Transgendered' applied to an individual signifies some degree of discomfort, all or some of the time with one's birth-assigned gender designation.
Notice first that this is a self-evaluative notion rather than an externally assigned category; i.e., one decides at some point that being in the birth-designated pigeon-hole one was placed in is either inadequate, inappropriate, too limiting, or just plain wrong as a description of one's own gender identity. Secondly, note that not everyone who plays with gender is transgendered, insofar as the playing may not be initiated by discomfort, but, perhaps, by professional requirements, sex play, masquerade or what have you. Finally, note that one does not have to do anything with this discomfort in order to qualify as transgendered. It is the having of the discomfort rather then the acting on it that precipitates the classification, which also means that one can easily be transgendered and never so identified.
The 4th comment in red, we infer that this discomfort ALONE classifies one as Transgender rather than acting on it (Crossdressing in this context).
The 2nd comment in red just clarifies that one's Gender Identity is an internal to oneself and not subjective to another person's interpretation based on makeup and presentation.
The 3rd comment in red flatly says that we can wear whatever we want with full makeup or no makeup and yet not be classified as Transgendered.
I won't debate whether "trans" means a permanent or a temporary cross-over. I don't think we will agree. But, I ask you to read this exposé on crossdressing, and tell me what you think. The author, a crossdresser, is a tenured professor of philosophy at York University, Toronto.
http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/ijt/97...on/gilbert.htm
Many thanks for that, Reine. The writer makes some very good points. I can see a lot of my own development listed there.
I guess I must be a trans-cross-whatever then. :-) I'm not a fan of labels.
**-* Kath *-**
Let them see that their words can cut you and you’ll never be free of the mockery. If they want to give you a name, take it, make it your own. Then they can’t hurt you with it anymore.
― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
Freddy, I'm not buying that argument at all.
If someone consistently tells lies, we call them a liar. If someone golfs on a regular basis, we call them a golfer. If someone consistently has heterosexual sex, we call them straight. If someone consistently has gay sex, we call them gay. If someone regularly performs transgendered acts, we call them transgendered.
That's all it means, it doesn't look at why someone is performing transgendered acts, just that a person behaves in certain ways. So yes, crossdressers of all stripes are indeed transgendered according to the current definition of the word.
Carol
My name is Carol.
Reine that was a fantastic journal article. I saved it to my favorites so I can revisit it.
See yourself as a soul with a body not a body with a soul" Dr. Wayne Dyer
Thanks, but I've got to give credit where credit is due. One of our members, Tailor186, posted the link in another thread. I've been posting it all over the forum since.
Here's a story about Dr. Michael (Miqqi) Gilbert at Fantasia Fair:
http://www.torontolife.com/features/naughty-professor/
Last edited by ReineD; 11-20-2011 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Gave credit to the wrong person.
Reine
I know speaking for myself that I started out simply crossdressing nothing else. then as I grew up and started hanging out with other girls I realized that maybe I was suposed to be a girl. So I went beyond dressing I even had a relation ship with a guy. It wasn't a long one and all we did was oral sex. I did have another one night stand with another guy while in dressed in night gown, he know of my crossdressing. it was those two time i felt more like a woman than man. Later in life I got married and told the wife about my feelings about transitioning and that turned out to be a no go. I am happy to stay a crossdresser but deep inside i still wish to be a woman. oh well these are the cards that I was dealt.
O.K., I'm too tired right now to read the whole thread, and I did start the article, but started to doze off (I work nights, and am usually asleep right now, but an idiot doorbell ringer woke me up).
The problem is that society and medical mental health professionals feel a need to put people into categories, and have a way to define us (and, everyone else). It can't be done. Like 'normal' people, there is an infinite variety to who and what we are. Some of us are 'barely' crossdressers; liking only, say, wearing lipstick. Others go the whole nine yards with SRS and become as physically and behaviorally female (or male as the case for FTM's indicates) as we can. I know this because I'm one of those on the border of a couple of definitions, yet people continue to ask me if I think I'm a non op TS, TV, 'just' CD'er, some think I'm gay and in denial. I can't be completely defined by any of those terms, but people insist that there be some way to categorize me; I guess so they can figure out how to deal with me.
My answer: Just let us be. Stop trying to put us into categories with strict definitions, because often, you're not going to be able to do it. Some days we may feel more TS than TG. Some days we may feel straight with no 'aberrant' feelings or behaviors. It's not that we're necessarily suppressing part of ourselves; it's that we are perhaps all those things to some degree at different times, and to try to define us by what we are on one day, but not another, will not be the correct answer.
We must learn to deal with everyone on an individual basis. Yes, it's hard. It's difficult to remember who likes to wear dresses but not wigs or makeup, who likes having sex while dressed up, and who likes it while not dressed up but still feeling like a girl, who feels a need to go out in public as the other gender, and who goes out in public dressed as the other gender but doesn't go through all the work to try to pass because to them it's not important, who has homosexual feelings only when they're dressed as girls, who has homosexual feelings but disconnects while fantasizing so as to separate those feelings from actual males, who dresses as a girl and behaves like a man sexually, who dresses like a girl and behaves like a girl sexually (while still self identifying as male during the sex), who dresses like a girl and behaves like a girl and feels like a girl during sex, the list goes on and on; who will come up with a word to categorize each one of these types? After all, they all behave differently for different reasons.
No one. No one wants to be bothered to learn each and every variation of who we are. So they just want a simple way to package us into some category and be done with it.
But it doesn't work. And society, and the mental health profession is still not advanced enough to understand, and accept that. We await the next great psychologist to come up with a theory that just accepts people for who they are; distinct individuals that can't be easily defined by one small part of our lives.
Some causes of crossdressing you've probably never even considered: My TG biography at:http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...=1#post1490560
There's an addendum at post # 82 on that thread, too. It's about a ten minute read.
Why don't we understand our desire to dress, behave and feel like a girl? Because from childhood, boys are told that the worst possible thing we can be, is a sissy. This feeling is so ingrained into our psyche, that we will suppress any thoughts that connect us to being or wanting to be feminine, even to the point of creating separate personalities to assign those female feelings into.
I never did respond to your original point, and so I will now. I don't agree with Gore Vidal's premise that we are all inherently pansexual and it is only the person that we choose to have sex with that will determine our sexuality. Perhaps Gore Vidal was flexible with his sexuality. But, most of us are simply not same-sex attracted.
Sometimes_miss, you bring up good points and I'd like to address them:
It is natural for all of us to be categorized and to categorize ourselves into major groupings. For example, I'm a woman. There's a vast array of women out there, but we are all women. To break it down further, I can say that I'm a mother (whether I give birth or adopt, or am a part time or full time mother, or my children are grown and gone), as opposed to someone who is not a mother. So, if I want to give a detailed description of who I am as regards gender and parenting, I can say I am a woman, and a mother who had natural child birth and who was a full time mother until my children grew up and left home.
People can also be grouped into the major categories of race, ethnicity, and nationality, even if there is an overlap or a mixture for some people, and again, despite there having a multitude of different personalities and preferences. For example, my kids are dual citizens, yet they are as different from one another as night and day. Or, someone might categorize themselves as a member of an organized religion, or a political party ... and an infinite number of other organizations, activities, preferences, or personality traits. Some of these groupings are based on who we are, and others are based on what we do or choose to believe in.
Well, the one commonality between someone who wears panties twice per week and someone who wishes to transition, is a desire to knowingly cross the gender barriers. It doesn't matter to what degree, what matters is the desire, or the act of knowingly moving from a male expression to a female expression, as opposed to someone who has no such desire or need. Hence the term, "transgender" vs. "cisgender".
Apart from the blurry line, for example, between someone who dresses only once per year on Halloween for a lark, and someone else who does the same only because he dares not do it more frequently (but the desire is there and he would if he could), if we don't spend our entire discussion debating these blurries and we instead focus on the CDers who dress habitually (whether he is a male who wishes to transcend his masculinity by just wearing panties once per month, or dressing fully once per week, or a TS identifying female who dresses full time), then there is most definitely the habitual crossing of gender lines. Hence, again, the major category of "transgender". Any additional detailed definition is entirely individual.
I understand your plea to let you be, but you don't need to click on any thread that discusses definitions. There are plenty of threads here that don't, and there are other members here who do enjoy the discussion and ensuing clarification.
I don't draw and paint every day. There was a time when I felt compelled to do so, other times when I could not find inspiration and I didn't for many years, and other times when it was regular, but not daily. I still consider myself an artist. If I had only once attempted to draw something and found it wasn't for me, I would not call myself an artist. I do not sell my work commercially, yet I still consider myself an artist.
It doesn't matter how your feelings fluctuate day to day, while you are balancing your struggles to express yourself in a non-accepting world. It doesn't matter whether your gender expression includes just wig and no makeup, or just lipstick, or just nail polish, or no makeup or wig at all and just pretty panties, or whether you do go out or stay in the closet, or if you fantasize about being with men or not, as long as the reason for choosing any of these things stems from a desire to depart from the masculine and move towards the feminine ... (as opposed to a male goth who wears black nail polish for the male goth look, and not to enhance femininity). What matters is that you do habitually experience a need to express or get in touch with femininity.
We do. There is a wide variety of transgender expression, and within each transgender expression, a wide variety of personalities and personal preferences. I don't think anyone here is saying that all members of this community are clones.
But, you do recognize the members here form a community? How would you characterize this community? The simplest, most common denominator is a desire to transcend gender lines or expression, to some degree or fully for some people. Hence the term, "trans"gender.
Last edited by ReineD; 11-20-2011 at 05:39 PM.
Reine
Yes. He describes a very full range of trans ID. For me, the relevant part (re my comment) is that it "isn't that important to him", yet he includes the "committed crossdresser" in the trans category (he describes himself as in that category). This sets a VERY low bar.
Lea
Always remember, The dress doe's not make the man! Quote Tammy K.
Many people crossdress for many different reasons. There's a number of types, and a number of definitions.
Time on our Hands
Damn, Fredrique; you don't get out much, do you?
There will always be an attempt to attach the broadest labels to any thing observed, as this will allow one to cease thinking about it in any detailed sense. I believe the reasoning here is primarily political; the larger the group, the more powerful it is, and we are so far down that scale that we need all the help we can get.
As someone who tends to look beyond these labels, I think accepting them at face value is a large mistake; things are never that simple and tossing as diverse a bunch as this one all in the same basket is doomed to failure. However, political alliances are needed if we are to achieve a common goal of having the right to exist freely recognized, so there is some use to it.
ALWAYS plan for the worst, then you can be pleasantly surprised if something else happens!
"The important thing about the bear is not how well she dances, but that she dances at all." - Old Russian Proverb (with a gender change)
[SIZE="2"]First of all, thanks for providing the link to that interesting article. You won't debate, or you won't debate ME?
Some time ago I read a book (actually a treatise) about crossdressing, transvestism, and all sorts of related things – this came out before the term “transgendered” was being widely used. The author, whose name I forget, was a learned doctor, and he had no sympathy for transsexuals. He thought TS was a kind of mistake, and certain individuals weren’t “trying hard enough” to make a go with their birth gender – imagine submitting such an opinion on this site! As such, I avoid “official” verbiage of this nature, preferring to hear from the insiders in our community. Luckily, the professor who wrote the article IS a crossdresser, and is therefore one of us...
I concede that the word transgendered has undergone a transformation, whereby “trans-“ no longer implies permanent change, much like “awesome” is used inappropriately to describe anything good. “Playing with gender,” three words plucked from the article, may best describe the type of crossdressing this crossdresser engages in. In other words, it’s not a one-way street...[/SIZE]
[SIZE="2"]The only reason why I quoted Mr. Vidal is because this stated difference between persons and acts inspired me to write the OP...I don't agree with Gore Vidal's premise that we are all inherently pansexual and it is only the person that we choose to have sex with that will determine our sexuality. Perhaps Gore Vidal was flexible with his sexuality. But, most of us are simply not same-sex attracted.
I’ve read many stories where a couple of heterosexual males will engage in a homosexual act, and afterwards they will inevitably say “Does this mean we’re gay?” You can debate that all day long, but I would say they have had a homosexual experience, and they are not homosexual persons. I think Quentin Crisp would agree. Bisexuality is a word rarely mentioned, in these black-or-white times, so you either ARE gay, or you aren’t. It’s not fair, if you ask me...
In a similar way, if a heterosexual male finds enough courage to try on women’s clothing, and likes it, he will first wonder if THIS means he’s gay. This happens, but if our hero/heroine is reasonably assured as to his heterosexuality, he will start to wonder if he was really meant to be female all along (after all, there MUST be an explanation, right?). I’m sure the word “transgendered” will never cross his mind, as in “Does this mean I’m transgendered?” Instead, he will, I’m sure, think of the word crossdressing. Maybe he will come to learn he is transgendered, and go beyond “playing with gender” in this way, on the way to definite change – meanwhile, he is engaging in a transgendered act by crossdressing...
My point is that it isn’t fair to say that ALL crossdressers are transgendered. Transvestism and transgender are two different, albeit related things - one is about clothing, and one is about gender. I do the former, but not the latter, so I am not transgendered...
[/SIZE]
Well, Sometimes_miss' post came up after I said that ... and I felt compelled to address it.[SIZE="2"]First of all, thanks for providing the link to that interesting article. You won't debate, or you won't debate ME?[/SIZE]
I agree, if they tried and decided it wasn't for them. The difference between a mere act and something deeper lies in the frequency of the act. If it is habitual, then it indicates an inherent need or desire.
If your heterosexual males were to engage in a homosexual act once or twice per month for years on end, and each time they asked, "Does this mean we're gay?" I'd tell them, "Yes, if you don't have sex with females ... otherwise, you're bi".
Reine
Posting Permissions
