Staying out of the Box

[Lovely Rita]

I definitely do not believe in classifications. The labels offered by society to identify sexuality, CD, TV, TS, are starting points, a place for people to sort of come together and say, yeah… I’m kind of like that. Aside from a simple starting place I have no use for labels.

Universally sex and identity are extremely significant in culture. Perhaps because it is the first and most obvious thing we discover about ourselves. Even as children we know some people have girl parts and some people have boy parts. This is emphasized by adult role characters who assign behavioural qualities to sex. “Boys like trucks. Girls like dolls, etcetera.” Social behaviours are assigned to a simple anatomical difference, sex, and from this assignation we get gender.

The essentialist point of view is that there is an intrinsic difference between men and women. Something basic and animalistic that defies social constraints. John Gray basically covers the essentialist view in his book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, which is basically over hyped drivel.

Another theory is that Gender is shaped by socialization. Basically men and women come off of the factory floor emotionally, mentally the same. The only difference between boys and girls is their bits and that is all. The theory states that our early life experiences and social influences shape our gender, that hormones and physicality only influence who we want to shag and the rest is constructed loosely around that.

The theory of biological determinism, which is similar to essentialism, relies on pure physiology, saying that the difference between men and women revolves purely around our bodies and the things our bodies do. Men are stronger than women, it says, and women bear children, so men and women are different.

So the question of gender comes down, in the scientific world, to one of nature or nurture. This oversimplified battle has been waged for decades. There are fallacies in each theory so we have to pick and choose and come up with something that works for us, a bit like labels no?

Judith Butler, who ought to win the ‘worst academic writing ever’ award, actually manages some theories that I am comfortable with, though she can take things a bit over the top. She says that there are differences physiologically between men and women, and men and men, and women and women. These differences, she says, influence sexuality and sex… basically who you want to shag. This first bit is very like the theory of socialization, however the remarkable thing she says is that there are as many genders as there are people in the world. She equates gender to a performance, and says that gender is an individual performing their sex in a way that is viable to them. It’s as if you are going out and saying, this is my version of man, or woman, or whatever and everybody does it differently based on what their sex means to them. I think butler has some good and quite liberal ideas on gender. If you can wade through a bit of questionable writing, I recommend picking up Undoing Gender, or Gender Trouble.

Another intriguing writer, Paul D. Slocumb, addresses the need for advancements in men’s rights to emotional health in, Hear Our Cry: boys in crisis. While leaps and bounds have been made in the rights of women over the last fifty years the role of men in our society is stuck very much in the Leave It To Beaver era. Not only is Slocumb’s book an interesting read with good case studies it also turns the reader onto other interesting authorities on the subject.

So… I got a bit academic there. Please don’t offer me up to the gods of the message board as a virgin sacrifice… because that sooooooooooo wouldn’t work:D. I’m a straight chick who likes boys in makeup and lingerie, what do I know about “normal” gender behaviour. Actually, I think all gender behaviour has got to be abnormal due to the fact that society’s basic gender roles are so one-dimensional.

So, yeah… Out of the box!

N.J.
GG

Thanks for this great post. We encounter so many boxes in life. The box for me symbolizes the rules and regs society and groups utilize to tag and label everyone. I agree that descriptions can be useful to let each other know about our main charachteristics like cross dressing etc. I believe it is important to realize that the boxes do not really define us they always fail somewhere along the line. We are so much more than the box. I like to think out of the box and live outside the box and not only when it comes to cross dressing but also when it comes to my faith, my work etc.

Inventors, original thinkers never stayed in the box, and I am never going back in. The box was like a coffin for me, especially when I was trying to be what the box dictated who I should be and not who I really am.

Many people can be made to feel they are even stranger because the boxes provided do not represent who they trully are and they should not feel less than adequate because of the box.

Having said that I also feel that if you are comfortable and happy in the box then I am happy for you

[Jamie001]

Thankyou for this post Rita as it is one of the most meaningful and insightful several paragraphs that I have ever read. It should be mandatory reading for all of us. You are truely very lovely both in physical beauty and compassionate understanding.

Thanks for this great post. We encounter so many boxes in life. The box for me symbolizes the rules and regs society and groups utilize to tag and label everyone. I agree that descriptions can be useful to let each other know what are some of our main and common charachteristics like cross dressing etc. I believe it is important to realize the boxes do not really define us they always fail somewhere along the line. We are so much more than the box. I like to think out of the box and live outside the box and not only when it comes to cross dressing but also when it comes to my faith, my work etc.

Inventors, original thinkers never stayed in the box, and I am never going back in. The box was like a coffin for me, especially when I was trying to be what the box dictated I was and not who I really was.

Many people can be made to feel they are even stranger because the boxes given do not represent who they are and they should not.

Having said that I also feel that if you are comfortable and happy in the box then I am happy for you

[Sheri 4242]

NJ: it seems we've been discussing and debating what your post addresses for some time now. There is another thread fairly close in time to Rita's that deeply delves into this subject. At any rate, please don't think I am being critical of your post, I am just convinced there needs to be some clarity. Anatomical sex and gender are two different things. Medical evidence has established that there are differences above and beyond anatomy, though we are a long way from understanding what the medical evidence means. There are, for example, certain areas of the brain that are different between males and females (well actually it is more clusters of cells within the brain). Another example: the hormone bath (or wash) during gestation actually happens. So, both of these are not theories, they happen and/or exist. It is the effects of them, though, that can only be placed in the realm of theory at this time. We don't "come off the factory floor" the same save our "bits."

Socialization (and the arguments about the role of nurture) doesn't seem to be a valid explanation as there are too many childhood backgrounds represented that directly conflict with one another -- matriarchial/patriarchial; broken home/solid home; sibblings/no sibblings, etc. I am convinced that socialization cannot hold the answer -- it is entirely too subjective. The scientific world, as you call it, seems to be progressing in a promising direction, albeit at a snail's pace, in re certain biological factors that are demonstrable. Perhaps this is why the most current medical literature on therapy suggests that acceptance and accomodation is the prefered treatment. The most up-to-date professional view is that this isn't something that can be fixed, it just is what it is -- and I am, personally, glad that this is the way it seems to be!!!

I appreciate your academic approach and contribution.

The box for me symbolizes the rules and regs society and groups utilize to tag and label everyone. I agree that descriptions can be useful to let each other know what are some of our main and common charachteristics like cross dressing etc. I believe it is important to realize the boxes do not really define us they always fail somewhere along the line. We are so much more than the box. I like to think out of the box and live outside the box and not only when it comes to cross dressing but also when it comes to my faith, my work etc.

Ditto, gf -- major ditto!!!!!!!

[Lovely Rita]

Thankyou for this post Rita as it is one of the most meaningful and insightful several paragraphs that I have ever read. It should be mandatory reading for all of us. You are truely very lovely both in physical beauty and compassionate understanding.

Wow Jamie you are being way too nice. If you only knew. I am just a shlamiel like anyone else, but I do appreciate the encouragement.

I guess my reaction to the box is more due to the fact that it was a prison for me when I had to live up to the box's expectations of who and what I was supposed to be when growing up. The box filled me with guilt because I could never live up to its standards. It really hurt me back then and so now I have a mistrust for any and all boxes. It could be an over reaction on my part but that is how I see it.

I am a human being, an individual who likes to cross dress, play guitar, dance, travel, and so much more. I am different just like anyone else is different.

I understand that for the purposes of our supportive group we have to define our common and unique desire to dress, but I have also read threads from others on this site who feel they just don't fit in. None of us fit and we all fit.

I want to stay clear of the box.

[Lovely Rita]

NJ: it seems we've been discussing and debating what your post addresses for some time now. There is another thread fairly close in time to Rita's that deeply delves into this subject. At any rate, please don't think I am being critical of your post, I am just convinced there needs to be some clarity. Anatomical sex and gender are two different things. Medical evidence has established that there are differences above and beyond anatomy, though we are a long way from understanding what the medical evidence means. There are, for example, certain areas of the brain that are different between males and females (well actually it is more clusters of cells within the brain). Another example: the hormone bath (or wash) during gestation actually happens. So, both of these are not theories, they happen and/or exist. It is the effects of them, though, that can only be placed in the realm of theory at this time. We don't "come off the factory floor" the same save our "bits."

Socialization (and the arguments about the role of nurture) doesn't seem to be a valid explanation as there are too many childhood backgrounds represented that directly conflict with one another -- matriarchial/patriarchial; broken home/solid home; sibblings/no sibblings, etc. I am convinced that socialization cannot hold the answer -- it is entirely too subjective. The scientific world, as you call it, seems to be progressing in a promising direction, albeit at a snail's pace, in re certain biological factors that are demonstrable. Perhaps this is why the most current medical literature on therapy suggests that acceptance and accomodation is the prefered treatment. The most up-to-date professional view is that this isn't something that can be fixed, it just is what it is -- and I am, personally, glad that this is the way it seems to be!!!

I appreciate your academic approach and contribution.



Ditto, gf -- major ditto!!!!!!!

I enjoyed reading your post and was impressed with the fact that professionals are no longer trying to fix what is not broken.

The box is what had other people trying to fix us. I am referring to the box that dictated how I was supposed to behave even though it was so phony and hypocritical.

I use to have to sneak out of the box but always had to go back in to "fit in", to "be accepted", but in the box I never accepted myself. Today I accept who and what I am and I try to live outside of the box as best I can. I am sure there are effects of the box that will be with me for all my life but little by little I am trying to unlearn them.

If being filled with Joy and fulfillment are the fruit of escaping the box then I believe I am doing ok. I don't always know what I am doing but I must be doing something right because I love life like I never have before.

[gennee]

[SIZE="3"]I am a transgender and a crossdresser. I do not let it define who I am. We are more than what label we or others put on us. The one thing that I love about being transgender is that I am undefinable. When my gender is fluid, labels don't apply at all. It is also when I'm the most content. To me being out of the box means that no one has control over who we are or how we choose to express ourselves.

Gennee[/SIZE]

[Toyah]

Most everyone in this forum (except the SO's) is transgender - cross dresser, transexual, we all fall under the TG umbrella. It has always annoyed the snot out of me that even among ourselves we draw lines of inclusion and exclusion. Some look down on the TS, some on the CD, some look down on either that are "gay", some look down on either that AREN'T gay! How in the heck can we expect to get anything accomplished and get others to accept us when even WE keep drawing these stupid lines among ourselves.

Gawd how many times ne we dont fall under transgender for those who really want to jam it down everyones throat here is the definition

The term transgender was popularised in the 1970s[2] (but implied in the 1960s[3][4]) describing people who wanted to live cross-gender without gender reassignment surgery.[5] In the 1980s the term was expanded to an umbrella term[6] and became popular as a means of uniting all those whose gender identity did not mesh with their gender assigned at birth.[7] In the 1990s the term took on a political dimension [8][9] as an alliance covering all who have at some point not conformed to gender norms, and the term became used to question the validity of those norms,[10] or pursue equal rights and anti-discrimination legislation,[11][12] leading to its widespread usage in the media, academic world and law.[13] The term continues to evolve.


See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . Now if thats waht you want to do fine if you are TS fine gay Bi or whatever but dont ram your definitions down my throat Sheesh !!!! (Sorry end of rant)

[Karren H]

Ohhh. I thought you ment staying out of the penalty box!! Which at times I do find hard to do.. Lol.

Karren

[TxKimberly]

See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . Now if thats waht you want to do fine if you are TS fine gay Bi or whatever but dont ram your definitions down my throat Sheesh !!!! (Sorry end of rant)

Admittedly, I've never actually looked up the definition. The only definition I've heard was that it was pretty much for anyone that didn't quite fit snugly into their born gender - something I assumed all or most here would fall into. Given the definition you have provided (". . .See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . . .") I would agree that not all of us fit into it.
Glad I said MOST and not ALL. :-)

Also goes to show that NOTHING applies to EVERYONE and no matter what you say your gonna piss someone off! lol

I'll crawl back under my rock now,

[N.J.]

NJ: it seems we've been discussing and debating what your post addresses for some time now. There is another thread fairly close in time to Rita's that deeply delves into this subject. At any rate, please don't think I am being critical of your post, I am just convinced there needs to be some clarity. Anatomical sex and gender are two different things. Medical evidence has established that there are differences above and beyond anatomy, though we are a long way from understanding what the medical evidence means. There are, for example, certain areas of the brain that are different between males and females (well actually it is more clusters of cells within the brain). Another example: the hormone bath (or wash) during gestation actually happens. So, both of these are not theories, they happen and/or exist. It is the effects of them, though, that can only be placed in the realm of theory at this time. We don't "come off the factory floor" the same save our "bits."

Socialization (and the arguments about the role of nurture) doesn't seem to be a valid explanation as there are too many childhood backgrounds represented that directly conflict with one another -- matriarchial/patriarchial; broken home/solid home; sibblings/no sibblings, etc. I am convinced that socialization cannot hold the answer -- it is entirely too subjective. The scientific world, as you call it, seems to be progressing in a promising direction, albeit at a snail's pace, in re certain biological factors that are demonstrable. Perhaps this is why the most current medical literature on therapy suggests that acceptance and accomodation is the prefered treatment. The most up-to-date professional view is that this isn't something that can be fixed, it just is what it is -- and I am, personally, glad that this is the way it seems to be!!!

I appreciate your academic approach and contribution.

Barbara,

I am not a fan of debating gender politics and did not think I was when I posted my previous message. I simply outlined the three main sociologically accepted theories on sex and gender in pursuit of a point. I believe you will also discover I use the terms correctly and indicate in my first paragraph that they are different things entirely. If I was not completely clear it was not through ignorance but because I was working quickly around ideas and not meticulously compiling a thesis. Nowhere do I say that the theories are mine, in fact I go so far as to say none of the three theories can be pointed to as correct. The entire post was basically referring to preconceived notions of sex and gender as another part of being pigeonholed into an identity (AKA The Box), which I disagree with on principal. Thusly… I disagree with a majority of sociological gender theory. Also you must forgive the satirical tone I adopt when paraphrasing long and drawn out academic language, particularly that which I find reprehensibly full of holes. You noted particularly my truncation of the notion that Gender is a social construct. “We don't "come off the factory floor" the same save our "bits." Things that sound flippant are purely tongue-in-cheek commentary I assure you.

N.J.
GG

[Joy Carter]

You can call me what you want. My only fear is that I will be perceived as a sexual pervert. Which I'm sure that is what is the most popular view of us. That is why I dress as conservatively as I can and act accordingly.:D

[RobertaFermina]

Don't Fence Me In !!

Vive La Lovely Rita !!

Roberta

[Sheri 4242]

Also you must forgive the satirical tone I adopt when paraphrasing long and drawn out academic language, particularly that which I find reprehensibly full of holes. You noted particularly my truncation of the notion that Gender is a social construct. “We don't "come off the factory floor" the same save our "bits." Things that sound flippant are purely tongue-in-cheek commentary I assure you. N.J. GG

No problems with me, NJ -- I appreciate your critical thinking and analysis. I was not being critical of you, although I was afraid what I said might come across that way. Your comments were appreciated on my end -- I was just attempting to contrast and clarify a cross-discipline approach. If I came across as being directly critical of you, I am sorry b/c that was not my intent.

Admittedly, I've never actually looked up the definition. The only definition I've heard was that it was pretty much for anyone that didn't quite fit snugly into their born gender - something I assumed all or most here would fall into. Given the definition you have provided (". . .See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . . .") I would agree that not all of us fit into it. Glad I said MOST and not ALL. :-) Also goes to show that NOTHING applies to EVERYONE and no matter what you say your gonna piss someone off! lol

I'll crawl back under my rock now,

Kim: don't crawl under a rock -- you add a sweet and sensitive approach to our discussions, while challenging misconceptions and pointing out our strength in diversity. I, for one, look forward to your posts!!! If you will, take a look at the TG definition I give below.

Gawd how many times ne we dont fall under transgender for those who really want to jam it down everyones throat here is the definition . . . (see Toyah's post for the Wikipedia references)

See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . Now if thats waht you want to do fine if you are TS fine gay Bi or whatever but dont ram your definitions down my throat Sheesh !!!! (Sorry end of rant)

Wikipedia's reference notwithstanding, in psychology and psychiatry (as well as current general medicine) TG is an umbrella term and does not mean that a male who falls under the term is absolutely one who wants to live life as a woman. I'll take that which is academic over Wikipedia any day -- and every educator I know (and that is quite a few nation-wide) would never accept Wikipedia as an authoritative or acceptable resource! In fact, under the academic terminology, one who wants to live full time as a woman or who wants SRS is considered to be at one extreme of the broad umbrella definition.

The common academic definition of trangendered would be: One with a cross gender identification that, on one end of the scale is expressed as a need or desire to cross dress, partially (from a single article of clothing) to fully, with or without the goal of achieving sexual arousal, to those who desire to pass as the other sex, to those with a stated desire to be the other sex (desiring to live or be treated as the other sex). On the TS side of the scale there is usually persistent discomfort with one's sense of their gender and their actual anatomical sex. A transgendered person can also be considered to be one whose gender identity is, to some greater or lesser degree, inconsistent with with their sexual anatomy so that one's sense of gender is somewhere between feminine and masculine. To continue, "We now know that women who get in touch with their masculine side, and men who discover the 'woman' within are better off for doing so. An androgynous personality incorporates positive qualities of both, and research is showing that people who fall within this context are far more successful and happier."

Indeed, transgender identification and behaviors fall on a continuum between that whch has been always held to be traditionally maculine and traditionally feminine.

[Brianna Lovely]

The meaning of words are often changed, to adapt to the changes in people and their usage of said words.

Gawd how many times ne we dont fall under transgender for those who really want to jam it down everyones throat here is the definition

In the 1990s the term took on a political dimension as an alliance covering all who have at some point not conformed to gender norms, and the term became used to question the validity of those norms or pursue equal rights and anti-discrimination legislation, leading to its widespread usage in the media, academic world and law. The term continues to evolve.

See the definition its for those who want to live life as a woman but do not want surgery . Now if thats waht you want to do fine if you are TS fine gay Bi or whatever but dont ram your definitions down my throat Sheesh !!!! (Sorry end of rant)

I do believe that you have cited the earlier, prefered meaning. I choose to go by the 1990's definition, but fully realize that it's subject to change, at any time.

And to me, you're ok as Toyah, however you may present yourself.
With Warm Hugs,
Brianna

[Lovely Rita]

Wow Ladies, I love all the various points on the subject. I am having a great time reading. It is wonderful to read your various insights.

I love living out of the box and am working never to go back.

[gennee]

I read so many threads regarding classifications of who we are. Many contributors do not seem to feel that the various categories adequately describe who they are.

I am a CD and ok with CD and any other term people use to sort of define who we are. We are such a varied group and I know that these acronyms are just general terms that probably express some of the commonalities at our core.

I categorize myself as CD because I do love to dress in woman's attire, but I always shy away from being pigeon holed by any form of labeling.

These acronyms are fine as long as we can stay out of the box. We are so much more than what these categories seem to describe. We are all so very different. It is wonderful to read how rich and diverse a group we are.

I write this because I read a thread today written by some one who did not quite feel like they fit into any category. They had some of this and some of that but not quite what the various categories seemed to define.

Staying out of the box is realizing that I have things in common with everyone here but I am also an individual who is very different from anyone else. Just like everyone of you are different from everyone else. This is a a very good thing and I celebrate that.

So many times in life acceptance is based on fitting into the box and so, at leaste for me, I have removed acceptance for myself from complying with anyones idea of what the prerequisites are for fitting into any particular box.

Society has one huge and general box. It is also has its rules for what it means to fit into that box and I reject it.

Living and thinking in the box can hurt us. Out there people who are different are sometimes feared and even hated for their difference in colors, races, religions, sexual preferences. In here we need to embrace, love and support our diversity. In here we need to be the givers of love many of us have been missing out there.

Like the French would say "VIVE LA DIFFERENCE"

Don't speak french so hopefully I did not just make a mistake and curse or something

[SIZE="3"]Rita, this post describes what I actually feel about myself. When I discovered my transgenderism and that I was a crossdresser, I believe that I broke free from any characterization of what society expects. As I mentioned I don't let the names define me. I believe that we can express many different personalities at different times. It is perhaps why I always felt different my whole life. Now I have been set free from all the boxes society tries to put me in.

I just pray that it doesn't happen in the TG community. We have broken free from one box; let's not put ourselves in boxes of our own making. Be free and express who you are.

Gennee[/SIZE]

[Lovely Rita]

[SIZE="3"]Rita, this post describes what I actually feel about myself. When I discovered my transgenderism and that I was a crossdresser, I believe that I broke free from any characterization of what society expects. As I mentioned I don't let the names define me. I believe that we can express many different personalities at different times. It is perhaps why I always felt different my whole life. Now I have been set free from all the boxes society tries to put me in.

I just pray that it doesn't happen in the TG community. We have broken free from one box; let's not put ourselves in boxes of our own making. Be free and express who you are.

Gennee[/SIZE]

I always love reading your posts. I think you conveyed how we must always beware of the box and try to stay out of it because it always looms.

It is great to hear from you I really like how you see things.

Thanks again Gennee

[OldMom]

Rita,

You truly are lovely. You are beautiful inside and out. That's a label I would use for many of you here.

Another label I give to you all here is "champion". You are my champions for hope in the future. As some of you may know, my 8 (almost 9) year old son is along the spectrum of TG (again I'm resorting to the label, sorry). I was so worried about this for a long time. Now, believe it or not, it's not at the top of my list of mommy things to worry about. Because I see many of you here laughing, having fun, seemingly enjoying your life and ok in or out of boxes, you've brought peace to me. Thank you, and please know how much I appreciate this place. Maybe because you've tread this treacherous journey, you've cultivated compassion and unconditional love. I think you all rock.

OldMom:drink:

[Khriss]

..a can of beans is still a can of beans ..lable or not
..even if it was wrongly labled as..tuna .. it's still "beans" eh?
I think lables in terms of catagorizing people suck !!
..but people need to find reasons to feel comfortable with their assumptions and use vocabulary to justify what they might find beyond their understanding..
I asked an elder freind of mine if He believed in "Extraterestial Life"?
He replied , Sure ! "You mean the Martians" ?:D

[Valerie]

If we are to be free of the negative effects of boxes and labels we have to recognize they exist also for a useful purpose: I would not have found this great community were it not for my Google search of "crossdressers." As OldMom beautifully put it, it is great to see how many of us, and how different, convene in this tent. While I don't feel defined by any label, I can identify with what some of them point to.
Can you really imagine a trip to the supermarket where nothing had a label on it?

Valerie

[Kate Simmons]

Labels don't bother me per se but I still don't classify myself. My point being, how can you sum up a person in a short description with a few words? Labels have nothing to do with the kind of person I am which no one will know unless they try to get to know me.
You have to also consider the fact that no one has a label on them in everyday life, whether they are professional business people, criminals or undercover policemen, so why should we have any kind of label that tends to stereotype or stigmatize? We are just everyday people after all with a slightly different viewpoint.

[Valerie]

You have to also consider the fact that no one has a label on them in everyday life, whether they are professional business people, criminals or undercover policemen

It would be nice, but is it so? In my professional life I have a lot of labels and expectations. I am evaluated constantly. Of course, I am not an undercover policeman...

Valerie

[Lovely Rita]

If we are to be free of the negative effects of boxes and labels we have to recognize they exist also for a useful purpose: I would not have found this great community were it not for my Google search of "crossdressers." As OldMom beautifully put it, it is great to see how many of us, and how different, convene in this tent. While I don't feel defined by any label, I can identify with what some of them point to.
Can you really imagine a trip to the supermarket where nothing had a label on it?

Valerie

I get it. I understand the usefulness of labels on consumer goods and the need for functionality and for others to find each other like Old Mom found this site, but I am referring more to the Box that is a monolith of expectations. A Box that enslaves others and makes them feel incomplete because they do not meet its requirements.

I am speaking more of the Box that makes others feel inferior or less than others because they fail to meet the requirements and charachteristics of what that Box dictates. Relegated to acting the expected role that we must live up to as humans, woman, men, etc above being who we really are.

Please understand I know we need to have ways of conferring, communicating and finding each other by differences and commonalities.

The Box I am talking about is the one that spawns hypocrisy because their failure to trully obey the tenents of the Box.

Oh they can act the way the Box requires but deep inside they know they don't fit in it. Of course there are many who fit in the Box and for them I am trully happy. I am talking more about anyone like me who never quite did and was plagued with feelings of inadequacy, depression the list just goes on and on.

Let me shut up for now.

Thank you for your post

[LaFem]

I have noticed that some members are totally comfortable with the term TG, after all when you dress, act, and want to be as feminine as possible, that seems to be inescapably a transgendered activity. I know everyone is different, and many do not like any labels at all, but I cannot, in the deepest part of myself, understand why so many here deny this. What else could dressing and acting like a woman possibly be? An explanation would be humbly accepted.

I also have noticed that the term crossdressing has pretty much replaced transvestisim as the only "really acceptable" word. It seems like crossdressing is OK because it has been redefined as something else- dressing and acting like a woman, and often feeling female, but without any sexual or erotic factor.

I have a question that I would, and I assume many others, would like answered. When you look in the mirror, all dressed in your finest female things, lace panties, garter belt, nylons, a bra, maybe a slip, wig, dress, heels, perfume, jewelry, and of course full makeup with that very sexy red lipstick, just what are you thinking about? Are you thinking about NASCAR? Going bowling? Deer hunting? I'm certainly not thinking about anything like that, I'm thinking about how much I want to be feminine, and be that woman in my mirror.

Perhaps this should have been another thread, but it seemed to be appropriate here. I would also like to say that this post is sincere; I really would like to know about others, I mean no disrespect to anyone. By knowing how others address this, we can all know ourselves a little better.

[Lovely Rita]

I have noticed that some members are totally comfortable with the term TG, after all when you dress, act, and want to be as feminine as possible, that seems to be inescapably a transgendered activity. I know everyone is different, and many do not like any labels at all, but I cannot, in the deepest part of myself, understand why so many here deny this. What else could dressing and acting like a woman possibly be? An explanation would be humbly accepted.

I also have noticed that the term crossdressing has pretty much replaced transvestisim as the only "really acceptable" word. It seems like crossdressing is OK because it has been redefined as something else- dressing and acting like a woman, and often feeling female, but without any sexual or erotic factor.

I have a question that I would, and I assume many others, would like answered. When you look in the mirror, all dressed in your finest female things, lace panties, garter belt, nylons, a bra, maybe a slip, wig, dress, heels, perfume, jewelry, and of course full makeup with that very sexy red lipstick, just what are you thinking about? Are you thinking about NASCAR? Going bowling? Deer hunting? I'm certainly not thinking about anything like that, I'm thinking about how much I want to be feminine, and be that woman in my mirror.

Perhaps this should have been another thread, but it seemed to be appropriate here. I would also like to say that this post is sincere; I really would like to know about others, I mean no disrespect to anyone. By knowing how others address this, we can all know ourselves a little better.

In response to your post at the outset I would like to clarify that I personally do not have a problem with TG, CD, TV, Transvestite or any other such references for our diverse group of freinds here.

I started this thread more to address the societal pressures of fitting into "The Box", and the roles society imposes on males and females of the human family. I was in no way shape or form thinking of the terms we voluntarily choose for ourselves, and though all forms of categorization fail to hit the mark, I see nothing wrong with those terms, especially when you consider that they are labels people freely take on for themselves and are not necessarily imposed on them.

I guess I was trying to convey how the expected role I was always expected to fill and dictated by culture, peers, and upbringing were harmful with regard to fully realizing who I trully am.

These expected modes of behavoir imposed by most around me were the very things that made me feel bad about wearing woman's clothing and made me feel bad afterwards for liking it, and made me feel bad about myself.

"Boys don't Cry!" and "Men don't wear dresses" etc. etc.

No more though, I have worked through a lot of it and I can feel that my reactions have been changed for the better. No guilt anymore, no depression either, for which I thank God.

When I look in the miror I see someone I accept very much. I see someone who is very feminine and feels so. I see someone who can stand to lose a little weight.....ha ha but someone I enjoy being very much. I see a very big part of me and she makes me happy because she is a part of me that I enjoy being and is also the person that has been freed to be. I don't think of Nascar and think more of what skirt will go better with the top I am trying on.