A thread started by someone I admire much on this site about another issue spurned me to start this one.

I hope you weren't actually spurned. :D

Yes, I know this has been discussed at nauseum before.

Yep! :D


But I find it hard to believe that any cders on this site would object/deny/ argue that they fall under the Transgender category in the gender spectrum.
The reason that you started this thread is that youknow that some CDers on this site do. Let me rephrase that sentence for you.

I find it hard to believe that there is any legitimate justification for any CDers on this site to object/deny/ argue that they fall under the Transgender category in the gender spectrum


Now I can discuss your proposition. Trans, from Latin, means "on the opposite side". So, assuming there is a gender "spectrum", transgender means "of the opposite gender", or "being the opposite gender". If I say that you are on the opposite side of the river, I don't mean that you are in the middle of the river, on your way across. In current usage, a transgendered person is either a person who has undergone medical treatment and/or surgery to change the appearance of their body to the opposite of their anatomical gender, or a person who seeks to do the same and/or feels/identifies themselves as having the consciousness of gender identity of the opposite anatomical gender - that is, "woman trapped in a man's body" syndrome.
So accepting your metaphor of a gender "spectrum", a transgender person would be at the far end of their anatomical gender. That person would have the anatomical gender of a woman, but would "know" deep in their psyche that they "are" a man. Not feel like a man, or take pleasure from dressing as a man, but "be" a man. The transgender ideology takes it as a given that self-identification trumps anatomy - which is exactly where it crashes into the commonsense gender definition of society, where anatomy is destiny. When a man says "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body", straight society says, "No, you're a man with a nutty brain trapped inside it".
Going back to your statement - rephrased by your's truly :D - you are actually asking why all crossdressers don't identify themselves at the far end of the gender spectrum. Your obvious mistake is that you allow no middle ground along your own spectrum. A rainbow has many colors, no? :D

Sure there are exceptions to the rule as in someone liking to use panties because they are more comfortable and it has no "feminine" connotations for them.


Obviously, your exception doesn't count around here.


But is this denial based on the fact that someone would not want to challenge their male ego?

What was "object/deny/ argue" above has become "denial" now. No more disagreement, just denial. And what is denied but the truth? As in the rhetorical device "You're in denial!" Sorry, the truth has not been established yet - you are stating a position, and you haven't even heard the response yet. Assuming your own assertion doesn't get you anywhere in debate. We know that you think that you are right; now it's our turn.



Or not wanting to be associated with TS (or be in the same broad category as they are?

Now I think we're getting somewhere! What you've done here is to admit that, in your own mind the people you are talking about are not transgendered. You are allowing for that "spectrum" now and talking about associations among people along said spectrum. What began as "Why won't you admit that you are transgendered" has become "Why won't you identify in the "same broad category" as transgendered people. Rather a different question, isn't it?


Or is it more because they is not a true grasp of what the terminology all means?

Putting aside the typo, I stand on what I said above. You are the one who has scrambled terminology, ignoring the spectrum of gender dysphoria, and lumping all degrees of gender mixing with the single term transgender. If you don't keep the difference between a graduated scale and a single point on the scale, then you're bound to get into trouble.


Yes, then there is the issue of resisiting "labeling". But gee, it seems there has to be a way of defining ourselves, no matter how broad the spectrum is.


I couldn't agree more! :D Dismissing labels is just avoiding the effort of thinking about our nature. Not a crime, but no virtue either.



It is also important to find ways to stick together instead of differentiating more and more.

That's a mouthful! First half first: Why is it important to stick together? I think that it's reasonable to say that this is the "take-home message" of this post. In fact, I read it as the motivation for the assertions seen above. And it is also the problem. Let me rephrase and abbreviate the entire post:

1. It is important that "people like us" - people affecting cross-gender associations - stick together against the disapproval of society.

2. In order to encourage unity among ouselves , and support those of us at the extreme of gender dysphoria, we should all identify with the extreme and stand with them. In that way, we support ourselves by association.



By all accounts and all definitions I have encountered, it is clear to me that crossdressing/transvestism belongs in the Transgender category.

All are invited to comment and/or "educate" me.

Ask and ye shall receive - considered yourself educated. You now have a new account. But then I think it's not really new to you.


All of which leaves open the question of whether crossdressers should consider themselves transgendered. Can you be a little bit transgendered, or is it like being pregnant? And in any case, how much does a straight weekend crossdresser share with a gay 24/7 crossdresser? And how much does a fetish pantyboy share with a post-op transgendered person? Does a happily married crossdresser share more with a transgendered person, a gay crossdresser, or a straight guy? Nothing I said above begins to answer any of these questions, so don't assume. You know what they say about assuming....:D