Again, to be fair to Reine, she's not attributing cross dressing to a "deep, psychological disturbance", Asche. She is, instead, inquiring as to whether or not there is a psychological causality to cross dressing, which is quite far from pathologizing the behavior, as ALL human actions have some sort of psychological, neurological, or biological cause -- to pretend that they didn't would be to deny causality. If I were to ask the scientific question "Why is x a homosexual? What are the biological and environmental interactions which lead to homosexuality?", I would not be treating it as an illness, I would be making an attempt to better understand human sexuality. To play Devil's advocate with you a bit, why would someone believe that women's clothes are simply nicer? We've addressed the potential tactile motivations for having such a belief, and Reine is quite correct in claiming that all fabrics which are found in women's clothing can also be found in men's clothing. Silk, cashmere, you name it -- it's there for purchase. This rules out a simple tactile motivation. We may claim that an individual prefers women's fashion, that they simply like the look that feminine clothes evince, but what is fashion but an expression of the self? A social and personal signal we use to communicate and feel at ease with our identities? No one who specifically invests effort in fashion does so without having an expressive motivation. So why would these individuals who wear feminine articles of clothing, if they are purely feminine and cannot be imagined to express virility in any context, wear them if not for the purpose of donning a symbol of those things typically associated with femininity? Why adopt the feminine garb if you are not attempting to express the feminine. I think in all of our "jump-the-gun", "I'm-going-to-take-offense-at-anything-which-delves-beyond-this-comfortable-surface" mentality, we've rejected rational thinking.
I will offer you ONE alternative: theatrics and/or the challenge of making one's self look like a woman.
That is all I can see as a motivation excluding the feminine, HOWEVER, there are other means for theatrical behavior as well, so why choose femininity? I would have jumped at the opportunity to play, say, Ophelia, in a traditional all-male Shakespeare production, as I both love acting AND being feminine. In my earlier days, I would have preferred it because it would give me an excuse. Everything has a purpose, that doesn't make it sick or wrong, it makes it an intentional human action.
