Originally Posted by
ReineD
But, there are also reasons that I don't understand and they're not reasons, really. They don't indicate how exactly the crossdresser benefits from dressing. These reasons are: "I just like women's clothes. They feel nicer or softer than men's clothes. Women's clothes have a wider variety of styles and colors. Women are allowed to wear pants so why can't men wear skirts." I might even add "It makes me feel good" to this list, since saying this is rather non-descriptive.
Can anyone tell me why some CDers don't give themselves deeper reasons than just "I think that women's clothes are nicer"?
Can anyone tell me why "I think that women's clothes are nicer" isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation? If someone tells you they like collecting stamps, or skiing, or playing guitar, do you normally demand some explanation in terms of psychological complexes or something? Or do you simply accept that people have different tastes and different interests, and that some people may find certain things deeply fullfilling that you cannot appreciate in the slightest? Why is what people like to wear somehow not subject to the same laws of diversity?
A generation ago, "reasonable" people were asking the same sort of pathologizing questions about gay people. No one (except other gay people) could understand why anyone would be sexually attracted to members of their own sex other than as a consequence of some deep psychological disturbance or miswiring or something. And gay people who grew up in that environment, in which "I like it" was not an acceptable answer, often came up with all kinds of convoluted theories to justify what they liked. Now that being gay is not seen as quite so sick and perverted as it was when I was young, I see more gay people simply saying, "this is what I like, this is how I am." Which I think is a lot healthier.
Originally Posted by
ReineD
Surely, there must be more to the second set of reasons that explain why a man would risk jeopardizing his marriage and/or a job, and risk subjecting himself to potential ridicule and ostracism from peers … and therefore staying closeted, just because women's clothes "are nicer"?
I can't speak to this from personal experience, since I'm not closeted (except to my workplace), and I have experienced none of these problems.
But history is full of people to whom some interest or desire, whether it be painting, cataloging earthworms, climbing some mountain, or whatever, was so important that they were willing to suffer rejection or abuse to do it. Obviously, the more negative the consequences for pursuing your dream/living your truth, the more important it has to be to you. I don't see why "wearing women's clothes" is fundamentally so different.
At some point, I find this refusal to believe that people could know their own mind better than some stranger who knows nothing about them except what they see in a post a little condescending. It's a widespread attitude here at CD.com (and elsewhere), and most of the people who display it are nowhere near as decent about it as ReineD.
And, since I'm a bit irritated by this, why don't I just play turn-about with this if-I-don't-feel-it-it-must-not-be-real attitude:
Since I cannot for the life of me understand what it means to have a "masculine side" or a "feminine side," there must be some deeper reason why people talk about their "feminine side." It must be a rationalization. My theory is that, since we live in a society in which it is unthinkable for a man to do certain things that society says are for women only, such as wearing pantyhose or skirts, the only way a man who has internalized this attitude can deal with a strong desire to do some "for women only" thing is to imagine that he is two persons: a "male" one that does all the proper male things, and a "female" one that, being female, is allowed to do those "for women only" things. (Saying he has a "male side" and a "female side" is another way of expressing the same process.)
It's a neat theory: it explains what I see here at CD.com, it doesn't require any gender essentialism, and it agrees with my experience of myself, so it must be true. The fact that it may not agree with other people's experience of themselves doesn't matter, because obviously if I don't see it, it must be because they just don't have enough insight, not because my experience isn't universally applicable.
A bit snarky, perhaps, but at some point I get tired of people's assumption that their lack of imagination is my problem to solve. FWIW, it's something I practically never encounter in Real Life (except from the "mental health" profession), but see a lot of here at CD.com.