Debunking: "I like women's clothes"

[Asche]

[Reine] ... 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.

Your hypothesis applies equally to stamp collecting. But I don't see a lot of people asking for deeper explanations of why people like to collect stamps. Or not considering "I just like it" as a sufficient explanation.

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.

However, if you the scientist have grown up with the idea that there is something unnatural and pathological about homosexuality, you are going to end up posing the question and interpreting your results from a pathologizing perspective without realizing you are doing it. And since the society you are operating in sees the unnaturalness of homosexuality as being as obvious and unquestionable as 1+1=2, your "results" -- whatever they are -- are going to be interpreted as showing that there's something wrong with homosexuals. I'm not theorizing here: I'm describing most of the scientific research on the subject at least up through the 1970's, and the express belief of a substantial minority of the mental health profession even today.

Because of these experiences, a lot of gay people are distrustful of any such research.

BTW: how much scientific research is done to figure out why heterosexuals are heterosexual? Fairly little: because being heterosexual isn't seen as needing an explanation.

why would someone believe that women's clothes are simply nicer?

Why would someone prefer Chopin to LIszt?

Why would someone like blue better than green?