What do you all think of the wikipedia article on CD? It does not seem to match the vibes on this forum.
What do you all think of the wikipedia article on CD? It does not seem to match the vibes on this forum.
What is your issue with it? You can always update it if you think it lacks in some area.
I haven't checked it, not the one in English. What exactly did you see that may differ with what you see around here?
I dunno, I just skimmed it and it all sounded like the standard to me...
What part don't you like?
I read it. I would say that it provides a reasonably comprehensive and objective discussion of the subject from historical and psychological/motivational perspectives. Remember, cross dressing is the act of wearing clothing ordinarily associated with the opposite sex. The behavior can be prompted by a variety of circumstances and/or interests.
I am curious, how would you describe as the vibe here?
Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia would be better if its vibe were more like what we have here?
When haters hate, I celebrate!
Why didn't u simply post it here? So, we all don't have to google it?
U can't keep doing the same things over and over and expect to enjoy life to the max. When u try new things, even if they r out of your comfort zone, u may experience new excitement and growth that u never expected.
Challenge yourself and pursue your passions! When your life clock runs out, you'll have few or NO REGRETS!
O.M.G. Doc. Seriously? I remember the days when we had to walk all the way to the bookshelf and pull down a heavy Encyclopedia!
I am a vessel of the goddess. Let me express my calling to a feminine life through nurturing love and relatedness.
OK, Doc, here's the link
Cross-dressing on Wikipedia.
I don't see anything wrong with the article as a whole. It's very comprehensive, covering every imaginable motive for crossdressing: theatrical, disguise, social protest and so forth--so the balance of the article's content is different from what we find here.
I hope nobody chokes on this sentence, which occurs early on:
[According to] Edward Carpenter: "Cross-dressing must be taken as a general indication of, and a cognate phenomenon to, homosexuality"
Obviously Carpenter was wrong, but that sentence is not an assertion the article itself is making, only a quotation to illustrate the origin of the term "cross-dressing."
The only odd thing I found is that the article mentions nearly every possible reason for crossdressing while never explicitly listing "gender identity" or "gender dysphoria." And up front it says "Cross-dressing is not synonymous with being transgender." This of course is true. A person doesn't have to be transgender to crossdress. Yet it leaves the paradoxical impression that those do wear the clothes of the opposite sex to express a divergent gender identity can not be counted as "crossdressers"!
Nothing captures the vibe of this forum! It's tough to go someplace else once you have hit pay dirt.