What is your definition?

[Kimberly A.]

Hey y'all!

Ok, random thought. LOL..... Of course, I see the term "underdressing" being used quite a lot on the forum. And of course, I know what "underdressing" means, it means to wear feminine clothing, (panties, bras, hosiery, etc.) under your male clothes. But, is that full-on crossdressing?? In my honest opinion, no it is not. I "underdress" ALL the time while in "male mode", (ugh, I honestly hate that term, it sounds so dumb LOL). Anyway, I wear panties instead of men's underwear and I wear pantyhose all the time as well. Also with the warmer weather, I've been wearing pantyhose with shorts everywhere I go, again in "male mode".

I think that "underdressing" is not full-on CDing because you're just wearing women's clothes under your normal male attire. If you wear men's pants, (for example), over panties or hosiery, only you will know what's under your pants. But I guess if you wear a bra with male attire, the bra could show through under a shirt. But still, it's not full CDing. I define full CDing as wearing makeup, women's clothes, shoes, a bra, breast forms or breast plate and a wig, (unless your natural hair is long enough to style into a women's hairdo) and just completely changing your look from male to female. Now THAT, even though some may disagree and that's ok, to me, is full-on CDing, so "underdressing" is NOT crossdressing..... Thoughts?

[GretchenM]

I think you are correct in the physical sense, it is not full on dressing. However, there are a lot of us who are rarely able to do the full expression. Yet we still feel the need for that expression and we experience a type of dysphoria if we go too long without engaging in that aspect. I often underdress and it is probably the most common form of crossdressing. But for underdressers it provides a personal validation of their personal sense of gender which is the most important validation of all. Going out dressed is the second form of expression and validation and a lot of underdressers have gone out a time or two.

The point is, most people who crossdress also exhibit some degree of gender reversal and are fully capable of identifying internally to some degree as being female-like in terms of gender. Males, of course, cannot be females, but males can be female-like just as easily as females can be male-like. And for many that is a natural state of being. But having that kind of gender reversal, whatever the cause, requires some degree of validation, whether personal or public. And underdressing provides that and keeps the dysphoria demons away.

[Stephanie47]

Another case of definition of a single word versus explanation using complete sentences and paragraphs. Cross dressing by definition is wearing the clothing designed for the opposite sex. If that definition is applied, then under dressing should be considered cross dressing. However, this forum's participants covers a wide range of humans born with male equipment.

I would concur, if a man is wearing the clothing designed for a woman under his male attire, he is, for a lack of a better term, under dressing. Until I found this site I had worn on occasion a woman's nylon panty under my male attire. If that were to be the entire scope of my desires would most people characterize me as a cross dresser? Or, a fetish dresser? I did try the full blown under dressing; bra, panty, camisole, hosiery (pantyhose and garter girdle/stockings). There was no attempt to deceive others around me into thinking I was a woman. That seems to be a big part of the definition of cross dressing; the act to deceive a person who sees me. However, there are adherents who make no attempt to deceive and intentionally present as a "man in a dress."

What of a transgender woman; a person born with male equipment, yet identifies as a woman? When I was a kid growing up in the 1950's and 1960's it seems the only term used was transsexual. If a transwoman is wearing the attire designed for a cis woman, is that person a cross dressing, even though the general population passing her in the street will only see the vestiges of a male? In that case I'd say she is not a cross dresser.

[JenniferMBlack]

Underdressing is away of saying I had on girl things people couldn't see or recognize as such. Think of it as undercover dressing rather then under men's clothes. I think you are just looking to define at what point you become a cross dresser. Technically when you put on " women's " clothes you are a cross dresser or are cross dressing. In reality if you are a cross dresser you are even when nott actively doing so. The problem is there is still a stigma around cross dressing and some of the worst perpetrators of that are cross dressers. Go wear what you want when you want and be happy.

[docrobbysherry]

I am a crossdresser. For me it's all about appearance. I want to look in the mirror and see an attractive woman looking back at me!

If I can't have that? I probably wouldn't bother to dress up anymore.

[Maria 60]

I don't have a problem with that term, to me it's very self explanatory. I'm wearing women's clothing under my male clothing. My wife who isnt familiar with the term will underdressing will ask if I'm going to underdress to an occasion.

[Taylor186]

Underdressing is crossdressing, but it is not "full-on" crossdressing as you defined it in the original post.

As an aside, I don't consider visible pantyhose under shorts as underdressing. If you're 80 and claim support hose needs, but don't really need them for support, it might be considered stealth dressing.

[AlexiaH]

Most I believe would think underdressing is crossdressing. Working in a blue collar manufacturing job that if they knew I wore women underwear daily I would likely be labeled as a crossdresser but for me it’s just my underwear that fit better then male underwear.

[Shelly Preston]

The wearing of bra panties stockings is Crossdressing.

It may be that an individual never leaves the house, so they choose not to wear any outer clothes.

It ONLY becomes under dressing if you choose to wear male clothes on top.

Crossdressing covers a wide spectrum of individual tastes.

[AmeeJo]

For me, wearing clothing traditionally made for women, in any setting, is crossdressing. I am a crossdresser. I don't go out fully dressed. I do underdress but it is solely for me as is all of my dressing. I have recently started to express my feminine side more publicly but I'm still not ready to let AmeeJo loose on society....yet.

[Kris Burton]

I think you can be considered a crossdresser without dressing "full-on" all the time. Underdressing is just another manifestation of the same proclivity IMHO.

[alwayshave]

Kimberly, I don't disagrees that underdressing is not full on crossdressing. But does it really matter? If someone wants to define it as crossdressing does it diminish when I'm dressed to the 9s? I say no.

[Genifer Teal]

Over time my clothing gradually started to merge into one. There was a point relatively early on where I grew tired of having two separate underwear drawers. So I decided to only have one kind of underwear. I mainly needed something low rise to not show over top of jeans and smooth to wear under tighter clothing and dresses. It was more of a practical thing than a I'm wearing women's underwear thing. Never really felt one way or the other about it. The merge was just kind of practical. I had stopped using the bologna slot a long time ago. Didn't miss that either.

[Kelli_cd]

Many of us, well, I, just don't have circumstances that allow us to live our dreams or desires.

While I'm quite content and happy as an underdresser, I am by no means satisfied. There's so much I'd like to try and do. But I face reality and dream for days I could dress in my own femme wardrobe. where I owned forms and hip pads, and could use makeup, and could wear a wig.

In the meantime, I'll wear bras and panties and occasional suspender with stockings. Better to be content with the life I have than to deny it just because I can't wear everything I'd like to.

[Debbie Denier]

Underdressing in my view is partially cross dressing and not fully cross dressing. But it is still crossdressing. It all varies depending upon the individuals circumstances. I agree with Kelly.We all have opinions but it can lead to paralysis by analysis.

[sometimes_miss]

To use another example from a similar question, if you crossdress in a forest and no one sees you, are you still crossdressing? Why, of course you are.
So it doesn't matter what you have on over your female clothing; you're still crossdressing, just wearing a covering over it. But call it whatever you'd like if it makes you feel more comfortable; that is, after all, what it's all about, isn't it?

[Pumped]

If you look up the term crossdressing, it is defined as "Wearing the clothing intended for the opposite gender". It doesn't say how or where you are wearing the clothing.

Why is there a need to complicate things?

[Heather76]

If I'm a pitcher who does not pitch a perfect game am I not still a pitcher? If I can only wear panties, am I not still a cross dresser. The difference is in how far one perfects what they do. I consider wearing panties as cross dressing. It isn't being fully cross dressed; but, it is being cross dressed.

[jayme357]

Classic case of picking flyshit out of pepper. Why does it matter?

[Crissy 107]

The point is, most people who crossdress also exhibit some degree of gender reversal and are fully capable of identifying internally to some degree as being female-like in terms of gender. Males, of course, cannot be females, but males can be female-like just as easily as females can be male-like. And for many that is a natural state of being. But having that kind of gender reversal, whatever the cause, requires some degree of validation, whether personal or public. And underdressing provides that and keeps the dysphoria demons away.

This is why when GretchenM speaks I listen.

[Majella St Gerard]

Under-dressing is most certainly cross-dressing. There are many ways to cross-dress as you will see by looking around this forum and seeing how everyone expresses themselves.

[GaleWarning]

Your inclusion of the wearing of full makeup in your definition of full crossdressing is problematic. Many women do not wear wear makeup. I don't wear makeup, and yet I consider myself to be a full crossdresser.

[VickieBonne]

Classic case of picking flyshit out of pepper. Why does it matter?

So eloquently stated! Thank you.

[OrdinaryAverageGuy]

As I never wear makeup, I guess I'm not a crossdresser. I hope I'm not asked to leave this forum now that I no longer belong.

[SaraLin]

Kimberly, I'm responding before reading what everyone else has to say, so forgive me if I end up repeating what they say.

Yes, I think of underdressing as wearing things intended for women - underneath clothing that is intended for men. That's the "under" in underdressing.
And yes, I'll agree that it's not "full on" crossdressing, since it's not fully dressed in things intended for women.
IMHO, it IS still crossdressing. If you want to get right down to it, if you put on ANY clothes meant for a woman, then you're doing at least some degree of crossdressing.
And yes, if someone raises the argument of "Well women wear men's things. Is that crossdressing too?" the answer is still "technically, yes."

While someone dressed non-traditionally might catch my attention, I personally don't care all that much (beyond the usual evaluation of their fashion sense ).
I just wish the rest of the world would catch up.