Julie York raises a very good, and very literal, point. A point that is hard to ignore.
It is however a point that gets right at the heart of the semantics of it all.
When a partner, who has just found out that her SO is a crossdresser, accuses her partner of lying to her, what is she actually saying? Where does her problem lie? If her partner says to to her "but I never lied to you", would she respond by saying "well no, you actually didn't, so that makes everything ok", or is she more likely to respond by saying "that's immaterial, you're not the person I thought you was"?
The point is that semantics only play a part. And the part they play only has any significance in the cold light of day. Never in the heat of the emotion. The point being that we can twist it, justify it, label it how we want - doing so is to be literal. But being literal doesn't sit at all well with the emotional. And it's the emotional that we'll all have to deal with should such a time come.
A point which answers AllieSF's point - yes - Alllie is right - we can all go and read it in a dictionary. Unfortunately however, we don't live our lives by dictionary defintion. Meaning that such replies are simply moot.
