Not trans? Huh? I don't get it.

[Zylia]

I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who regularly pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??

I think we're belittling the TG cause (if there's such a thing) by including everyone who wears clothing commonly associated with the opposite sex. I don't consider people who cross-dress for practical reasons (e.g. actors who portray a certain character, people who wear something of their partner because it's the only clean/warm thing around the house) transgender and one could argue that you're only a cross-dresser in the strictest sense (and the subject of this website) if you cross-dress to fulfil a psychological need.

In my opinion, any psychological need or want that a person has that can be fulfilled by crossing gender boundaries (e.g. presenting as the opposite sex), must be the result of some psychological gender-related incongruence and that makes that person technically transgender. Additionally, people who get a sense of normalcy out of cross-dressing or who get turned on by it aren't the 'norm', and that's what makes them transgender as well. They're not cisgender, therefore transgender.

[Laura J]

I think you are TG if you identify as TG, you aren't if you don't!

I am definitely TG!

[Michelle Deere]

I have never follow a whole thread before, but this one has me intrigued. And, as others have said, just when I thought I had things figured out ….. I am though taking a number of points away from this discussion.
Firstly, I will endeavor not to use the term trans or trans*. It will be the full word so as not to leave any question as to what I am talking about. Secondly, why do we need to use labels? Is it something we do for ourselves or for others in an attempt to answer the question “why do we do what we do”? A justification?
I agree with Jennifer and Tinkerbell on the majority of what they have said. When I have the opportunity to dress, I am still a male through and through, I’m still a husband, a dad. There is no girl trying to get out, but for whatever reason, I sometimes want to portray a woman and be seen as one. I have taken a page from Isha’s book and will not waist time anymore seeking the answer to “why?”.
If someone were to ask me again if I considered myself “trans or trans*”, I would now say “I’m just an average guy who, every once in a while, just happens to enjoy dressing and (hopefully) passing as a woman. As such, that makes me a crossdresser. Crossdressing happens to be just one of many aspects of the transgender spectrum, which in its self, is contained within the LGBT community.” Not exactly an answer to a simple question, but rather a long winded statement (but a concise one) to describe this small part of my being.

[Katey888]

I'm failing to see the point. What is to be gained by hammering into someone that they are something that they say they are not? I know many idiots but I'm quite sure they would disagree with the term.

Angela - I don't believe Nadine or anyone is trying to hammer a definition into someone else... I'd be amongst the first to say that Jennifer (or anyone else) has an inviolable right to define themselves how they see fit and how they choose - the point of accepting that a particular definition may apply to yourself as well as a larger group, may just make it easier for others to be educated and enlightened as to what our 'community' is about. I believe it's a useful debate if it gets us all closer to accepting terms that can be used usefully to describe to muggles particularly, why we are driven to do this female presentation thing, and that it is not always sexual, which I can imagine is a popular belief (and if you browse the vast majority of sites out there, that is actually the case). And for me it also helps me develop an understanding of myself and what I feel about what I do - and yes, some will say we overthink and over-analyse and that's fine, nobody has to read this stuff, they can just move on to the Clothing section...

Jenn - I think it's super of you to be accepting that you can be categorised as "trans" or TG.. I can also completely accept that you and others (me included) continue when dressed, to feel male in every way but presentation - I think there is still a lot of concern that being this way and wanting to dress and look like a woman means that you ultimately want to be a woman, and I would strongly assert that this is not the case for those of us at the non-TS end of things. I'm also aligned with your opinion that you consider this to be something genetic (although not necessarily hereditary) that is within you and drives you to do this - I feel the same way. The reason I believe this to be gender-related is exactly for that reason.

We accept that something innate drives us to present as female - but that presentation of gender is not something that is innate or instinctive. A hairy chest is innate for (some) men; a different hairline to men (non-receeding) is innate for most women; wearing high-heels, or a summer dress, or mascara is not innate or genetic - these things are a societal construct: a fashion thing. They are as man-made as astroturf... We recognise them as feminine because of conditioning, learning, media, our society, our parents. We understand as children that these portrayals of gender stereotypes are what defines us in society. More than that, those of us from a slightly older generation have experienced very rigid adherence to those stereotypes, which I think is partly why some of us suffer so much guilt and feel stigma over needing to do this.

If there is something in us - small or large - that triggers a need to express that feminine aspect; the genetic trigger - then that is why we go to such lengths to transform and embrace what are society's archetypal visions of the female gender. It is the boldest and most obvious way to express that inner feminine, and it is because we have that inner feminine that doesn't appear to be there in 90-95% of other men (or at least require any sort of overt outlet) that I would say the term transgender is appropriate for what most of us are.

Men are HUGELY visual so if this compulsion to crossdress enters a boys head one day for whatever reason - genetics, brain wiring or whatever - it makes complete sense that eventually this boy will become a man who wants to perfect his craft. My H is like this with everything in his life.

Tinks - this is hugely simplistic and flawed - not every man is a perfectionist by any means and your H's example is not universally applicable.

I had a thought that if men who wear lingerie for pleasure are included as TG, then surely so are straight GGs who pleasure their H? Or the girl who occasionally likes to throw on work boots and overalls and go plough the field or something? I understand the reasons behind wide inclusion, but surely you could reach a point where we're all in there on some level and TG is obsolete? And surely this isn't exactly supportive of those with a very real gender condition who feel vastly different from the guy who wears lingerie or the girl again pleasuring her SO ? Are we not belittling the TG cause by including everyone??

This is why I find it difficult to include purely fetish dressers - the sexual content adds another complexity: is it because it's women's lingerie or is it just associated with the nature of the fabrics used to manufacture lingerie? That's a whole other subject...
And I understand what you mean about the TG cause (although I think 'cause' might be a tricky one to define as well) - I often feel guilty that I can appear to present well but have no desire to dress more - that may sound strange but I've said before that I feel a bit of a fraud although I know I'm not. I believe we strengthen any cause by being more inclusive - if there are more of us, wherever on the spectrum we reside, then that must at least be a better foundation for TS issues to draw some support from. Perhaps that's where the long standing mix up of 'TG must be TS' comes from... but I don't believe that's really any different than someone who's hetero supporting someone's right to be bi - we just have a lot more affinity between TG and TS, at least in a fashion sense!

I do continue to think it's an important and useful debate.

Katey x

[Marcelle]

Wow . . . quite the discussion and who would of thought one "word" would have sparked such a grand debate. I think in the end we can all agree that how we (i.e., each individual) chooses to define him/herself is a personal choice. If I prefer to call myself "Trans, Trans*, Transgender", "Cross Dresser", "Master/Mistress and Grand Overlord of the Universe (I personally like this one )" that is a personal choice which allows the person to put themselves in a comfortable area in order to bring congruence with their psyche. However from what I read here I don't think anyone is debating that right . . . n'est pas?

As I stated early when I dress the Isha identity is strong and I try to emulate a close approximation of a woman to help express that identity. Is it perfect? Do I pass? Absolutely not. I know in my heart of hearts below the make-up, clothing, mannerisms, voice my core identity is still male. However, a part of me (Isha) is driven to present female because that is who she is. If she cannot express herself when she needs to things get "noisy" and I find it hard to function (I get moody and sullen). Is this GD? Most likely. However, while I am presenting as Isha there are times where the reverse happens and my boy self needs to express himself to the world and you know what . . . things get "noisy" again and Isha has to disappear for awhile or I find it hard to function. This is why I will never transition because both sides need to coexist in order for me to function as a whole person. Not sure if that makes me unique (I doubt it) but it does make things very difficult to explain where I neatly fall on the spectrum.

Does the above make me Transgender? If you take the textbook definition then yes as there is an incongruence between my birth sex (male) and one of my identities (Isha). However as some pointed out since I never loose site of the fact that I am male (my personality does not alter) then a prima facia case could be made that the male identity is in tact and hence I am not Transgender. Goodness sounds like badly worded stereo instruction "Take cable A insert into bracket B after looping through junction A attachment A1 with the red cable running contralateral to sub-junction C . . . finally install cable B to the sub-junction of amplifier housing ensuring the green cable is seated in the housing port and D - press play and you are now have a stereo. " . . . This is why I abhor labels as they try to pigeon hole things into neat little categories which are constructs of one person's idea of something.


Yes, I get the need of some to be able to define themselves, find a place to belong "I am (fill in the blank) and I am part of a group!". But continually trying to make sense of where on a spectrum you belong and why you should be on one end or the other or points in between can drive a person stark raving crazy IMHO . Personally I prefer to exist as a person . . . yes quirky in that I like to dress like a woman now and then but I am still 100 percent me regardless of how I present. If someone asks what I am, I say "Transgender" or "Cross dresser" not because I think it defines "me" it is just easier for that person to understand when I use that definition vice "I am mostly a guy but there are times when I like to be a girl in order to bring harmony and balance to a chaotic mind. However when I am girl I always know I am a guy although I appear to act and dress like a girl and may even alter my voice to sound like a girl but in the end I am still a guy as defined by internal core identity which by the way is very guy . . . now take cable A loop through junction B over to the contralateral housing port, insert in the green port 1-A . . . Oh heck . . . Cole's Note version . . . I am Transgender."

Hugs

Isha

[Karen kc]

I am a crossdresser. I look like a man, act like a man, think like a man,{ my wife says thats the problem} I dont think of myself as trans-gendered. BUT, if my peers consider me as trans-gendered, than I'll accept that

[sometimes_miss]

While reading a different thread a member stated that they were "not trans." I will make the assumption and fill in the end of that as "not transgender." This is an idea that I have read from many members actually. If we look at the definition of transgender given from WPATH it states "Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth."

So how about for those who don't agree with everything that wpath states? Just because it's considered as a reference for a lot, doesn't mean that what they say applies to everyone.

I m not quite sure what the aversion to identifying as transgender is? But further than that, if you do not identify as "trans" why do you think you do what you do? Is it just a passing fancy? An interesting way to spend some time?

And there you go. You're assuming that everyone who crossdresses does it for the same reason that you do. And that's very common; I don't remember the term for it, but it has something to do with the desire to fit it, that you want everyone to be like you, so that you feel normal even if you're the most bizarre person on earth. It's a natural desire to feel this way.

Like you had a list of various things to do: go bowling, fix up an old hot rod, dust the house, dress in women's clothes... and today you thought, hmm... yeah... today would be a good day to play dress up? But it does not mean anything about me and my gender.

It depends on why you are wearing the clothes. If you are doing so to display yourself as a female, or to help your self identify as female, then sure, that's transgender. however if you are doing so to oh, help get into the character of being a female so that you can reprise the role in the latest version of 'Tootsie', then no, your not transgender. Also, there really are normal men who actually might wonder what all the fuss is about when women take ten times as long to get out of the house, so perhaps an inquisitive one such man just might take time to try on all the different parts of clothes, make up, jewelry, heels etc. to find out whats the big deal. Again, not transgender.

I take the definition of transgender to include anyone who "crosses or transcends culturally defined categories of gender." So yeah, if all you ever do is occasionally put on some lipstick, you are transgender,

How about colored and scented chapstick? Or the ones with sun protection factor in it, that might taste or smell like yummy fruit, obviously geared towards girls? Maybe you've had skin cancer and like the spf and figure, why not get some that smells good too? Does that make you transgendered? I can see how a fat kid who likes to eat candy all friggin' day might also like chapstick that smells really delicious that is obviously made for girls, to use instead of boring old plain stuff, but not be transgendered. I'm not talking about lip smackers, the lipstick that tastes good and is clearly designed to make guys want to kiss you if you're a girl wearing it, but plain old chapstick brand that comes in lemon lime, orange, cherry, berry scents but does not really change the color of your lips?

if you only ever put on a pair of women's underwear and pleasure yourself, you are transgender, if you are a cross dresser, you are transgender, if you transition you are transgender, etc.. You all can debate whether or not you want to be labeled or defined or categorized til the world ends, but that is an integral part of language and culture. Things are defined,<snip>

Ah, yes but it apparently depends on who is defining them. Just because some people want us all to fall under the great big TRANSGENDER UMBRELLA doesn't mean that we actually do.
BTW, I am transgender, but unlike say, Isha, I don't even try to go to any lengths to "emulate a close approximation of a woman" in order to try to pass or express a female personality to the rest of the world when I crossdress, perhaps because I feel no need to try to separate the female things about my personality from the rest of me.

But even I can see that not everyone who wears the clothes normally 'reserved' for the opposite sex is transgendered, even though you and wpath and whoever might feel the need to believe so.

[satinnsilk]

A very controversial topic for sure. Just as we are all unique our personal definition of ourselves is not always the same just because we have similar interests. I gave up on trying to pigeon hole my gender expression and now simply align with the term gender fluid. Again, just my personal preference although the terms transgender, transvestite, crossdresser, etc. have never bothered me.

Elizabeth

[NicoleScott]

If transgender means anything or everything then it means nothing. Words have definitions to enable clear conversation.

[Stephanie Sometimes]

When I dress it is because I am expressing a distinctly feminine part of me that has been too often repressed and hidden. And I am happy (thrilled maybe even) to be considered transgender because of that. I am with Isha in that I don’t particularly see a need to pigeon-hole people into a specific definition of some group identity that they may not agree with or be comfortable with.

But definitions are important and useful for scientific study as well as for understanding and attempting to make sense out of human behavior. To me it would seem that crossdressing should certainly be considered to be “transgender” behavior whatever the motivation behind it might be. That’s the fundamental difficulty with this discussion: we just don’t have a good understanding of the various causes of MTF crossdressing behavior.

Certainly some of us have a strong feminine identity somehow incorporated in our male physical being that needs to be freely expressed. Others may just enjoy role playing and find fulfillment from acting out as a member of the opposite sex. As crossdressers, I think we should be open to understanding and accepting folks for what they say about their own identity and what group they feel like they are part of.

So when Jenn does not want to be labeled as “transgender” I am fine with that, Jenn can come up with her(his?) own group name and definition to belong to. But I am not OK with the label that Jenn is often prone to slap on every other CD’er on this forum as a “dude in a dress”. I personally find that somewhat demeaning, however accurate it may or may not be in describing my sometimes appearance, LOL.

Interesting and worthy discussion for this forum
Hugs,
Stephanie

[Jenniferathome]

...In my opinion, any psychological need or want that a person has that can be fulfilled by crossing gender boundaries (e.g. presenting as the opposite sex), must be the result of some psychological gender-related incongruence and that makes that person technically transgender. ...

This is pretty good Zylia. It makes a lot of sense. So does stress relief count as a "psychological need"?

[ophelia]

What many of us are doing is not necessarily wishing to be gender female. We are merely and naturally enjoying adorning ourselves.
Two and three centuries ago men dressed and coiffed infinitely more "prettily" than they do today. Society has dumped all of that, the fabrics, scents, hairstyle, jewellry and such into a giant toybox labelled "female".
Such a box, by any other name would be just as much fun.

Given that theory, maybe our perspective on our passion is 180 degrees wrong.
What if we were the "normal" and the other men out there who deny their enjoyment of enhancing their appearance with fashion, form and fragrance are the freaks?

[CONSUELO]

Lots of good discussion and many opinions and subtle shades of distinction. Yet I cannot help but feel that ultimately it does not matter what we call ourselves. We are here because we like to dress in feminine clothing and doing so gives us a good feeling that ranges from relaxed to excited. What more can we say.
All of the labeling comes from professional psychologists and psychiatrists who, for their own purposes, need to classify and make definitions.

[LilSissyStevie]

Just as you can't force an identity on anyone, you can't exclude anyone from it either. Is this TG thing some kind of cult or something? Just who's in charge?

[JayeLefaye]

This is pretty good Zylia. It makes a lot of sense. So does stress relief count as a "psychological need"?

Well, sorta, yeah, at least in the USA. I have a friend who "looks" normal and healthy, but psychologically is a mess, and VERY stressed and anxious in social settings. With his psychologist and doctor's letters, he was able to get an official "Service dog", similar to a seeing-eye dog for the visually impaired. The dog had a legal red sweater, and it allowed him to take her into any establishment, anywhere....It's not the same thing as a nice skirt and pair of pumps, but ya get my meaning:-)

Jaye

[Marleena]

Two - some CDrs don't like being included among the transgendered, and will come up with a variety of exceptions. I don't agree with those exceptions, but its not worth arguing about it.

I agree and I'll take it a step further. Cisgender people don't need to cross gender boundaries and have no urges to do so. Crossdressers do cross gender boundaries (trans) albeit temporarily. Perhaps the word transgender is causing other people to question their manhood and or sexuality and gender (do they identify as male or female?) and maybe that's where the problem arises. I'll run now.

[suchacutie]

Maybe Marleena's way of looking at this brings some clarity: If you don't do ANY of the things that we do to express any form of feminine presentation, then we are NOT transgendered. The rest of us are

By the way, just so it's not in question, I fall into the category of "two apps running on the same database". My wife sees Tina as not her husband, but her girlfriend. The personalities of these two apps are simply different. There is some overlap (neither of us is a bank robber!) but so much is different that for all intents and purposes, Tina's transformation is the vision of that part of me (us) which many would define as feminine. It's very satisfying to stand in front of the mirror and see a part of me I never understood, and to let Tina express herself without the male me hanging on. I'm for sure transgendered, by anyone's definition from what I can tell, and very proud of it!

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Cisgender people don't need to cross gender boundaries and have no urges to do so.

This isn't really true. Women have been itching to do the same things as men since time began...look at the glass ceiling and how we desperately want to smash that thing! Not to mention Tomboys have been around forever, plenty of little girls prefer traditional boy toys to girls, and there are even cisgendered women who are more comfortable in male assigned clothing than women's - even buying jeans from the men's department! Not to mention the more fetish aspects that women can experience (I won't go into details for fear of annoying the powers that be, yet again), but cisgendered people cross gender boundaries all the time. I also think there is psychological fulfilment for women who cross traditionally male boundaries and I'm sure many also feel excitement. Hillary Clinton is probably just itching to get Obama's job off him!

The difference I see is cisgendered women can cross these lines without leaving their female identity behind. Crossdressers like Jennifer and my H also cross gender lines without leaving behind the male. But others cross the line and temporarily shed their usual gender identity in order to join the other side and that to me is TG.

[Marleena]

@ Tinkerbell your examples are considered acceptable GG behaviors for the most part. Now if you were to bind your breasts, add a beard and a sock in your crotch area and try your best to look and act like a man you would be considered TG also. Cder's are considered part of the transgender umbrella and we're trying to figure out what is so wrong with the word. So I was just speculating why transgender invokes the reaction it does with some people.

[Nadine Spirit]

Some people do not like what it implies about them. They feel it categorizies thrm improperly.

I am just curious if there are some people out there that don't like being categorized as human. Oh wait that's right I do remember seeing some show where some people were saying that they were felines and not humans. Go figure.

[ReineD]

Lori #26, well said!

------------------------------

Katey888 #23, for years I believed as you do, that a strong desire to present as a woman necessarily indicates some degree of gender-discord. But, no longer. I think that many CDers dress for no other reason than it feels good, whether this is a form of excitement or a feeling of calmness, or because it just feels right. But whatever is the feeling obtained by the CDing, it is different than when dressed in regular male clothes, and I'm afraid that some CDers may extend the difference in feelings to a belief they must then have a partial female gender identity.

GD isn't about feeling good when dressing and looking like a woman. GD is rather not feeling in sync with one's male sexual identity (for MtFs). People who have GD are distressed with their male body and they hate that wives and everyone else in their lives think they are male. GD isn't something that turns on and off depending on how a person is dressed.

------------------------------

Nadine #44 brought up a great point about not wanting to identify as a crossdresser, so as to not be confused with the people who dress for private pleasure, since Nadine does not dress for sex.

Still, not dressing for sex doesn't mean that by extension a person MUST be TS, or be "on the TS side", or have GD. A lot of people have passions they love and some that really drive them (think Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, or Beethoven when composing) without finding sexual gratification in it, so why should the CDing be any different? Also, I'm sure that even some CDers who do not dress for sex still from time-to-time have some sexual fantasies about it when they're in a sexual mood. This is just plain being human, so if some of you do fantasize occasionally, don't be thinking that you're purely fetish CDers.

------------------------------

Isha #55 mentions getting moody and sullen when she doesn't CD, and wonders if this is GD. According to the WPATH, it isn't. GD is about experiencing distress with inhabiting the male body and the associated gender role (husband, father). Here's the definition:

Gender dysphoria: Distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics).

------------------------------

Sometimes-miss #57, you dispute the label "transgender" for everyone who presents as a woman. You need to understand that people can cross a gender boundary and still very much have a male gender identity. Gender boundaries (or categories of gender) are a number of things that any society defines as typically male or female, including the clothing that people wear. In our society, women wear women's clothes and so any CDer does cross a gender boundary when he dresses in women's clothes for the purposes of emulating a woman. My dad has taken to buying women's woolen tights to wear under his pants in the winter (he's 85), and like the women who wear men's flannel shirts, this doesn't count. lol. My father does not do this for the reasons that CDers wear panties.

A CDer's actions (and not his gender identity) effectively place him under the Transgender Umbrella, together with all others who cross the gender boundaries in some way, even if their motives are different than CDers. Drag Queens are under the umbrella too, and they dress because it's their job!

------------------------------

Tink #68, we can't confuse a woman's desire for power in a man's world and the actions she needs to take in order to accomplish this, for a desire to appear or feel male. Women who make it into the boardrooms of the world need to abandon clothing that emphasizes their sex, they need to be assertive and have presence, if they are to be taken seriously by the men they deal with. Likewise, if perchance a woman buys men's blue jeans because they fit her body type better than women's jeans, this is not a desire to appear male, unless of course s/he is FtM. It's not taboo in our society for women to wear jeans and flannel shirts.

I think that the vast majority of people are perfectly OK with presenting in the gender that coincides with their sex, meaning they are not making an outright effort to present as the opposite sex the way that members here do. And I doubt that the few women who do buy their clothes in men's stores and who are not F2M, do it because they have a thing for men's clothes. Still, it's important to remember there is indeed a wide range of "energies" if you will, within each sex. For example, just imagine 6 or 8 college-aged women sitting together. Some will be more traditionally feminine than the others, while some will be more angular, taller, or stockier, perhaps more sporty. But everyone at the table will still be unmistakably women, even if some of them don't focus on clothes or makeup like the others. It's very much a question of personal taste and in such a group (unless there are FtMs), no one is even remotely thinking of presenting male.

[Zylia]

I also think there is psychological fulfilment for women who cross traditionally male boundaries and I'm sure many also feel excitement. Hillary Clinton is probably just itching to get Obama's job off him!

Incomparable. Women like Hillary Clinton aren't crossing gender boundaries, they're pushing them. They don't have the intention to look like a man or behave like a man.

[Tinkerbell-GG]

Zylia, actually I don't think it's incomparable. I think in both examples - a male identified crossdresser and a woman who desires a typically male role - both covet that which they see the other gender possesses. Simplistically, in our gender divided society, women possess physical beauty and men possess economic power. Sure, it looks very different (women don't have testosterone, for a start, so it will always be different) but I don't think the two are completely incomparable. Power is a strong motivator. I'd bet there are at least a few men who feel confident and powerful when dressed. Am I right?

Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, there are men who crossdress who don't feel like women who I now see from the posts here belong under the TG umbrella. If no one minds then its not a problem In the end, people are free to decide who they are and where they belong. It's only if the general public start assuming things about people because of this 'umbrella' that there will be a problem. If you don't identify as female yet everyone assumes you do, I imagine this could become upsetting. Hopefully, this will pass with time and education.

[Amanda M]

Am I the only one here who really could not care less about labels?

[sometimes_miss]

Am I the only one here who really could not care less about labels?

no, I feel the same way, but it piqued my interest when it looked like the thread was insinuating that everyone MUST accept being tagged with the giant TG brand.