The term "crossdressing" -- pro and con

[AMM]

Since the debate as to what "crossdressing" means and whether it should be "dropped from the lexicon" has come up on a number of threads, I am creating a separate thread to discuss it, so that those who do want to discuss it will have a place to go and those who don't will have a place to stay away from.

OK, here's my can of kerosene:

1. As I see it, since what we do is, in our minds (and in most of our photos) rather different from what is discussed at places like crossdressers.com, it's useful to have distinct terms for it. Here, at least, "crossdressing" usually means (cf. my proposed FAQ) men who seek to look like women (regardless of their degree of success), whereas "men-in-skirts" ("MIS") (anyone got a better term?) refers to men wearing some "women's clothing" who aren't trying to pass as women. I sometimes use the term "orthodox crossdressers" for the first category.

(Men in kilts are something of a separate case, since even in the wider culture, practically nobody thinks of kilts as "women's clothing," but they still face a lot of the same issues as men-in-skirts.)

2. That said, I suspect that "crossdressers" and "men-in-skirts" have more in common than either would admit. In particular, I think that a lot of (most?) people in both groups struggle with the conventional ideas of masculinity that they were raised with and their attraction to non-masculine things, e.g., skirts, tights, make-up -- and the conflict between the two. What distinguishes the groups is how they resolve this conflict. But IMHO, what really separates the groups from each other and the men in each group from themselves is the deep-seated male taboo against admitting to or talking about anything that is really important/meaningful to them. So the conflict gets played out by proxy.

Thus do most of us men live and die strangers to ourselves and one another....

[RyeOfTheDead]

Ok, I understand the motivations for making a new thread about it, and I think the need to do so actually even underlines why such a thread needs to exist. Because of examples like the diversity week thread where the mere mention of the word got someone accused of being inflammatory. I had posted responses in that thread, one of which I have edited to place the things more relevant to this thread into this thread.

First off, let me state so that it isn't questioned by anyone responding to me that I do not think that the simple act of wearing a skirt by a man should be considered crossdressing, nor would I impose that any guy who does wear a skirt is a crossdresser. There are many men on these forums who do not consider what they do to be crossdressing and I certainly don't consider it to be either.

Having said that, I consider myself a crossdresser. Even though my goal has never truly been to pass as a woman or to live or be a woman, I do sometimes find myself desiring to cross the gender barriers, and be a bit more "girly" than most guys. I discussed this once on crossdressers.com like this: I don't want to be a woman, but sometimes I want to be "one of the girls," much in the same way that women are often "one of the guys," without wanting to be men. This isn't something I feel the need to indulge in very often, but the handful of times I have been out with friends dressed in women's clothes and makeup, I have had fun. I have no doubts that I will do this again. Again, while I may wear makeup and even a wig, I have no illusions that I "pass," nor any real desire to. I'm not ashamed at all for people to see me as a crossdresser, because there is nothing wrong with it.

In addition to being a crossdresser, I'm also a guy who wears skirts. The two obviously have connections, the largest of which is the fondness for skirts. Exploring both options have led me to accept the other more and more within myself. But yes, they aren't entirely the same thing. I view my crossdressing as something of a hobby.

I respect that this is a forum for men who wear skirts. I understand that for many there is a firmly drawn line in the sand between what this forum is about and what forums like crossdressers.com are about. And I'm glad for that, otherwise what would be the point? I do post on crossdressers.com but I do like to get this perspective because dressing as a man in a skirt is something I do much much more often than I crossdress. To this end, I have tried to keep the focus of my discussions on this board to be centered around it's topic and not "orthodox crossdressing" as AMM put it.

I understand the need for this forum to make it clear that the discussion here is for male skirting and that for discussions of transgender issues they would be better suited to go somewhere like crossdressers.com, I also think there is a certain level of "the lady doth protest too much" when the word crossdressing gets used. I did a google search a bit back where i typed in "Men in skirts," and so many of the results had "but this isn't crossdressing!" or some variation right there. How about, instead of immediately putting down what others do, we just boldly state what we do. Scroll up and read the masthead of SkirtCafe. On the main page, there is no mention of crossdressing, and yet it gets the message across perfectly. When you click for more details, only then does it say that this is not a transvestite or crossdresser forum, which simply means, not the topic here. Just as a baseball forum could have a note, hey don't talk about football here.

I guess personally since I consider part of what I do to be crossdressing, it doesn't really bother me if someone calls my male skirting "crossdressing." My big concern is over the way they respond to it. If someone is responding positively to it, I'm not going to make the situation negative by correcting their semantics, and if someone is responding negatively to it, my telling them "Oh, no, i'm not a crossdresser, I'm a guy in a skirt/Braveheart/Freestyler" is not going to make them go "Oh man! my mistake, so sorry!"

It seems like the word is perfectly fine to use here when someone wants to use it as a put down or to state what we're not, but it's scary and offensive when someone brings it up in other contexts. People here make comments like "strike it from the lexicon" and "has no place" when someone uses it in a positive light, or attempts to work within the system on it, and yet when Uncle Al told FreeToWearIt that his outfit made him look like a crossdresser, while Pythos disagreed with his assessment that it looked like crossdressing, nobody responded to him that the term was sexist or demeaning, or that he was being condescending or derogatory by using it.* Yet comparing the usage of it in the diversity versus the usage of it in the mini skirt thread, where the mere mention of the word got someone accused, by a moderator no less, of being intentionally inflammatory.

[SkirtedViking]

As I have said many times crosswhatever should be applied to female impersonators with the fake boobs,hips and so on.It is discriminatory, if it was against women they would have stood up against any form of descrimination long ago.But many men are very "real",macho and it is an insult to their masculinity to seek parity with the 'inferior" female things.That is the way they are brought up actually, I used to be like that before but not now fortunately I am a freestyler.Troyan war (male in skirts,dresses and very masculine at the same time, how about Ancient Egypt) changed my views completely that masculine is utterly subjective.Since women wear in so called Western civilization ALL male apparel(shoes,clothes,accessories) I do not see the problem with equal fashion.They (females) are not called cross..... whatever they wear so why should a guy be called like that?About the post above - I've heard in many movies women call themselves guys, that means a male, right?

[imadube]

Let me put in the Middle Tennessee perspective -
Women in pants - practicle, comfortable
Men in skirts - Wierd, perveted, crossdressing freak - Even a kilt will bring the same conclusion.

Good luck all and for those that have No Issue in wearing skirts - good for you.

[RyeOfTheDead]

if it was against women they would have stood up against any form of descrimination long ago.

They (females) are not called cross..... whatever they wear so why should a guy be called like that?

http://www.gossipcenter.com/mariah-care ... iva-331929

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 332AAiBYXS

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 026AA5aq3d

Just because it doesn't get used *as often* doesn't mean it doesn't get used.

[crfriend]

Rye -- Thank you for clarifying both your stance with the notion and your understanding of how the notion might be perceived to an observer. It makes a bit more sense now that you've filled in the nooks, gaps, and crannies.

In my defense, I was not accusing you of being inflammatory in a moderator's capacity; those familiar with my modus operandus here know that when exercising moderator power I use a different colour font and explicitly state when I am doing so for the folks that may have monochrome browsers or may be using speech-synthesizers. Unfortunately, one of the very common problems is somebody chimes in with a, "You're all crossdressers" post -- likely as a troll -- and chaos ensues; I've seen this enough in the past that I've got a hair-trigger on the matter, so please bear with me if I was mistaken, and if I was mistaken you have my apology.

The focal-point as I see it here is the way that society as a whole perceives crossdressing -- a very broad term indeed -- and that's as "orthodox crossdressing" where the practitioner is, in effect, role-playing a very stereotypical "woman figure", and an obsolete stereotype at that. This has the power to offend both sexes: women can get put off by it because of the obsolescent stereotypical portrayal, and men can get caught flat-footed if they cannot immediately sense what's going on. What "men in skirts" is about specifically renounces role-playing, and instead places the burden of the fashion choice directly on the man himself. In this mode, there is no need to role-play because we take full possession and responsibility for our thoughts and actions.

There's also the common perception that a guy in anything other than Levis or Dockers is "trying to get in touch with his 'feminine side'". Whilst that may be true for some folks, I can state that it is not in my case; I am a fully integrated human being, and don't even feel the need to "express" or "get in touch" with a feminine version of me. I am complete as I am: I have empathy, I cry, I laugh, I care deeply about people around me, and I am quite capable of "being one of the girls" if I choose to do so. (I learned the latter during the late 1990s when I used to do a lot of commuting by train, and was warmly welcomed into a clique of women commuters; it was a ball.)

The biggest problem with the term "crossdresser", however, is that it is applied significantly more often to one sex than another -- and is regarded in some circles as a mental defect that requires "fixing" (like homosexuality was in years gone by). Even though skirted garments exist in many cultures, there's a stigma associated with them in modern western civilisation, and the current usage of the term (which, in and of itself, is useful enough) carries too much baggage to make it neutral enough for "polite company". It is for those reasons that I do not like having the term used to describe "men in skirts".

"Men in skirts" is an awkward term at best, and one that's not likely to catch on; society, in general, is likely to apply the "crossdresser" label to us anyway, mainly because of cultural inertia. We cannot change that, but what we can do is stand up -- be men, if you will -- and declare, "I am doing this as a man; I am doing it by my active choice; and I am not trying to be anything I am not."

[floatingmetal]

I think RyeOfTheDead expressed my position and situation perfectly. So I'll leave it at that. (Except for the wig bit, never could get the hang of those.)

[RyeOfTheDead]

Carl, the accusations of being inflammatory weren't made towards me, it was just something I observed in the other thread. While you weren't posting with your moderator cap on, you are a moderator, and as such, suggesting that someone's post was instigating a fight when it wasn't can be perceived as a bit of an official comment, especially when people aren't as familiar with your MO, that's all.

The focal-point as I see it here is the way that society as a whole perceives crossdressing -- a very broad term indeed -- and that's as "orthodox crossdressing" where the practitioner is, in effect, role-playing a very stereotypical "woman figure", and an obsolete stereotype at that.

I think there is validity to that statement, but I think it's a wide generality in regards to the way different people/groups dress and how they behave.

I am complete as I am: I have empathy, I cry, I laugh, I care deeply about people around me, and I am quite capable of "being one of the girls" if I choose to do so. (I learned the latter during the late 1990s when I used to do a lot of commuting by train, and was warmly welcomed into a clique of women commuters; it was a ball.)

I too feel like I am a complete person, even when I "crossdress," I don't feel like I take on a different personality, I just feel like myself in a different outfit. A great deal of my friends are women, and I find that I often empathize with women more than I do with men in conversation, though I have friends of both sexes. However, when I say "being one of the girls" I am more specifically referring to types of activities that girls, at least around my age group usually partake in.

For example, a couple of months ago some friends of mine who are a couple had a night where the girl invited a bunch of her female friends out for "Girl's Night Out" and the boyfriend decided to have a "Guy's Night" in response. The Girl's night involved all of them getting dressed up in "cute" clothes, doing makeup and going out dancing and such. The Guy's night involved hanging around the boyfriend's apartment, drinking beer and watching wrestling DVDs and playing video game football. I was invited to "Guy's Night" and not the girl's night, even though I would have much more enjoyed that evening. I ended up doing neither. In this case, I'd have preferred to be seen as "one of the girls" than as "one of the guys," but am not. But this isn't the same as wanting to be seen as a woman. In a similar capacity I remember during high school prom season how much I'd have rather been able to wear a prom dress and not a Tux. It wasn't that I wanted to be a woman, it was that I thought the ritual of getting "the dress!" and coordinating an outfit and all of that seemed much more fun than getting a "boring" tux was. Since then, I have grown to appreciate the suit as a garment that can really make a man stand out, and also got to live out my prom dress fantasy when my friend threw a Prom themed house party two years ago.

Maybe the term "Crossdressing" isn't exactly right for what I sometimes do, but I'd really just rather call it that and move on with it than get hung up in the terminology.

"Men in skirts" is an awkward term at best, and one that's not likely to catch on; society, in general, is likely to apply the "crossdresser" label to us anyway, mainly because of cultural inertia. We cannot change that, but what we can do is stand up -- be men, if you will -- and declare, "I am doing this as a man; I am doing it by my active choice; and I am not trying to be anything I am not."

I guess my feelings on your statement here, is that standing up and being men is exactly what we should be doing, and I think we can do that without adding in "But we're not those weirdos over there!" at the end of it.

The fact is that since society is most likely going to apply "crossdresser" to men in skirts, at least for now, the thing to do is to just let it roll off our backs, even if some are never likely to just embrace the term like I am. Frankly, there are far more derogatory terms that people could (and do) use for gender variant people, so if crossdresser is the worst one you hear, you should count your blessing.

I think RyeOfTheDead expressed my position and situation perfectly. So I'll leave it at that. (Except for the wig bit, never could get the hang of those.

I'm not a giant fan either, but sometimes longer hair can make the outfit pop, and my hair is too stubborn and curly to grow very long. Plus, when it gets longer the thin spot on the back becomes much more noticeable, and I like it short anyway. I've considered experimenting with hair extensions though, not sure where to begin there.

[Bob]

Let me put in the Middle Tennessee perspective -
Women in pants - practicle, comfortable

Oh, really? My wife is of Southern descent, and she still feels like she's gonna go to H*** for wearing trousers to church.

I've written an article on crossdressing, which I put on the Wiki. I think it's useful because it takes an inductive approach, rather than a deductive approach, the the phenomenon. By that, I mean, I looked to the crossdressing experts to tell me what crossdressing is, and analyzed things starting from there. My main sources were the excellent book "My Husband Betty" (written by the wife of a crossdresser), and the websites of Tri-Ess and related chapters (the nation's preeminent crossdressing society).

What kept popping out at me was the difference between theory and practices in these circles. On one page, I would read that "Betty's" crossdressing was "no different" from a woman wearing trousers. And on the next page, I'd read about all the meticulous details "Betty" would pay attention to in order to look like a woman, move like a woman, sound like a woman, etc. And then the next chapter was about their kinky sex life. Clearly, crossdressing is VERY different from a woman wearing trousers (or a man wearing a skirt, for that matter).

It's also been claimed time and time again that women "can't" crossdress because of our supposedly permissive society with respect to women's attire. That is simply not true. I pointed out some women who HAVE crossdressed, and I investigated the reasons why they did it. It was quite an insightful exercise, I think.

I think that the words we choose slip us up here. A more accurate word for the phenomenon would be called "cross-impersonation." If that were used, I think people's understanding of the phenomenon would be more clear and evolved. I personally don't like the term "crossdresser" because it is so heavily linked with secrecy, antiquated visions of womanhood, play-acting and kinky sex.

Anyway, the article is at:
http://www.skirtcafe.org/wiki/index.php ... Eat_it_Too

More generally, I've become interested in the ways that institutional categories shape our perceptions of ourselves. For the man with "transgender experiences" (which I define in the article), we have only a few institutional categories:

* Transsexuals (and others): Heavily into chemical and physical body modification.
* Crossdressers: Live a weird secret double life.

The man with transgender experience who isn't into body modification (beyond a few piercings here and there), and doesn't want to lead a weird secret double life, is simply invisible to our institutional notion of gender and gender variance. I hope that we can change that over time.

[imadube]

Let me put in the Middle Tennessee perspective -
Women in pants - practicle, comfortable

Oh, really?

My comments are from my life here and the people that see me in a skirt doing whatever I need to do around my ouse. I do not claim any scientific data or such thing. It has gotten to when I am outside (even in pants or shorts) that one of my neihbors loudly names me a perevrt when he has the chance. Even as this past Sunday he told his dog to "leave the pervert alone". Also a friend of mine lost his job because a co-worker that seen me in a skirt started talking about it at thier work and how pereverted "they" (including my friend) were.

So - that said the REAL Middle TN (today) definition for the crossdressing thing DOES include men in skirts or kilts.

Now I report this as my life here in Middle TN has been since going outside in a skirt. I am hard pressed to find any other like mind here. Not even the man interviewed by The Tennessean newspaper for wearing a Utitlklt - which article can not be pulled up anymore - would reply to any emails. The comments posted on the article were none to flattering and maybe why it is a buried article now.

[RyeOfTheDead]

Bob,

I want to let some of the things you said in your post simmer before responding because I think you made some valid points and I can tell you've done your research. One note though:

On your discussion of My Husband Betty, while it is a valuable resource for discussion of crossdressing, and Helen Boyd has become something of a figurehead amongst the transgender community, even giving the keynote address at a conference for TransOhio this past August in Columbus, is also only part of the story. Because after "My Husband Betty," she released another book called "She's Not the Man I Married," in which Boyd further traces her husbands path from being "just" a crossdresser to being more fully transgendered, living almost full time as a woman and contemplating getting the surgery. Thus, Boyd's writing is actually much more about having a transsexual partner than it is really about having a crossdressing husband, even if she wasn't aware of it at the time. Thus, while her writing can be a valuable resource, it does have its flaws and should not in any account be considered the definitive source for crossdressing information.

Imadube,

Your response is a great example of what I was talking about in my "things to ponder" post. You are so hell bent on making your point that you didn't really even read what Bob said in response to you.

Let me put in the Middle Tennessee perspective -
Women in pants - practicle, comfortable

To which he said:

Oh, really? My wife is of Southern descent, and she still feels like she's gonna go to H*** for wearing trousers to church.

When you quoted him, you decided to only quote "Oh, really?" and then fill in entirely your own idea of what he was saying back to you. What Bob was saying is that where is wife is from it is so conservative that a woman can't even wear pants to church, and you acted as if he was debating how open your area was to men in skirts or kilts, when he said *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* in regards to that.

[Bob]

Sorry, I have very little good to say about middle TN, other than Nashville.

The only thing I can think of is to threaten to prosecute your neighbor for harassment. In the Northeast, someone who insists on calling his neighbor a pervert can expect a friendly visit from the cops if the behavior doesn't stop. (Actually, I once used this on a neighbor who was harassing me every time I walked my dog --- coming up close to me, taking pictures, etc. Basically, he was trying to intimidate me into not using the park anymore. Just one suggestion that I might call the cops on him and he left me alone forever after).

[Bob]

On your discussion of My Husband Betty... after "My Husband Betty," she released another book called "She's Not the Man I Married," in which Boyd further traces her husbands path from being "just" a crossdresser to being more fully transgender, living almost full time as a woman and contemplating getting the surgery.

I read that book too. I don't think it diminishes her authority about the crossdressing community. Her first book is not just a book on personal experience with her husband, but rather is based on a lot of research on the community at large, much of it first-hand --- like a journalist. She also read all the previous major crossdressing books. She seems to have extensive experience with the communities she describes. "My Husband Betty" is also consistent with other crossdressing literature I can find on-line, such as the Tri-Ess website. I think it is a good book because of its encyclopedic nature. Sure, her husband spurred her into researching the topic and writing the book. But in the end, I think the book stands apart from her personal life, and whoever her husband may be in the end.

I think the biggest flaw of "My Husband Betty" is that she took the crossdressing story hook line and sinker, and did not look at it with enough critical thinking skills. I don't know why she was not more analytical, she certainly had all the tools and personal reason to be. But from the SkirtCafe perspective, I could see a lot of contradictions in what she said. And sometimes I wanted to jump up with my hand in the air, screaming "but.. but... did you think of THIS?"

I found her later book to be much less engaging. In comparison to "My Husband Betty," it seems to be an aimless, wandering stream-of-consciousness memoir.

In this case, I'd have preferred to be seen as "one of the girls" than as "one of the guys," but am not. But this isn't the same as wanting to be seen as a woman.

In the framework I set out, I would call this a "transgender experience" or "transgender feeling." Big scary term. But all it means is that what you WANTED to do went against commonly assumed gender norms --- no different from a woman who wants to be a Catholic Priest (except she'll never get to be a priest, whereas you actually can get what you're looking for).

Normally, people react to their transgender feelings by doing whatever it is they want to do anyway. Happens all the time. My little girl likes to play with trucks, it's natural for her. She's too young to know that playing with trucks is a transgender experience for little girls. But her older, wiser pre-school teachers tried to discourage her and get her to play with dolls instead. Thankfully, she's at a different school now.

The issue here, I believe, comes when we try to fit our transgender experience with the messages we receive from the wider society. My daughter will be able to play with trucks for quite a few years without worrying too hard about whether that is "OK" for girls. But if you're a man and want to wear a dress to a party, you must either:
a) Pretend to be a woman for the duration, thereby making it "OK" to wear the dress. This allows you to go against gender norms without actually "breaking" any rules.
b) Just go against the gender norm, wear the dress and don't try to pretend that you're upholding the very gender norms that you're breaking.

That is... you either have to go against the grain or crossdress. I think that going against the grain is a lot less cowardly, hence the term "it takes balls to wear a skirt."

[Brandy]

Thanks AMM for creating this thread.
Way back when I started this skirt/kilt wearing there were several questions that I had to answer topping the list was WHO and WHAT am I?

I did not need to read the book but I did spend time on Tri-Ess I very rapidly found out that I did not belong there. After reading a number of bio’s and accounts of inner feelings I KNEW I had little in common. There was no need for me to pretend otherwise.

During the time I was a member of Tri-Ess cross dressing was defined as the desired to dress and “appear” as the opposite gender male or female. Without the desire to actually become the opposite gender, i.e. role playing. I have no desire to be someone I am not. So I am just a man in a skirt. When the desire to actually BE the opposite gender then it was called by other names Transgendered or Transsexual depending on other factors. Those are the definitions I came away with.

My understanding a true cross dresser requires the desire to appear as the opposite gender. Whether I am wearing a kilt or a long skirt there is never any doubt that I am male. Other than the skirt, my mannerism, carriage, walk, voice, other general appearance are all male and there is no desire to project anything other than what you see … man-in-skirt. To borrow a term I “read” as male.

People read your body language as I come across as male I’ve never really had much trouble. Even in places where friends expected off comments, there is a saloon in Old Town Dallas TX. Some friends and I went in for lunch and beer they were sure I was going to get a hard time. Not at all, we had a great time and not a single negative remark. I was wearing a UK at the time.

[crfriend]

"[... W]hat we can do is stand up -- be men, if you will -- and declare, "I am doing this as a man; I am doing it by my active choice; and I am not trying to be anything I am not."

I guess my feelings on your statement here, is that standing up and being men is exactly what we should be doing, and I think we can do that without adding in "But we're not those weirdos over there!" at the end of it.

I believe you may be reading more into my statement than was intended; it was not my intent to cast aspersions onto the "orthodox crossdresser" community, but rather to set the "man in a skirt" apart and show him for what he is, and that is different from the orthodoxy.

"The public" will still likely lump the "man in a skirt" into the orthodoxy, but there is no reason we should encourage that, and the way to make that point is to respectfully point up the difference. The notion is similar to the way that kilt-wearers react when somebody mentions that they're wearing a skirt.