It is a curious fact (I think) that many, if not all of us, “chose” to express our feminine side primarily by dressing as a woman. This is at least true for me, on occasions, so I am no exception. (Note the emphasis of the word “primarily” here.)
We could of course also have “chosen” to primarily express our feminine side by:
- Sex reassignment................................ (Roughly more biological traits)
- Breasts (by operation or artificial augmentation)
- Body proportions (by operation or artificially augmentation)
- Voice
- Speech pattern
- Facial expression and communication
- Gestures
- Walking
- Haircut
- Hairiness (or rather devoid of)
- Jewelry (if that is considered separate from clothing)
- Habits (if there are any specific female habits?)
- Make up..............................................(R oughly more cultural traits)
- Etc. Etc
Yet, we chose by primarily dress as a woman.
So here is a thought that popped up the other day.
Why is it more important to emulate a woman by the cultural expression (like layers of clothing), rather than the pure biological expressions (like e.g. emulating a nude look of a woman without clothes, a female voice, or breasts etc) which in some sense is a purer form what a woman really is? Or does the clothes signify a woman more than her biological body?
Also had some additional related (but minor) thoughts on this theme.
For instance, why is it that the primal expression is not cross make-up-ing, cross-face-expressing, cross-voicing, or cross-walking, in contrast to crossdressing?
Having said that, many of us do of course express many other sides too, e.g. by using make-up, women’s hairstyles/wigs, training your voices etc. Yet, we use the word crossdressing to denote essentially everything, despite that other self-expressions may be involved. Why is that and why does those self-expressions not deserve their own terms?
/Bima