Exactly. Except I don't call skirts or anything else I like to wear "woman's". If they are mine, they are not "woman's", regardless of what their manufacturers or designers envisioned. We don't divide up any other store by sex/gender except clothing, so why should that be? Aside, perhaps, from convenience of finding size and cut to fit your body shape, which is really not an much of an issue with a skirt. Does anyone shop for food by sex? Does anyone buy lumber or garden fertilizer by sex? Gasoline? Televisions? Office supplies?phathack wrote:Cross-dressing has different meanings to different groups of people. In the loosest sense I'm a crossdresser because I wear womans skits, pants, leggings etc. However If you go to one of the cross dressing forums and read you will see that they are trying to look like the opposite sex and that's not what I'm doing. Since I'm not trying to look like a woman that would not make me a crossdresser under their definition of cross-dressing.
Anyway, it also goes to motivation, as the implication of the term 'crossdressing' is a practice leading to sexual arousal, which may or may not be the case with any of us. It unfortunately evokes for many the image of a closeted man secretly trying on lingerie. That association, right or wrong, is part of the sensitivity many of us have toward the term. From my own POV, I think the themes that propel our interest, as a special interest community, have far more to do with self image, and the way we translate mental images of style and beauty we admire, than with anything gratifyingly sexual. And let me not forget the ideas of comfort, and of "bomb-throwing" rebelliousness, lest anyone get upset, though, to me, those are simply side benefits.