I'll go out on a limb here and I know there is at least one philosopher on this board so it might take an interesting turn.
An actor playing a role takes on the character's persona and characteristics. Method actors are known for immersing themselves in their characters to the point they have been known to remain in character even when the cameras are not running or they are not on stage. The point is that actors, in taking on a role, often absorb characteristics of the character they are portraying, sometimes, very convincingly.
In the case of the OP, is it possible that, in dressing as a woman, he takes on the characteristics of that particular woman who, I think we can all agree, is inside him. Is it possible that he, in his drab self, loves chicken wings and beer. But, when he is dressed, he prefers cosmopolitans and tapas. So, would it be a stretch to say that the woman inside him is bisexual but he is not?
Again, I think that by virtue of us being who we are (crossdressers), we do take on a role when we dress. Clothes, we know (by societal and own reactions) are more than just the fabric cut, sewn, and configured in certain ways. Clothes are an identity. We go to job interviews dressed one way and to a BBQ dressed in another way because they put forth an identity. Some may say they are identities.
By the way, in drab mode, I am very conservative; when I dress, it is as s provocative and borderline ****ty woman.
Are there flaws in this logic?
