The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear

[Barleymower]

There are not many of us, we are thinly spread across the world. The word transvestism/transvestite doesn't feel right, it's unjust and makes a man in a skirt feel more alone.

When used appropriately, it’s just a medical finding. Unless you are sexually aroused by wearing a skirt, the term does not apply to you.

Shame, you should know better. The term is archaic, old, outdated and primitive. It should not be used at all, not ever, by anyone. How on earth can anyone be medically diagnosed with wearing skirts and dresses and feeling aroused by that?
It's really their business and nobody else's. Personally I only ever found it relaxing but if I was "aroused" so what? Does the afflicted need some pills to cure them of liking nice things?
On that basis practically every women in the world must be in a constant state or arousal everytine they dress themselves.

[ScotL]

But is it not applied only to one gender. It is seen more often in men but the word itself implies no gender intrinsically. It is only the misunderstanding of the terminology that produces the sexist feelings associated with the term.

I give up. Who wants my position?

Every time I've written something recently it's been fully quoted and then twisted around without regard to the actual point.

Finis!

Ok Carl, then I must have misinterpreted your quote. You said “The main problem here is that it is only applied to males and never to females.” and I corrected you because this is not a factual statement. They are rarer, but some females are transvestites.

Please tell me how I twisted these these words without regard to your actual point.

[ScotL]

There are not many of us, we are thinly spread across the world. The word transvestism/transvestite doesn't feel right, it's unjust and makes a man in a skirt feel more alone.

When used appropriately, it’s just a medical finding. Unless you are sexually aroused by wearing a skirt, the term does not apply to you.

Shame, you should know better. The term is archaic, old, outdated and primitive. It should not be used at all, not ever, by anyone. How on earth can anyone be medically diagnosed with wearing skirts and dresses and feeling aroused by that?
It's really their business and nobody else's. Personally I only ever found it relaxing but if I was "aroused" so what? Does the afflicted need some pills to cure them of liking nice things?
On that basis practically every women in the world must be in a constant state or arousal everytine they dress themselves.

Before chastising me, I ask that you please do your research. In psychiatry, the word transvestism is used to describe people who are sexually aroused by wearing the clothing associated with the gender they do not identify as. It is a medical term because some people do become sexually aroused by it. There is no judgement implied by the actual term. It is just a medical condition. It does happen. Just like people with a fetish get sexually aroused by whatever is the object of their fetish.

To suggest that every woman is “in a constant state (of) arousal (every time) they dress” is to have zero understanding of the term. If a woman is aroused by wearing female clothing, she is not a transvestite. If she is aroused by wearing an article of clothing traditionally associated with men, they she would be considered a transvestite. But to state that “practically every woman in the world must be in a constant state of arousal every time they dress themselves” means you believe every woman gets sexually aroused simply by dressing! This is nonsensical.

I believe you are applying the colloquial interpretation of the word transvestite with a negative connotation. You asked “Personally I only ever found it relaxing but if I was "aroused" so what?” It appears to me that you believe transvestism is a disease for which “the afflicted need some pills to cure them of liking nice things?“ This is also just not true. Transvestism just describes the condition of which a person is sexually aroused by wearing article of clothing associated with the other gender. There is no judgement on these people within a medical context. It is not a disease.

I am disappointed by your personal attack on me when I was just trying to be factual and informative. But if you’d like to remain ignorant, that is your prerogative. I believe understanding an issue allows us to get to the root of the problem from whence we can create a solution.

If I was called a transvestite, I would investigate whether they actually understand what the word means and then explore why they think I am sexually aroused by wearing a skirt pointing out the obvious that either they don’t know this and are ignorant of the terms meaning or they are a peeping Tom and have an unhealthy albeit mistaken interest in my sexuality. This would prompt me to ask why? All of which points out that they just do not understand and this may allow me to discuss why I like wearing a skirt. Which like you said, it’s relaxing and comfortable.

[Barleymower]

It was not an attack on you, you are entitled to copy whatever outdated pronouncements you choose.

[ScotL]

It was not an attack on you, you are entitled to copy whatever outdated pronouncements you choose.

Direct quote from you “Shame, you should know better.” Not sure how else to take that? Can you explain how this is not chastising me?

The term is not an outdated pronouncement. It is a clinical term. Whether you choose to believe that or not is on you.

I thought I was helping you and others by explaining the term from the medical point of view (field I’m in). I find knowledge to be important. Understanding why the word does not apply to us, I thought, could be helpful. Forgive me for trying.

[crfriend]

I must have misinterpreted your quote. You said “The main problem here is that it is only applied to males and never to females.” and I corrected you because this is not a factual statement. They are rarer, but some females are transvestites.

Please tell me how I twisted these these words without regard to your actual point.

The point has to do with the difference of what's written in the DSM ("the condition almost invariably occurs in men"), how that is applied practically in the profession with the "almost" effectively being dropped, and what the general usage is in the vernacular, which is what we get to deal with in the general population.

Thus, the DSM effectively gives a pass to women and unfairly stigmatises men which is bad enough; the vernacular usage is even worse where the symptom effectively never presents in women and men get excoriated (or worse) for having such thoughts. It's amazing that any guy in the so-called "West" has the guts to shove on a skirt in the morning.

Of note is that the DSM is letting up on the matter somewhat and whilst the verbiage about Transvestic Fetishism still pertains "almost exclusively to men", the current guidance is that "unless the condition causes real suffering to the victim it's best left alone." and I seem to recall the word "victim" in there. Yes, I have read the relevant passages not just very recently. It may be "possible" that the sexist components have been dropped, but I rather doubt it.

Should we grant the writers of the DSM a pass in their use of language? I am inclined to say, "No" because they're supposed to know better. However, they're humans, too, and suffer from what's on offer in the vernacular. In particular, the "diagnosis" should not be allowed to propagate any further without removing the sexist aspects of it. Why should I get a "diagnosis" shoved onto me for wearing a skirt when a woman who wears only jeans gets a pass? Does the unfairness and arbitrariness present now?

[Barleymower]

It was not an attack on you, you are entitled to copy whatever outdated pronouncements you choose.

Direct quote from you “Shame, you should know better.” Not sure how else to take that? Can you explain how this is not chastising me?

The term is not an outdated pronouncement. It is a clinical term. Whether you choose to believe that or not is on you.

I thought I was helping you and others by explaining the term from the medical point of view (field I’m in). I find knowledge to be important. Understanding why the word does not apply to us, I thought, could be helpful. Forgive me for trying.

I stand by my original assertion.

transvestism may be quoted in several journals / manuals of mental disorders an illness. The term is outdated and needs to be attached to a football, given to the best kicker and footed clean out of the stadium. The word is now seen as highly derogatory to the men who choose to dress as they choose. It has been softened to the term 'crossdresser' which is still unnecessary.

Whether or not it should be applied to 'us' is irrelevant. It should not be applied to anyone. There are no need for these labels. Dress as you want, enjoy your life, have fun. Anyone who is seeking to continue to promote and sustain archaic views needs revaluate who needs educating.

[STEVIE]

It's amazing that any guy in the so-called "West" has the guts to shove on a skirt in the morning.

Well, I do but then again I didn't study the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).
I already know that I am a fully paid up member of the loony toons society so I saved some money.
Or, as someone else put it, "There is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself going mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later."- Douglas Adams.
This all began over a simple question, how many men would CHOOSE to wear a skirt, one, ninety nine or one hundred per cent?
The WHY and in what context is not RELEVANT but the FREEDOM is!
Squabbling over definitions, labels and damned trivia does no one any favours unless picking nits is your thing.
One other point, I also doubt women experienced this level of angst as they were taking their fashion liberties.
Meantime, frankly I don't etc.
Steve.

[Barleymower]

Ha! It certainly could be described as squabbling - if it were a trivial matter?

Calling someone a transvestite is an insult in it's own right. Insult me and face the consequences!

[crfriend]

transvestism may be quoted in several journals / manuals of mental disorders an illness. The term is outdated and needs to be attached to a football, given to the best kicker and footed clean out of the stadium. The word is now seen as highly derogatory to the men who choose to dress as they choose. It has been softened to the term 'crossdresser' which is still unnecessary.

Here's the power of the vernacular over the clinical. In the vernacular, crossdressing/transvestism [1] is viewed highly negatively whereas in the medical journals it's merely a "diagnosis" applied without feeling or compassion. It's a classical failure of medicine to track how society thinks and to react.

The net result is that the way the psychiatric types look at the matter directly hurts people -- and not just the people they're trying to "help", either. After all, who on the gods' green Earth would risk so much over something so meaningless? There must be something "wrong" with them, so we'll slap a "diagnosis" on it -- and the profession historically don't care that much about women (which is why they usually weren't carefully studied), and is why women never get "diagnosed" with it.


[1] Crossdressing and Transvestism are, in fact, the same word. One's just been tarted up and given a "Latin" look to make it sound better in thesis papers. If you look at the roots of the words, you'll see precisely what I mean.

[pelmut]

...the profession historically don't care that much about women (which is why they usually weren't carefully studied), and is why women never get "diagnosed" with it.

There is a notable exception to this: Anorexia Nervosa.  It was defined as weight loss to the point where a woman's menstrual cycle stopped.  As men didn't have a menstrual cycle, they couldn't be diagnosed wth Anorexia.  I suffered from Anorexia when I was at school and when I sought help I was told it must mean that I was a homosexual.

That taught me that however bad things might seem, they were never so bad that a psychiatrist couldn't make them worse.

[crfriend]

That taught me that however bad things might seem, they were never so bad that a psychiatrist couldn't make them worse.

Dang! Now there's a takeaway! Ouch!

Anorexia is also I believe rather recent, dating perhaps to the '70s or maybe the '80s commonly -- and, yes, always in women as if men can't exhibit eating disorders. (Sarcasm intended.)

As far as the "waif look" goes, I've never found it even remotely attractive, and I wonder precisely how many of the "Peloton Princesses" are effectively barren. My last interest was a skinny little thing, but a lot of that may have been because she always was and also had a bout with cervical cancer into the bargain. I was willing to accept that because it's not a "condition of choice"; nobody asks for that sort of trouble. Anyway, she, like me, was in her early 60s and beyond realistic breeding age anyway.

[Barleymower]

transvestism may be quoted in several journals / manuals of mental disorders an illness. The term is outdated and needs to be attached to a football, given to the best kicker and footed clean out of the stadium. The word is now seen as highly derogatory to the men who choose to dress as they choose. It has been softened to the term 'crossdresser' which is still unnecessary.

Here's the power of the vernacular over the clinical. In the vernacular, crossdressing/transvestism [1] is viewed highly negatively whereas in the medical journals it's merely a "diagnosis" applied without feeling or compassion. It's a classical failure of medicine to track how society thinks and to react.

The net result is that the way the psychiatric types look at the matter directly hurts people -- and not just the people they're trying to "help", either. After all, who on the gods' green Earth would risk so much over something so meaningless? There must be something "wrong" with them, so we'll slap a "diagnosis" on it -- and the profession historically don't care that much about women (which is why they usually weren't carefully studied), and is why women never get "diagnosed" with it.


[1] Crossdressing and Transvestism are, in fact, the same word. One's just been tarted up and given a "Latin" look to make it sound better in thesis papers. If you look at the roots of the words, you'll see precisely what I mean.

However described, in 'expert' clinical sense or in the or in the vernacular. It makes men who make their own decisions, feel uncomfortable with something which should be totally fine. I talked to F, my wife about it and saw things from a different perspective. Rightly or wrongly this is how it is seen:
Women may dress in whatever sexy clothes they want to wear and may or not feel as aroused by it. They will probably not be aroused by because it is women's wear, belonging to women. If a man does the same then it is perceived as, wrong. She quite agreed that it is nonsensical but that is the status quo. The same really applies in their view to skirts. They are backed up by outdated diagnosis by 'psychiatric types'.
I know this forum is for straight men wearing skirts but in the eyes of many it is intrinsically intertwined.

[STEVIE]

I know this forum is for straight men wearing skirts but in the eyes of many it is intrinsically intertwined.

BM, this forum is for all men who want the freedom to wear what they wish.
For what it is worth, I was not trying to belittle the depth of your feelings but in-fighting and rising to the bait is futile.
When I used the "C" and "T" words, it was in the context of my own experience, the misconception of the need to appear as a female.
I won't apologise because it accurately describes my own motivation as it was at the time.
Frankly, I did not need any help to realise just how crappy that made me feel at the time, I managed that all by myself.
Over the past year or so, I will also say that my view has shifted somewhat, I do give a damn after all.
I don't have the answers because I don't believe there are any that I believe are definitive.
Perhaps it is actually the questions which are irrelevant, we just do, take it or leave it.
On that note, no more.
Steve.

[ScotL]

I must have misinterpreted your quote. You said “The main problem here is that it is only applied to males and never to females.” and I corrected you because this is not a factual statement. They are rarer, but some females are transvestites.

Please tell me how I twisted these these words without regard to your actual point.

The point has to do with the difference of what's written in the DSM ("the condition almost invariably occurs in men"), how that is applied practically in the profession with the "almost" effectively being dropped, and what the general usage is in the vernacular, which is what we get to deal with in the general population.

Thus, the DSM effectively gives a pass to women and unfairly stigmatises men which is bad enough; the vernacular usage is even worse where the symptom effectively never presents in women and men get excoriated (or worse) for having such thoughts. It's amazing that any guy in the so-called "West" has the guts to shove on a skirt in the morning.

Of note is that the DSM is letting up on the matter somewhat and whilst the verbiage about Transvestic Fetishism still pertains "almost exclusively to men", the current guidance is that "unless the condition causes real suffering to the victim it's best left alone." and I seem to recall the word "victim" in there. Yes, I have read the relevant passages not just very recently. It may be "possible" that the sexist components have been dropped, but I rather doubt it.

Should we grant the writers of the DSM a pass in their use of language? I am inclined to say, "No" because they're supposed to know better. However, they're humans, too, and suffer from what's on offer in the vernacular. In particular, the "diagnosis" should not be allowed to propagate any further without removing the sexist aspects of it. Why should I get a "diagnosis" shoved onto me for wearing a skirt when a woman who wears only jeans gets a pass? Does the unfairness and arbitrariness present now?

Carl, I used to work with the Dutch and one of the many things I loved about them was their ability to be honest without implicating the person’s worth whilst doing so.

Your take on the DSM sounds like it comes from someone without a complete medical school information who believes they can just read passages from it and comprehend it on the level that people who have dedicated years of their life to medical school and residency can. The human mind is remarkably complicated. You can’t just read a few lines from a textbook and understand it. I don’t want to assume, but what is your formal education in medicine and psychiatry that allows you to appropriately understand the DSM on the necessary level?

Psychiatrists do not sit around discussing transvestites because they almost never see them clinically. So to suggest they conveniently drop the fact that some women are transvestites is revealing that you have no understanding of clinical work. Transvestites rarely present to psychiatrists because it is not a disease. They present when their psyche has difficulty accepting their sexual attraction to wearing the opposite genders clothing. This causes anxiety and depression and this, and only this is what the psychiatrists treat. Believe it or not, psychiatrists and the writers of the DSM are not on a crusade to attack men who enjoy wearing skirts.

A professional psychiatrist would never label you in a skirt or a woman in mens jeans a transvestite without having knowledge that either person is sexually aroused by the wearing of these specific clothes. That is the definition. I cannot help you if you fail to understand this. And suggesting a professional would give you a diagnosis of transvestism if you are only wearing a skirt is categorically incorrect and strongly suggests your knowledge of psychiatry is lacking.

In reality, psychiatrists rarely if ever talk about transvestites because IT IS NOT A DISEASE.And more importantly, calling a real transvestite a transvestite DOES NOT DECREASE THE WORTH OF THAT PERSON. It is a term used to describe a clinical finding. Anyone who uses that term in a derogatory sense DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERMINOLOGY. It is not arbitrary to know that the majority of transvestites are men. That is JUST A FACT. There is no anti MiS crusade in psychiatry. Especially today, they have a helluva lot more to do then busy themselves with men in skirts.