Crossdressing is a transgender activity

[Eva Diva]

trans·gen·der /trænsˈdʒɛndər, trænz‑/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-jen-der, tranz‑] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.

Taking this post to stand for others with a similar position: what of it? If the word transgender is to be taken as an umberlla term for all cross-gender presentation and identification, that doesn't deal with the point of the post that started this thread. Not many people post on the internet out of a general need to define words properly. Without looking back at the first post, can I sum up the intention as I remember it?

"We are all transgendered, therefore we should all support each other".

Is that a reasonable interpretation? I think so. :D

So now, let's get down to brass tacks. Do we all need support equally? Or is one part of the transgendered "family" in need of support from the rest? Has this subject ever been discussed before? I think so. :D

Haven't the Tri-Ess straight married types been called out for not wanting to join hands and sing Kumbaya with the LGB of LGBT? A call for unity presupposes a lack of unity. So who is being asked to join up? Seems pretty clear to me.

Call me a stickler for plain speaking, but if I have to torture intent out of a few paragraphs, then something is wrong. If someone wants to make an argument for straight crossdressers suppporting the cause of gay - and transexual - rights, then have at it; a reasonable argument can be made. I do take exception to the rhetorical device that could be called "argument by definition". This is very common in the political world, and consists of defining terms of an argument in such a way as to win the debate itself by definition. The "pro-life" and "pro-choice" boneheads know this method very well. Of course, anyone who sits through a Logic 101 course is exposed to fallacious rhetorical devices like this and should know better. That doesn't stop people from using such devices at every opportunity. Notice in our currnet American news - the "Immigrant advocates" calling for "Immigrant rights". Of course, they are talking about Illegal immigrants, not immigrants - legal immigrants have all the rights they need already.

Bringing the whole thing back to our specific context; the degree to which crossdressers of various motivations see themselves aligned with each other and with the gay community is an important topic. Dislike of "labels" doesn't absolve us of considering the issues involved when defining those labels. Is it right for a crossdresser to go clubbing to a gay bar, and then vote against gay marriage? Should straight, married crossdressers keep bisexual and gay crossdressers at arm's length so that their wives reading the forum won't make their lives miserable? Is there a quid pro quo in the decision of gay activists to add the T to LGBT? Is it immoral for crossdressers to vote Republican (or the anti-gay party of your choice)?. One could even ask of this forum: does the inclusion of wives of straight crossdressers in this site tend to work against engendering a unity among crossdressers, transexuals and the gay community? Isn't one of the biggest fears of SOs that their husbands are gay? And, my Lords, (puts on best Rumpole of the Bailey voice :D) does not the prohibition on panty pics and hookup messages on this forum serve as a subtle anti-gay message to soothe the fears of said SOs? Holy smokes! :D

My point - clear language leads to clear distinctions, which leads to clear discussion of important topics. Vague "we're all in this together" statments serve more to end discussion than to engender it. Labels really matter.

[Sallee]

Without a doubt TG is an all encompassing term from the panties underderessers to the post op TS. We who wear the clothes while being born with a penis are Transgender. Generally its because of the mores of society that the clothes are the clothes of theopposite gender But body shape certainly has something to do with it. But generally fashion and still are gender motivated

[tall_brianna]

My understanding is that trasgender is Roman numeral I in an outline, where we have the sub-headings

Mine too. There could be said to be milestones that force you into a given category. An example would be HRT - hard to argue that at that point you're not Transexual. But I think that is something, that I fear. When the second most frequent question I got last week was, "How long have you been full time?" I got scared that I was being drawn in a direction that I wasn't sure I was ready to go.

I just read "She's not there." The author mentioned some test her therapist gave her. I'd like to see that.

[Fab Karen]

Taking this post to stand for others with a similar position: what of it? If the word transgender is to be taken as an umberlla term for all cross-gender presentation and identification, that doesn't deal with the point of the post that started this thread. Not many people post on the internet out of a general need to define words properly. Without looking back at the first post, can I sum up the intention as I remember it?

"We are all transgendered, therefore we should all support each other".

Is that a reasonable interpretation? I think so. :D

So now, let's get down to brass tacks. Do we all need support equally? Or is one part of the transgendered "family" in need of support from the rest? Has this subject ever been discussed before? I think so. :D

Haven't the Tri-Ess straight married types been called out for not wanting to join hands and sing Kumbaya with the LGB of LGBT? A call for unity presupposes a lack of unity. So who is being asked to join up? Seems pretty clear to me.

Call me a stickler for plain speaking, but if I have to torture intent out of a few paragraphs, then something is wrong. If someone wants to make an argument for straight crossdressers suppporting the cause of gay - and transexual - rights, then have at it; a reasonable argument can be made. I do take exception to the rhetorical device that could be called "argument by definition"


Bringing the whole thing back to our specific context; the degree to which crossdressers of various motivations see themselves aligned with each other and with the gay community is an important topic. Dislike of "labels" doesn't absolve us of considering the issues involved when defining those labels. Is it right for a crossdresser to go clubbing to a gay bar, and then vote against gay marriage? Should straight, married crossdressers keep bisexual and gay crossdressers at arm's length so that their wives reading the forum won't make their lives miserable? Is there a quid pro quo in the decision of gay activists to add the T to LGBT? Is it immoral for crossdressers to vote Republican (or the anti-gay party of your choice)?. One could even ask of this forum: does the inclusion of wives of straight crossdressers in this site tend to work against engendering a unity among crossdressers, transexuals and the gay community? Isn't one of the biggest fears of SOs that their husbands are gay? And, my Lords, (puts on best Rumpole of the Bailey voice :D) does not the prohibition on panty pics and hookup messages on this forum serve as a subtle anti-gay message to soothe the fears of said SOs? Holy smokes! :D

Someone laid out their opinion of the word as society's definition. It was shown that concept was in error.

You're throwing out insinuating questions, maybe you could just clearly state what you mean to say? Hook-up messages & panty pics ( etc. ) do not define gay people for example.

[Alex!]

I am definitely not transgendered; that is, I know I am a man and do not wish to be anything else. Further, crossdressing is a superficial thing for me, a manifestation of a feminine side that needs to be expressed now and then. Most people, with the exception of asexuals, have male and female aspects to their psyche.

Besides, these labels serve little purpose in the final analysis because the neglect the nuances of gender and personality, among other things.

[Eva Diva]

Someone laid out their opinion of the word as society's definition. It was shown that concept was in error.

You're throwing out insinuating questions, maybe you could just clearly state what you mean to say? Hook-up messages & panty pics ( etc. ) do not define gay people for example.

Insinuating? I couldn't have been more explicit! :D


And of course, explicit hookup messages and panty pics are excluded from this site for a reason. The moderators do not enforce these rules on a whim. And the members who support these policies do so expressly to keep this site from being like the sites that do allow them. But of course, you know that. A line has been drawn between allowing non-explicit general discussion of boyfriends and sexual fantasies on one hand, and any direct, explicit statements of sexual contact between crossdressers in real time. Someone owns and runs this site, and they have a right to set any rules they want. The rest of us can either accept them or move on. That doesn't mean that the rules are sent down from a mysterious god above - they are rational, and they have rational aims. I chose to discuss my understanding of those rules, and how they fit into the discussion at hand.

Hookup messages and panty pics certainly don't define gay people, but they d*mn well do define many crossdressers. I'll be happy to pass on some of the offers I've had if you don't get them. :D Whether you call such people gay or bisexual matters little - wives of crossdressers would have no such doubts. Which leads me back to the point I brought up so clearly above, no? :D

[Rita B]

Why do i get the feeling that we are all acting like a bunch of women who are splitting hairs? The only people that I know who would probably refer to me as a transgendered person are the people on this forum. No one else knows, so no one else cares. Ok, I might tell the arresting officer who stopped me after speeding and who noticed that my license showed the picture of a man and I was dressed as a woman that yes, I was transgendered. . .like that would happen!

Frankly, I think that transgender like "Transamerica" has a nice ring to it. I like it better than transvestite or drag queen or a lot of other bad things that we "transgendered" people have been called. It almost sounds acceptable. I mean come on. Wouldn't you rather overhear someone say they thought that so and so was transgendered than to say he was a f______g transvestite or a fag or a drag queen. I don't even like the name "tranny". To me it has a connotation of someone who surfs the porn sites.

No I think that transgendered is fine. "Excuse me sir, is that bra for yourself" and you reply, "Why yes, you see I am transgendered" Works for me.

Love you all,

Rita

PS This is the smartest bunch of people that I have ever met

[christina marie]

you may call me whatever you like. it does not change the fact that you were staring at my butt until i turned around and you saw my moustache!http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/.../tongueout.gif

[RobertaFermina]

I too am getting tired of the Transgender label issue.
If I'm not Transgendered, by identity or expression, that's OK with me.
I do know I have common cause and solidarity with those who are unquestionably Transgendered - even if that shrinks down to those persons who [your definition of transgendered persons here].

Frankly, my adventure into studying and (attempting) practice of feminine adornment, dress, gesture, language, and intangible ontological categories is what it is, and does for me what it does, no matter how you define 'is', 'do', or 'pantybind'.

Whether I fit the labels or not, I'm riding the Tigress with an open heart, open mind and trusting in my intuition and impulses.

If you want to label me or my activity Transgendered, I hope it works for you.
If you don't, I wish you the same.
If you want to share your label vocabulary, etymology, symbollary, or semiotics with me, understand I am participating to further your process, not to seek any form of agreement or disagreement with you.

I am what I am, and I'm dying to find out what that is and what's next !

And PLEASE, if you hear me come up for a label for it, JUST SHOOT ME!

In faithful defiance !

Roberta

[Fab Karen]

Insinuating? I couldn't have been more explicit! :D


I chose to discuss my understanding of those rules, and how they fit into the discussion at hand.

Hookup messages and panty pics certainly don't define gay people, but they d*mn well do define many crossdressers. I'll be happy to pass on some of the offers I've had if you don't get them. :D Whether you call such people gay or bisexual matters little - wives of crossdressers would have no such doubts. Which leads me back to the point I brought up so clearly above, no? :D

Maybe you'll answer the questions you posed then?

They define SOME crossdressers, just as such things define SOME of any group you could name. SOME people do, so they shouldn't be called transgender because you want to pretend that transgender people aren't human like any group of people? Is that your point?

[Vicky_Scot]

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

Transgender - a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.

It has always belonged in the Transgender category my dear.

The transgender community encompasses transexuals, transvestites & crossdressers.

[Dasein9]

I am definitely not transgendered; that is, I know I am a man and do not wish to be anything else. Further, crossdressing is a superficial thing for me, a manifestation of a feminine side that needs to be expressed now and then. Most people, with the exception of asexuals, have male and female aspects to their psyche.

Besides, these labels serve little purpose in the final analysis because the neglect the nuances of gender and personality, among other things.

Okay, I'm confused. (That happens a lot.) You're saying that you're both crossdressing, but not crossing (trans) any gender boundaries? Where does the crossing come in, then?

[Kieron Andrew]

Okay, I'm confused. (That happens a lot.) You're saying that you're both crossdressing, but not crossing (trans) any gender boundaries? Where does the crossing come in, then?

Thanks Das, even im confused now!

[Sheri 4242]

I believe that TG is an umbrella term . . . I consider myself TG and am TG&Proud!

Das, Skirt_Lover, Robin Leigh, and Lori, and others, are right on track!!! We should approach TG as an umbrella term for something that is broad.

Part of the problem is that some appear to resent and/or fear that there is some sort of "stigma" that they don't particularly like in being transgendered. The broad definition that some have offered (amazingly offered by those arguing that they aren't transgendered) actually proves this point, to wit: a person appearing as, or attempting to be a member of, the opposite sex. One doesn't have to have any desire to become a female to be transgendered; the broad definition runs along a spectrum from those who desire to dress to some degree, even slight dressing, or underdressing, or infrequent dressing from time-to-time, all the way to actually wanting to become female, and EVERYTHING between these. Yes, that's very broad -- and yes, "some" on one side of the spectrum (the 'dressing to fulfill an inner urge side where there is no desire to ever transition') seem to fear being associated with those at the other end -- transsexuals.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "transgender" is a mental health term more than anything else. Currently, medical and mental health professionals "do" classify those with gender issues. (If we want to take issue with something, how about some unity against those who say CDing has to be fetishtic.) Those who are up-to-date in current approaches in medical/mental health are NOT looking for "cures" -- they are NOT suggesting it can be cured -- they ARE promoting self-acceptance and any necessary adaptation.

Is it really so difficult to grasp that someone can be male (and want to be male), yet have a desire to present at various frequencies in articles of what are currently designated as female clothing?

A'hhh -- maybe therein lies the real problem: being able to grasp the incongruity. One of the most prominent medical diagnosis books available sustains this by noting that "labeling," in and of itself, may be a good part of the problem b/c it causes and/or adds to mental distress!!!!!!!

I am of the opinion that, to be able to discuss things with clarity, there must exist basic, standard definitions. Some definitions are quite specific, some are broad. That's life.

All of the above having been said, there is anatomical sex and there is gender. Anatomy is objective, gender can be subjetive. As one medical book states, gender is everthing that a person says and does to indicate to themself, and sometimes to others, their degree of maleness and femaleness. (Note: it says "their degree of.") This differs from what is called "core gender identity" which is the subjective sense of actually knowing to which gender one belongs (i.e., "I am male," or, "I am female"). Gender role identity (which isn't the same thing as core gender identity) is the expression spectrum. For many, these two are congruous. It is when they aren't -- to any degree -- that one is transgendered, regardless if those so classified are considered as having a formal disorder, or a paraphilia, or a simple-but-specific identity role expression that socialization says goes against the norm.

[Ruth]

Labels, labels. I've just been reading a book on androgyny. Very interesting. Opportunity for another label.
I would say (rather unhelpfully) we're all variations on the same thing - a human being.
I'm suspicious of labels because people may use them for their own purposes which are not mine.