Not B***dy Crossdressers

[Lorileah]

IMO, anything designed for the male body.

Then by extension, anything designed for the female anatomy would be crossdressing, thus, if I don't wear a bra with my skirt would taht be crossdressing? As someone stated before, a jockstrap would be about the only piece of clothing that would be specifically for a male. A bra (with a few exception of gynecomastia) would be the only piece specifically for a female.

I move we don't call GG's who wear male (ugh did I just classify a genderspecific clothing) clothing crossdressers if they don't do the same to us.

[Sheila]

I move we don't call GG's who wear male (ugh did I just classify a genderspecific clothing) clothing crossdressers if they don't do the same to us.

but then Lorileah cdrs themselves call themselves crossdressers, in fact Deborah Jane calls herself a bloke in a skirt on numerous occasions

[Lorileah]

but then Lorileah cdrs themselves call themselves crossdressers, in fact Deborah Jane calls herself a bloke in a skirt on numerous occasions

that was my point, just badly made. If we don't wear a bra (sorry Phil Michelson, but you needed one a few years ago) we aren't crossdressers we are just guys who dress pretty

[Tashee]

Blame me---I call my wife a cross dresser all the time---She wears out my clothes--Its all in fun-----But----Be like me go get a life altering life changing disease that mat take you---It helps you live A little easier--Love a little louder --forgive a lot more...And just plain lighten up....



I will never---No I can not say that---But if I go outta my way to offend anyone here-----I give you the permission to PM me and ask me to apologize and leave and I WILL

with Love--------And for luvs sake lets lighten up and stop labeling us---I do it in fun....But lets be us----Who we are----Not A fill in the blank------A warm Loving Caring brilliant creation who brings sunshine to all..


Yes I may be corny but the song Live like you were dying----Just wont stop playing in my darned head---

with luv

T

[O2B Barbara]

I think that "Rosie The Riveter" from the WWII era did a lot to change the notion of women only wearing skirts & dresses. This was out of necessity as building ships & tanks in a skirt just was not practical.

Women have done a lot of fighting for their right to wear what they want as well as the right to vote or to smoke in public. When we have done the same battles, we will be able to wear what we want, when we want.

The problem with this train of reasoning is that there are a lot of macho males out there that would see nothing wrong with showing a MtF crossdresser what being a man is all about! Those same males would never think of doing any physical harm to any female, no matter how dressed or how "butch"they appear to be.

I do not think women had to fear physical harm with the way they dressed in the same way that we do.

Just my opinion and in no way ment to offend anyone.

[Sheila]

we are just guys who dress pretty

and some of you look darn pretty as well

[battybattybats]

I do not think women had to fear physical harm with the way they dressed in the same way that we do.

Many women who fought for womens equality were raped and/or murdered.

There was police brutality against the suffragettes to the point where they began learning martial arts (judo ju jitsu and variants) to defend themselves. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/...aafacf9a_o.jpg Their treatment in prison was often brutal. Many were sent to insane asylums where they suffered horrific treatment.

Women as well as men for daring to crossdress to any extent have been:
raped
murdered
jailed
tortured
mutilated (even in the last 12 months! From acid thrown in the faces of women not following proscribed clothing rules including the wearing of pants in some middle eastern countries to MtFs being hacked with machettes in Jamaica!)
lobotomised
given extreme electro-shock treatment
given extremly neaseating but non lethal drugs and poisons to develop an aversion to crossdressing

This still happens in many countries where those who speak up for womens rights are raped, tortured, mutilated and/or murdered.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her crossdressing.

Women won their rights to vote and to wear pants etc through blood sweat and tears. http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/sufpix.htm
Through marches and demonstrations and stone throwing breaking windows and acts of arson and arrests and hunger strikes and force-feeding that damaged their vocal chords.
These are images of a vital part of history they dont teach at schools:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/...18d30108e6.jpg
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/archiv...uffragette.jpg
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/Poli...ages/g9s1a.jpg
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/mh...fragettes2.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU00214...AEF34D4E4CF%7D

The word Bloomers comes from the Suffragette Amelia Jenks Bloomer who wore pants of her own making!

Perhaps CDs need to know more about the history of womens rights as well as the struggles of earlier generations of TSs CDs and Drag Queens and Kings? It might help us realise how far we've already come on the backs of past generations as well as how much we owe to the next generation! And maybe some GGs might be more accepting of CDing too.

[Molly Wells]

I am sometimes amazed by the positions taken here by many CDs and yes I am one, to justify their crossdressing on what others, in particularly GGs might wear now or in the past or whenever.
It certainly seems to me the issue of whether or not I am crossdressing is not just about the clothes themselves, but about what I am trying to express in the process.
Let's see, if I put on a dress, I want to have all of the necessary items on as well to appear as much as I can to be female. Or what if I am to put on women's jeans? I want the padding etc to look female! What is my motive? To appear as feminine as possible. To present myself in such a manner that in my own eyes and my own mind as well as to any others that might see me that I might be seen as female. Why, because it is the way I feel inside and it brings me personal pleasure.
To do this I purchase everything imaginable to complete the image and make it a realistic as i can.
On the other hand, if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing! OK, now I would say that if I decided to wear a skirt for comfort, style or whatever my reason might be, on the inside I am only fooling myself because I am not happy to merely wear the skirt, I want the panties, the bra, the forms, the shoes, wig, .... the whole thing. Why? Because I am a crossdresser and it makes me feel good and I want to feel good! I want to live in a world where I am content, even if only for a little while! I want to present myself and take on the persona of a woman to what ever extent that I can!
The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!
So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.
Recognize as well that if I am rejected by other people because of the way I dress it was my choice to dress that way. In this life, whether we like it or not the fact remains that we get rejected for many reasons that do not hold up to scrutiny in our so called free society. Example, I am a Christian and I have had people belittle me, ridicule me and reject me because of my belief. Those who are of a different political persuasion reject, belittle and riducule one another, and on and on!
Here is the bottom line, some are going to reject you, some are going to accept you and others are going to love you, and many will just ignore you!
Learn the boundaries you are willing to live in whether they be self imposed or societal and then live in them. If you aren't happy with them change them, but let's quit blaming others and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.
sorry, I got on a roll!!

[Sheila]

It certainly seems to me the issue of whether or not I am crossdressing is not just about the clothes themselves, but about what I am trying to express in the process.

if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing!

The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!

So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.

let's quit blaming others and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.
sorry, I got on a roll!!

thankyou it makes sense to me

[Honey]

I find it interesting how everyone is sticking on one point - what is a cd and or a female cd.

Again - what is classed as a female CD. Considering a basic male cd does nothing to enhance the look just dressing, no boobs, makeup etc.

also find it funny that people think that I think women who wear mens clothing are cd's. It's never crossed my mind that that's what they are.

To me there is no such thing as a basic female CD. Because it is common for women to have jeans, pants, shrts, t-shirts etc.

Interesting to read the history of female "cd" because at one point a woman in pants was frowned upon, maybe in a century, men in skirts etc won't be frowned on. Can't see it happening in my lifetime though

[AliceJaneInNewcastle]

Why don't we reclaim the words transvestite and transvestism from now on to mean "M to F crossdressing for the purpose of personal satisfaction or inner need"? Perhaps if we all do that, we'll stand a chance of getting out of this sterile yes-it-is, no-it-isn't debate.

I think that it would be more productive to reclaim the word transvestite based on its derivation. Literally, presenting the image of the opposite gender, which I've recently seen referred to as "emulating" a female or "femulation" when applied to M2F CDs.

The separate term transvestic fetishism already exists to describe people who crossdress for sexual stimulation.

Alice

[Sammy777]

For sake of argument & to clairify,
A TS, TM & TW are not considered CD'ers or CDing to me.

Now Crossdressing vs Crossdressers

It seems the word Crossdress just doesn't cover everything like it used to.

I think most people tend to combine the differences in the word & what they mean between someone who Crossdresses & a Crossdresser.

Bear with me on this one folks....

Anyone [Male or Female] who wears any article of clothing [for what ever reason] that is designed for & sold to the opposite sex can & is considered to be Crossdressing.

BUT, Someone who is Crossdressing
should not automatically be considered or called a Crossdresser.

Examples:
1) My sister borrows & wears my [mens] clothing,
she is by strict definition in fact Crossdressing,
But I would not consider her to be a Crossdresser.

2) A guy borrows & wears his SO's clothing,
he is by strict definition in fact Crossdressing,
But I would not consider him to be a Crossdresser either.

3) A girl does not have to be Crossdressing
or be a Crossdresser in order to be called a Tomboy.

So when someone Technically Crossdresses for whatever reason
[Excluding the below*] that person is not necessarily a Crossdresser.

But when a person *feels the need, urge, want, ect to wear the clothing of the opposite sex then they are not just Crossdressing, but they are in fact a Crossdresser.

I think if people realize that there is a big difference between a person who "Technically Crossdresses" & a Crossdresser we will all be better off.

And then, maybe, just maybe we can put this one to bed, lol.

PS: I would love to dive into the whole
"Just wearing the clothes vs Presenting" &
"The Bra: To wear or not to wear"
But this is enough for now, lol.
Stay tuned folks.

[JoAnne Wheeler]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

[Sheila]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

JoAnne a lot of double standards happen right here on the forum .. and as a GG I can assure you we at times do not get a lot of respect and a great deal of grief

[trisha59]

JoAnne a lot of double standards happen right here on the forum .. and as a GG I can assure you we at times do not get a lot of respect and a great deal of grief

I for one am greatful for each and every GG that is on this forum. I appreciate how you tell us in clear language to knock off the BS. How you call us on the carpet when us guys make an unfair comment. This site would not be what it is without you girls keeping us grounded.

[battybattybats]

On the other hand, if my wife puts on a pair of pants, mine or hers, she does not attempt to look and act like a man. She does not attempt to have a "bulge" or bind her breasts. She does not cut her hair or hide it make it look more masculine. She does not wear artificial facial hair. She is not crossdressing if she wears pants. She is merely wearing pants. Why? I guess because she likes them, for comfort, style, for practical purpose or one of many other reasons. But no, she is not crossdressing!

I guess i need to reiterate.

Joan of Arc with her pants wearing and short hair was a crossdresser. Amelia Jenks Bloomer, despite making bloomers specifically as womens pants nevertheless she was still a crossdresser and one of the most important people to popularise the till then fairly minority pant-wearing by women (even in the fields and factories where many still frowned upon it as crossdressing!) was Marlene Dietrich so I'll remind you again:

Exhibit A http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/i...01_img0073.jpg
Exhibit B http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/joanmarlene2.jpg
Exhibit C http://twoliablog.com/heres-looking-...-cufflinks.jpg
Exhibit D http://fredfred.net/skriker/images/f...e_dietrich.jpg

Womens wearing of pants WAS crossdressing. Some to the level of Marlene Dietrich and others much less. They were arrested as crossdressers. They were crossdressers.

And not every one who wears clothes of the opposite sex attempts to pass. There are plenty of male-born people that are androgynous and mix gender expression together. Goth and Emo fashion has quite a lot of it. Heck there are effeminate male teen CDs being paid to flaunt Hot topic gear! Its so mainstream in that community its starting to be exploited commercially!

The idea that I have to justify my desire or "right" to wear what I want because somebody else gets to wear what they want is flawed at best and that arguement won't hold up to scrutiny!

Actually it does hold up to scrutiny. it's the equality bit thats the basis of all rights. If everyone has equal rights and if any single one person gets to wear what they want then ergo by being equals everyone gets to wear what they want. QED. Done. Cannot be refuted. Absolute. So long as the first if is true then the rest cannot be untrue! Argument iredeemably finished. A clear example of Aristotelian logic.

The only way it cannot be so is if we do not have equal rights.. and then its back to the feudal system and the divine right of kings, back to slavery and back to the women being barefoot and pregann cooking the mens dinner as the basis for all womens rights, that all people are equal, is no longer considered true.

So you see, it does in fact utterly demand by pure unbeatable logic that we all have the right to wear whatever we want because some of us can. The consequence of it not being so is the total destruction of the foundation principle of modern western civilisation and modern democracy!

So, let's be honest with ourselves and leave our wives and other females alone to dress as they wish and not try to justify ourselves at their expense.

They have the right to dress as they please then we do. If we do not they do not. Or there is no equality.

Recognize as well that if I am rejected by other people because of the way I dress it was my choice to dress that way.

Thats called victim-blaming. They are displaying clear bigotry if they reject you. They too have a choice, of stupid pointless bigotry whereby someone is judged not on their virtues but an incidental charcetristic or of judging you on your virtues. You can never be responsible for their choice.

But you are being unvirtuous if you act as if you are responsible for their choice! That robs them of having their own virtue tested for starters.

In this life, whether we like it or not the fact remains that we get rejected for many reasons that do not hold up to scrutiny in our so called free society.

True, but that can change if we act to change it.

Example, I am a Christian and I have had people belittle me, ridicule me and reject me because of my belief.

Indeed. That does happen. Though its small fry compared to what athiests go through (discriminatory laws exist to prevent atheists from holding office in several parts of the USA for example) or what wiccans go through (the struggle for wiccan American soldiers to get their holy symbols added to their military tombstones while other faiths were allowed to have theirs so enscribed was wretchedas again just one example). Still it is true that indeed anti-christian bigotry does exist and like all bigotry that should be opposed by all citizens.

Here is the bottom line, some are going to reject you, some are going to accept you and others are going to love you, and many will just ignore you!
Learn the boundaries you are willing to live in whether they be self imposed or societal and then live in them. If you aren't happy with them change them,

Actually we should all change them, especially in defence of others because it is the mutual recognition and defence of rights that out own equality and liberty depends.

but let's quit blaming others

But others ARE responsible for the anti-crossdressing attitudes in our current society.

Native American cultures were largely CD accepting.

Native Australian peoples were often CD accepting.

Polynesia was and some parts still is CD accepting.

South East Asia was and sometimes is CD accepting.

The Middle East was at times often CD accepting, even under Islam!

Ancient Rome was often CD accepting.

The Goths and Vandals and Scythians and Dorians were often CD accepting.

The Vikings were often CD accepting, even Thor and Loki crossdressed in some (mostly now lost but mentioned in the surviving ones) sagas!

Parts of the early church (especially some of the gnostics) was CD accepting!

I could go on.. the list is quite long as at one time or another virtually every culture on earth was CD accepting!

People chose to change that! People chose to hate CDing and to try and stamp it out! It did not go into the closet by itself for no reason! CDing was persecuted ito the closet!

So let s look at the historical truth accurately. CDing has always existed. It was often accepted. It is now rarely accepted. Why? Because hating CDing was taught and CDing was deliberately oppressed!

and trying to justify ourselves at other (GG's) expense.

It's not at their expense! We are justified with or without women enjoying the fruits of past gender rebels by the basic universal human right os fre self expression. The fact that many women have reaped the benefit of gender rebels of the past just makes it less justifiable for them to impose strict gender conformity on men!

But it is not at their expense if we accurately point out that a century ago, a woman wearing pants was crossdressing and sometimes illegally so. And that a century before that high heels were menswear as was stockings and lace. These are simply facts that do underline that everyone, men and women, should have the freedom to dress as they see fit and that anyone who judges people based solely on their apparel rather than the virtuosness of their actions is themselves bigoted unvirtuous and stupid.

[Sheila]

But others ARE responsible for the anti-crossdressing attitudes in our current society.

Native American cultures were largely CD accepting.

Native Australian peoples were often CD accepting.

Polynesia was and some parts still is CD accepting.

South East Asia was and sometimes is CD accepting.

The Middle East was at times often CD accepting, even under Islam!

Ancient Rome was often CD accepting.

The Goths and Vandals and Scythians and Dorians were often CD accepting.

The Vikings were often CD accepting, even Thor and Loki crossdressed in some (mostly now lost but mentioned in the surviving ones) sagas!

Parts of the early church (especially some of the gnostics) was CD accepting!

I could go on.. the list is quite long as at one time or another virtually every culture on earth was CD accepting!

you did Batty

[battybattybats]

you did Batty

Its the very tip of the iceberg! I couldnt have the list too short or it wouldn't show how widespread acceptance has been in the past, but I left out whole continents from it nonethless.

[Sandra]

In case no one has noticed, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to us !!!!! We get not respect and a lot of grief

JoAnne Wheeler

How do you mean double standard?

As for respect well that IMO that has to be earned.

I for one am greatful for each and every GG that is on this forum. I appreciate how you tell us in clear language to knock off the BS. How you call us on the carpet when us guys make an unfair comment. This site would not be what it is without you girls keeping us grounded.

Trisha

Thankyou

[valenstein]

Okay, what if I wear all clothing that has been deemed "Unisex". Am I crossdressing? Or does it matter if it's purple or pink or blue or fetishwear? Or if it looks more "male" or "female" to other people? At that point, I'm relying on someone else to decide what's going on in my head.

[Honey]

Wow, Valenstein you look great from your avatar.

Anyways - Why does it matter at the end of the day, Why do we need labels?

I think the GG's here are brilliant, especially when girls are asking should they lie to their SO. I'm surprised they haven't mob attacked anyone asking that.

At the end of the day, I don't see girls as CD's no matter what they wear, and as to CD, TG, TS, FO, AN, or PQ - why do people feel they need to fit into a specific two letter code?

The only two letter code I conform to is ME.

I'm unique like everyone else on this planet.