Perhaps It May Be About The Clothing

[Veronica27]

I would love to see the topic, gender and sexual diversity, included in the Health curriculum for middle and high school students. It doesn't have to be elaborate for the younger students, but an awareness that there are people whose inner gender ID does not match their biological sex would certainly help these students accept those among them who are not cis-gender. We do see more and more such children in the news every day.

Veronica, it occurs to me that you may think that "cross-gender expression" and "transgender" mean the same thing. They do have opposite meanings. I recognize that many people believe that "transgender" means a gender ID that is between male and female (although I personally believe in the umbrella term description). And of course the media uses the term interchangeably with "transsexual" because they want to distance themselves from any sexual motive for transition (since most people outside this community do confuse gender ID with sexuality). But "cross-gender expression" is simply what it says. It describes someone who does solidly identify as one gender/sex, who then chooses to present as the other gender/sex. They literally choose to present in a gender that in their culture is accepted as the gender presentation of the opposite gender/sex, to the vast majority of people who see them. I don't know if you're getting this or if you do equate the term with being transgender as the term is used more and more in the media.

But as I stated much earlier above, if a man chooses to not alter any of his male characteristics and presents unmistakably as a full-on man who is wearing a dress, then this man is crossdressing in the classic sense.

The word gender comes from the Latin word genus, meaning kind, type or sort. Its original use was for grammatical categories, and it was not used as an identifier of human nature until the mid 20th century. In fact it wasn't until the feminist movement of the 1970's that it became more or less synonymous with the word sex. When applied to the human condition, it is purely abstract, and as such is highly subjective. There is no way to provide a finite definition of what constitutes gender and even less of a way to define its individual components of masculinity and femininity. They mean whatever you want them to mean.

Any meaning that can be attributed to the word transgender, is totally dependant upon the meaning one gives to the word gender. When you use it as an adjective to describe an individual, you are using a descriptive adjective which provides the complete description of a certain aspect of that individual; namely his identity with regard to his gender. It is like saying his eyes are blue or his race is Caucasian. It does not change from time to time, but is a constant. The gender feelings might be fluid, but he is by strict definition and grammatical logic always transgender.

Cross gender expression is an equally ambiguous term because it is still dependant upon the meaning of the word gender. It is also dependant on the meaning of the word expression. Clothing is just a small component of expression. We have to look at behaviour, activities, interests, instincts, and more to have a more complete picture of expression. Is a man who is feeding a bottle to his infant child in the middle of busy mall indulging in cross gender expression? What if he was wearing skirt? Where does it begin and where does it end?

I do not agree with the way the term transgender is used by the media, nor do I agree with the conflating of sex and gender, which is just one more reason why I reject the current usage of these terms. Others may feel comfortable using this gender related terminology, but I don't. I object to its use as an umbrella term as it is extremely misleading, is open to many false stereotypes and imposes the above mentioned complete description of what I am.

I do not think that crossdressing is the greatest term in the world, but it is descriptive, does not peg me as being anything other than someone who indulges in a certain activity, and can be used as an adjective, verb and noun, just like golf, swim or walk.

I am not aware of any classic sense of crossdressing. Wearing a single item of underwear could be construed as crossdressing, depending upon motivation. Similarly, dressing to the nines, complete with makeup, forms, wig and jewelry is also crossdressing according to he basic definition of the word, which is the wearing of clothing intended for the opposite sex. Why does it have to represent the expressing of anything more than the love of the thrill of being adventurous, or daring or curious?

Veronica

[Lorileah]

c'mon ya'll lets not beat that freaking definition of transgender to death again...we get it there are a dozen people here who don't like the definition as used by the majority. OK don't use it as the dictionary uses it. Make your own definition, we don't care anymore...you want to redefine other words in the dictionary too? Sure makes it difficult to communicate then.

[ReineD]

You're right. *sigh*

No need to bore an entire forum with what finally amounted to a private conversation. I didn't feel bad though since we had the OP's full participation.

To Veronica, you just don't understand what I'm trying to say if you think this is a debate about the meaning of the word "transgender". But that's OK.

[jillleanne]

Good for you Reine. I was just getting ready to ring the bell and hopefully end the round. I would think a PM is in order here.
Hugs

[DebbieL]

This is such an interesting thread. We almost need to go back to "before clothes".

Let's leave the story of Adam and Eve, which may describe an event in human evolution, aside and consider the whole evolution.

When we lived in trees, and had fur, we didn't need much protection. We picked the fruit from the trees, and the Alpha males would simply rule the roost. They would be the only one with breeding "rights". The beta males would have survived by being submissive and avoiding conflicts. They would also assist with rearing the children. This would allow them to get with the other females and "sneak" a little sex. We especially see this behavior when an Alpha male loses his dominance because of age. He will often become the "omega" because all of the males he bullied as an Alpha will want to attack him, even gang up on him. Normally, he will leave the group he dominated, and go to another group as a beta. He will care for the children, and gain the trust of the females, and occasionally "sneek" a little sex.

Female apes often deliberately mate with multiple males, to prevent the males from killing her children. She doesn't know who the next "Alpha" would be. As a result, multiple males will bond with her children, giving her extra baby sitters.

When we came to the ground, we began walking upright. But we also needed protection from thorns, insects, and smaller animals, especially as we began to lose our fur.

Over time, males evolved as hunters, seeking prey, killing animals, and warding off predators. The women became gatherers. They would gather seeds, berries, and fruits which could be shared with the males for meat. However, if a male were born with health problems, was injured, or crippled, he would join the females in gathering. He would learn which fruits were safe to eat, which were dangerous. He would learn how to harvest the fruits, and how to grind the seeds. This would have enabled him to trade gathered goods for meat. These might have been the earliest transsexuals. These transsexuals may have also used their knowledge of dangerous and intoxicating plants, seeds, insects, and reptiles to protect himself. If an Alpha tried to hurt him, he could put a bit of henbane or foxglove into his meat, making him sick, possibly even killing him. Even though the women might know the secrets, they would have less reason to protect themselves. The hunters would believe that the transsexual was somehow "magic" and would stop picking on him.

Clothing also extended the range in which one could hunt. One could leave the grass-lands and move into hardwood forests, and conifer forests. Clothing would be needed for protection from the cold, as well as protection from the more unpleasant plants, insects, and animals. If you've brushed against poison ivy, been bitten by ants, or got fleas from your cat or dog, you can see why you would want to wear clothes.

However, moving north also meant seasons. There would be long periods where there was little to do. The game would be scarce, there would be few grains or leafy vegetables. There would be more need for squash, gourds, and root vegetables. The cold weather, smoking, and salting, would be needed to prevent food from spoiling. The side benefit would be spare time. Time that could be used for creating and improving weapons for the hunters, but for the gatherers, there would be more focus on creating objects of art. The hunters would probably take souvenirs, such as teeth, horns, and bones of the animals they killed, and would want to show them off. The gatherers would have the patients and fine motor skills to make thread, drill very small holes in the tokens, and combine them into necklaces and clothing, similar to what we see in Africa and many Native tribes of the Western Hemisphere.

This is probably when clothes moved from pure utility to status. A man with many bones, horns, or feathers on his clothes would be considered a great hunter, and those with the most would become the leaders of the smaller groups. As the men collected the trinkets, they would begin to give them to their favorite mates, giving them a bit of rank (but not too much) - the first Jewelry.

The male gatherers, again usually the small, sickly, or limited, would probably be learning more "medicine" and deadly arts, capturing snakes, frogs, and insects, learning how to tip a rodent bone with snake venom, or wipe someone with poisons that could kill slowly. We see this behavior with the Vodoo and "witch doctors", who will disable someone, making them appear as if dead, by simply wiping a poison onto their skin. It wouldn't seem like an attack, but soon, the hunters would respect the weaker man, because he could bring sickness or suffering without warning. He might also know how to heal. His ability to form needles from small bones would help him perform minor procedures, such as closing a cut.

Clothing would also begin to differentiate as well. The men, who needed more protection as they ran through forests, trees, and rocks, would need the thicker and denser hides of an animals back, haunches, and thighs. The women, who needed less protection, would make due with the thinner skins of the inner loin, belly, and neck. Over time, the women might have started tanning the softer leathers, to make them softer, more pliable, and easier to work with. The male gatherers would also have worn the softer leathers - the first transvestites.

Over centuries, clothing would become more decorated, and more functional. As tribes began to clash with each other for territory, hunting, and women, they would become more organized. They would also want more protection, using thick leather, perhaps reenforced with bone, to protect their arms and legs from the blows of invaders, as they defended the tribe. Tribes would tend to dress similarly so that when there was a skirmish, they wouldn't accidentally kill a friend and ally, leaving themselves to be killed. This would have been the first armor, and the beginnings of uniforms.

Women, on the other hand, would want no such markings, because they would be killed immediately if they were identified as "enemy". As "neutral", they would have been taken captive by the victors. They would have been assimilated into the new tribe. The smaller and weaker males might quickly be killed, to make sure they didn't avenge their fathers. On the other hand, a boy who could appear as if he were a woman, would have a much better chance of survival. When combined with his knowledge of magic, healing, and primitive technology, he would have quickly proved to be a valuable asset to the tribe, and a dangerous enemy. He would also have learned the arts of cooperation and collaboration, and might have been a negotiator, helping his tribe to avoid all out killing and destruction (war). Because he was small and weak, he would not be considered a threat, and because he was able to propose solutions that did not involve killing many men in both tribes, he would have been considered wise. He wouldn't be a chief, or an Alpha, but his place in his tribe, and the places of the other beta males, would be secured by their ability to provide the tribe with peace, medicine, and technology. The beta males would also have continued to cooperate, and would have formed alliances to become powerful for their magic. So long as they kept their secrets, and only told other beta males, others who were weak and effeminate like them, they could hold power as priests. In Egypt, the priests even challenged the power of the Pharoh.

Even as the stone age moved to the bronze age, as men began to wield weapons of metal, the beta male would have been an important player. He would have observed how to melt the metal, how to produce repeatable results, and how to craft the metal into harder and sharper weapons. He would have learned how to shape a weapon to give it the maximum striking power, how to make it pierce leather armor, and how to extend the range of bows, arrows, spears, and bladed weapons.

Women would become prizes of war. And younger and weaker men, would be considered play-things. They would have become slaves to the warriors, and they would have become very loyal to their protectors, doing things that even their women wouldn't do. They would be submissive, and would probably spend time with the women. Though they would also reproduce, it would be done in secret. However, as soon as it was clear that the boys were able to reproduce, they would have been castrated, becoming eunuchs. The eunuchs would serve the master, sexually as well as politically. They would also advise the wives in the specific tastes of the master, teaching them the skills that the master would have enjoyed most. Since a master could have several wives, they would value the advice of the eunuch and would often try to get special coaching on the side, her goal being to become the favorite wife. At the same time, it would be important NOT to create too much rivalry between the wives. By keeping them nearly equal among each other, there was less risk that the mother of the heir would have her son kill all of the other women, and all of their children. The power of the eunuch would have been significant, especially if he managed it well.

Over the centuries, the older men, often successful as soldiers, would give up fighting and war. They would become politicians. We see this among the Greeks and the Romans, with the rise of the Greek Democracy and the Roman Senate. Yet even here, creating the ability to cooperate and to gain the cooperation of other players was as important as the ability swing a sword on the battlefield.

During the Roman Empire, war was a regular and routine occurrence. Young boys would aspire to become soldiers, and would begin practicing as soon as they could hold a stick. The problem is that most new soldiers are put on the front line where their life expectancy is only a few minutes. The survivors were those who learned how to stay further to the rear, often by serving higher level commanders and generals. Caligula was known as "Little Boots" because he never really fought on the battlefield, but he had learned how to predict the actions of military leaders, and anticipate their actions. He survived by letting Tiberious have his way with him, while other more accomplished boys would resist, find, and end up being thrown back into the sea with the other "minnows" - from a 200 foot cliff.

Ironically, it was men, not women, who first started shaving their legs (and their arms). The soldiers wore leather armor on their shins to protect their legs, but the leather would pull their hair. The best way to reduce the irritation was to shave the hair off completely. Usually, by the time a soldier had served in the military for 15 years, he didn't need to shave, every root had been destroyed.

Likewise it was men not women who first started wearing heels. As women started wearing their hair higher in France, the men needed to wear heels to appear as tall, or slightly taller than their wive with their up-dos.

It was also men, not women who first started wearing silk stockings. They were quite popular in France, as well as the Southern United States, where warmer climates made woolen socks too uncomfortable and itchy. Women wore long skirts, rarely if ever showing even their ankles. Men on the other hand, wore their britches buckled at the knee, which made riding horses easier. The softer and gentler fabrics were also popular in the warmer parts of Europe and America, again because the more traditional and thicker woolen or heavy cotton threads tended to collect sweat and cause rashes, bleeding, and even deadly infections.

However, there were also benefits to being transgendered. John Adams suffered terribly for his aggressive and argumentitive tactics while in France. He was later sent to England "Where they don't mind being insulted". Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a bit of a dandy, and had learned from Franklin that making friends with the ladies was an excellent way to pass information between himself and officials who would not dare to meet openly for fear of starting a war between France and England. Franklin was famous for his enjoyment of the ladies, but in letters to Jefferson, he explained the importance of gaining the trust and confidence of the courtesans who regularly met with the King of France as well as other ministers and leaders. To be effective, Jefferson had to, in effect, become "one of the girls". Since Jefferson's wife had died before he went to France, he was much more able to gain their confidence and cooperation. Some of the letters of advice between Franklin and Jefferson were very interesting reading, and perhaps even a bit titillating as well as informative. For example, "One should not kiss a French woman of court on the lips, it would muss her lipstick. Kissing her on the cheek would result in a face covered with light powder. No, the proper place to kiss her would be on the breast, just below the collarbone, where there is only cologne or perfume".

Benjamin Disraeli was unusually fashionable, and was often considered effeminate. Much his power was the influence he held with Queen Victoria, who considered him a dear and close friend after her husband Albert died. He could treat her as a woman, and she could treat him as her equal.

Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill wore both kept in dresses until they were around 3-4 years old. The dresses made diaper changing much easier and quicker. Both men had other health issues, for which they were taunted as children, and each turned those issues to their own advantage, each becoming extraordinarily powerful men.

J. Edger Hoover and Herman Goering were also both known to wear dresses. According to the movie, J Edger wore his mother's dress to channel her spirit. However, it also suggests that she suspected his "Daffodil" nature and didn't approve, something which make have aided him in discovering and protecting the secrets of the rich and the powerful for decades, from 1935 to 1972, even in the face of a number of people who challenged his authority.

Even the history of the Internet, especially the modern commercial internet as we know it today (as opposed to the research network created for and by ARPA) has a rich history of transgenders and transsexuals as key players. Victoria Prince, founder of the Tri-ESS, communicated with transgenders - cross-dressers primarily, across the United States, via the usenet newsnet on usenet newsgroups such as net.women, net.motss (members of the same sex) and net.motts (members of the third sex). Many of the early BBS operators provided relays for those seeking information about gender identity issues. Several of these contributors were "out" as cross-dressers or transsexuals, others were covert, often maintaining multiple identities.

And of course, fashion itself has thrived on designers who were either transgendered themselves or were inspired BY transgenders, drag queens, and cross-dressers. It's no accident that so many designs seem to be created for 12 year old boys.

Transgenders and transsexuals also fueled much of the gay rights movement. It was the "Drag Queens" who started the Stonewall riots, and they weren't the first. Transsexuals especially, because of their gender confusion, are often magnets to homosexual men who are hoping to meet someone sympathetic. Even though many transgenders are not gay, they are often approached, and it doesn't take long to figure out that they can introduce some of the different guys hitting on them - to each other. In my own high school, I became the "Social Director" for the gay community, because so many jocks and gender conformant gay men would come onto me, assuming that I was gay. I'd often say "I AM gay, I'm a Lesbian", but I think I might know someone who would LOVE to meet you, is it OK if I give him your number? The answer was almost always an enthusiastic YES! The benefit to me, is that these boys would protect me in the locker room and in the halls. For the first time since first grade, I felt safe.

[NicoleScott]

Over time, males evolved as hunters, seeking prey, killing animals, and warding off predators. The women became gatherers. They would gather seeds, berries, and fruits which could be shared with the males for meat. However, if a male were born with health problems, was injured, or crippled, he would join the females in gathering. He would learn which fruits were safe to eat, which were dangerous. He would learn how to harvest the fruits, and how to grind the seeds. This would have enabled him to trade gathered goods for meat. These might have been the earliest transsexuals.

So, health problems turned hunters into gatherers and eventually, transsexuals. I didn't know that.
Or is it that transsexuals are not capable of hunting and must become gatherers?

[Tamara Croft]

So, health problems turned hunters into gatherers and eventually, transsexuals. I didn't know that.
Or is it that transsexuals are not capable of hunting and must become gatherers?

I think she's not on this planet... and needs to gather something else I've never read anything so daft in all my life... seriously...

[Asche]

Even as I write this I'm debating whether I want to post this. The prevailing view here at CD.com is that wearing "women's clothes" is inherently a form of female gender expression. While I don't see any reason to disagree with people who feel that way about themselves, it isn't true for me. But when I try to explain that, I get instructed that I obviously don't understand myself and I should learn the Received Wisdom About Transgenderism(tm) from those here who know more about me than I know myself. It doesn't help that those of us who don't have any interest in "presenting as female" are treated as freaks on the rare occasions when we're not ignored completely. The old "nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf." At CD.com, I'm allowed to admit I might like to wear a dress, but, much like Frédérique, I don't feel like I'm all that welcome to show who I really am.

For me, wearing skirts, dresses, petticoats, etc., is about the clothing. They look pretty, and I feel prettier and freer wearing them than when I am wearing the male uniform -- or at least, I look less un-pretty to myself. Is it about more than the clothing? In a sense, yes. In the same sense as when I go out in a sunfish on Lake George, it's about more than just being in the sailboat -- it's also about feeling time take another shape, about being at one with wind and water. But unless I wear something unusually frou-frou, I don't feel in any way more "feminine," and even that fades once I've worn it a few times and not seen anyone weird out about it. Mostly it's about coming home from work and taking off the uniform and persona required by my job, the way my father would take off his coat and tie and shoes, and putting on something that feels both physically and psychologically comfortable. Or making an elegant or pretty dress for a dance and hoping someone will say, "I really like your dress." I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not wearing "women's clothes," I'm wearing my clothes. If other people want to make it into something else, that's their Spinose, and not my problem.

All my life, "gender" (whether masculine or feminine) has been something external to me: a cage, a set of arbitrary and uncomfortable and at times perverted rules that society has tried to beat into me and everyone around me. It never succeeded in getting me to internalize them, and finally I've discovered that I can simply ignore them and dress and live as i like (most of the time) and get away with it. I'm aware that some activities, characteristics, and objects (such as clothing) are tagged by society as "masculine" and some as "feminine," but that matters to me only insofar as I might catch hell from people around me for picking stuff out of the "feminine" column. Mostly I don't care. I don't have a "feminine side" or a "masculine side," just "my side," and if I'm not always the same in all situations, it has more to do with what I'm allowed to express than what I feel I am.

So for me, it is about the clothing; to the extent it's about anything beyond that, it's also about being able to express myself as I am, and not as others insist I have to be.

[ReineD]

Asche, do you just put on the clothes? Or do you present full on as a woman with breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, long nails, etc, in other words do you try to look like a woman?

If you don't alter yourself in any way and it's just about wearing the clothes for you, then IMO you're a classic crossdresser.

... so, what's wrong with being a crossdresser?

[Asche]

If you don't alter yourself in any way and it's just about wearing the clothes for you, then IMO you're a classic crossdresser.

OK, according to your definition, I'm a "classic crossdresser" (beard, male-pattern baldness, and all).

But now I have another question:

What do you call all these people who sport breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, female names, female voice, etc., and insist they are expressing their "female side", who seem to compose the overwhelming majority of posters in this forum?

Chopped liver?

[Melissa in SE Tn]

Thank God for lingerie and heels. I don't want to question the origin of women's clothing, but want to enjoy wearing them.

[ReineD]

But now I have another question:

What do you call all these people who sport breast forms, wig, makeup, pads, female names, female voice, etc., and insist they are expressing their "female side", who seem to compose the overwhelming majority of posters in this forum?

Chopped liver?

No. lol. They are crossdressers too, but who also engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male. Like it or not, it is the women in our culture who wear makeup, who have breasts and hips, who have female names, female voices, etc. You, on the other hand, present as a male who simply is wearing women's clothes.

In other words, the clothes alone do not give anyone the impression that you are attempting to present as a woman if you do nothing else to alter yourself. But, people who do transform themselves in the way that you describe, are most definitely engaging in a behavior that gives the impression they wish to pass as women. Hence the term, cross gender "expression" (and not cross-gender "identity").

Please know that I answered this because you asked me specifically. I really don't want to start another debate on the meaning of the term, "cross gender expression". If you do want to discuss this more, we should do this via PM.

[PaulaDallas]

Veronica, I thought we crossdressers fall under the transgender umbrella though we do it either full time or part time. JMO. Though we have feminine feelings and tendencies some of us have to OR choose to remain a male for unspecified reasons.

I believe we fall under the "Gender Nonconforming" agenda. I don't know if it is a new category, but it's been in the news lately. It covers a broad range of issues, but those of us who live in the world as males and privately as females are definitely included.

[ReineD]

To PaulaDallas,

Re your statement: "I believe we fall under the "Gender Nonconforming" agenda. I don't know if it is a new category, ...."

The term is used in the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care, to differentiate between transsexuals and people who are not transsexual (who do not need to transition). I love the term since it is not ambiguous, it clearly means what it says while allowing for a wide range of expression, and it steps away from the tired debate of what "transgender" means, whether it is a gender identity of its own as often is used in the media, or whether it is an umbrella term for non-cisgender persons.

[Asche]

No. lol. They are crossdressers too, but who also engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male.

"Crosdressers who engage in cross-gender expression because they are presenting in a gender other than male."

Boy, that's a mouthful to say every time you are identifying someone!

If CD.com ever had to change its domain name to this in order to more truthfully reflect the majority of participants, I'd worry that we'd have people dying of old age before they could finish typing in the URL

(Enough procrastination. Back to working on my Techno-Contra dress.)

[NicoleScott]

Gender Nonconforming

I like it. Have we finally found the term for those who feel they are "more than CD, less than TS" and describe themselves as TG? Let's go with GN and allow TG to be used as the umbrella term.

[ReineD]

Boy, that's a mouthful to say every time you are identifying someone!

If CD.com ever had to change its domain name to this in order to more truthfully reflect the majority of participants, I'd worry that we'd have people dying of old age before they could finish typing in the URL

I agree, it is a mouthful and someone wouldn't say this to every causual muggle who wonders why he dresses. Too complicated for them to grasp. But if you're trying to explain who you are to a partner? The extra effort is worth it. We all know that the variety of cross-gender expressions AND cross-gender identities is wide among the members of this community and it really does take more than one word for a person to describe themselves. For example, if I were to describe myself I'd use a variety of words that describe my various personality traits, my preferences, my physical self.

The idea that there should be just *one* word to describe a condition that is complex given all the permutations is rather idealistic?


Nixole, I agree with you! This forum is made up of four major types of people, other than SOs:

1. Male gender ID who crossdress (they present as males wearing a dress)
2. Male gender ID who engage in cross-gender expression (they present as females in addition to wearing a dress)
3. Gender non-conformists who have varying degrees of feminine gender ID, or masculine ID for FtMs (can also be described as cross-gender identity)
4. Transsexuals (MtFs and FtMs who were born in the wrong bodies)

(2) & (3) can overlap depending on the individual's personal definitions.

[Lucy_Bella]

This forum is made up of four major types of people, other than SOs:

1. Male gender ID who crossdress (they present as males wearing a dress)
2. Male gender ID who engage in cross-gender expression (they present as females in addition to wearing a dress)
3. Gender non-conformists who have varying degrees of feminine gender ID, or masculine ID for FtMs (can also be described as cross-gender identity)
4. Transsexuals (MtFs and FtMs who were born in the wrong bodies)

(2) & (3) can overlap depending on the individual's personal definitions.

I agree,

I would also like to add without a p!ss!ng match..That if members would stop looking at how other members who define themselves as "dressers" for reasons other than being feminine or wishing to be the opposite sex born as...There are various other reasons why members here dress the opposite of sex born as and sometimes gender has nothing to do with it other than being socially un-acceptable..

[MonctonGirl]

So where would we be if Adam had not eaten that apple

I just can't resist this:

In Genesis 3:17 , God did not punish Adam for eating the apple. God punished Adam for believing a woman; specifically his wife.
She lied to him and convinced him the fruit was not from the forbidden tree and as such it was ok for him to eat it.
The interpretation is that she was too weak to exercise self-control when tempted by both the serpent and the desire for something forbidden.
Hence, women were deemed "the weaker sex" ( has nothing to do with physical strength )

Not my idea ... I did not write the Bible ...

Lately, shoes are doing this to me.

EDIT: I suppose then I am a part-time Gender Nonconformist.

[Veronica27]

I would also like to add without a p!ss!ng match..That if members would stop looking at how other members who define themselves as "dressers" for reasons other than being feminine or wishing to be the opposite sex born as...There are various other reasons why members here dress the opposite of sex born as and sometimes gender has nothing to do with it other than being socially un-acceptable..

Thank you!!

[Veronica27]

I just can't resist this:

In Genesis 3:17 , God did not punish Adam for eating the apple. God punished Adam for believing a woman; specifically his wife.
She lied to him and convinced him the fruit was not from the forbidden tree and as such it was ok for him to eat it.
The interpretation is that she was too weak to exercise self-control when tempted by both the serpent and the desire for something forbidden.
Hence, women were deemed "the weaker sex" ( has nothing to do with physical strength )

Not my idea ... I did not write the Bible ...

Lately, shoes are doing this to me.

EDIT: I suppose then I am a part-time Gender Nonconformist.

I guess the Devil made you post it!

The Bible has some hilarious symbolisms and metaphors if you take things literally.

Veronica