New Approach to Gender Dysphoria

[Bob]

In a recent thread, SkirtDude raised some pertinent questions about whether we're a social movement, or just a bunch of regular guys yakking on-line. I've been doing a lot of research and reflection recently, which I think is pertinent to the question.

I'm also often reluctant to speak about myself because what I say as Master Barista could as a preview of the direction the forum might be drifting in. I hope that our members will realize that is not the case. I have made it very clear what this forum is about, and that remains the case no matter where I stand personally.

Anyway... I think we are just a bunch of regular guys yakking, and I like it that way. But I also think that some (but probably not all) of us, have experienced "gender dysphoria" in one form or another --- a sense that something doesn't quite line up between our biological maleness and our sense of male gender. There is now quite a lot of "Trans" literature, as well as clinical writing, on this phenomenon, along with a growing orthodoxy that goes something like this:

For those who exhibit cross-gender behavior, we need to classify them either as "cross-dressers" (transvestites) or "transsexuals." The cross-dressers have a core masculine identity, but they get a sexual thrill and/or relaxation out of taking on the identity of a woman through clothing. The transsexuals really believe they are women, and will stop at nothing to change their body to woman's body.

If we determine that someone is a transvestite, we suggest that he get involved in cross-dressing clubs, in which he can hone his female personna and enjoy evenings with other like-minded people. Sure it may be kind of kinky, but it's harmless, and many wives put up with it. If he's a transsexual, we apply a standardized set of evaluation criteria and help him move toward hormone therapy and ultimately, sexual reassignment surgery.

It all sounds fine, except that there are a number of problems with this orthodoxy:

1. As described, it is nearly impossible to be a female transvestite. This suggests that the issue of transvestism may be more culturally than biologically based.

2. "Gender Identity Disorder" --- including both transvestites and transsexuals --- is considered a mental illness in the "DSM IV" (the standard guide for mental health professionals.) There's a lot of inconsistency with this understanding of gender identity issues vs. the understanding of homosexuality, which is no longer considered a disorder. Proponents of calling GID a disorder offer two reasons: (a) for the transsexuals who want/need gender reassignment, it is not medically possible to put them on a course of drugs and medical care without first believing there's something wrong with them, and (b) many of the transvestites we've seen exhibit many signs of mental illness such as depression, anxiety, etc --- which their "gender disorder" must be causing. Opponents of calling it a disorder note many parallels to the past (mis)-understandings of homosexuality. Just because something is non-normative does not make it an illness. Moreover, the signs of mental illness are observed because of (a) sampling bias because the people interviewed were those who came into a clinic looking for help, and (b) social stigmatism in the wider society.

In general, if something is labelled a "disorder" or a "disesase," that marginalizes people who experience it, and justifies all sorts of social abuse. That is why the gay community lobbied so heavily to get homosexuality removed from the DSM IV manual. I believe it's high time that the DSM understanding of "Gender Identity Disorder" be revised as well.

3. The current model has set up a hierarchy within the "trans" community. Post-operative transsexuals (i.e. those who have had hormones and surgery) are at the top, with "pre-op" transsexuals right below them (i.e. ones on hormones who have not yet had surgery). Then comes "non-op" transsexuals (those who live as the "other" gender with hormones, but don't want surgery). At the bottom of the hierarchy is the cross-dressers, some of whom later turn out to be transsexuals. They're actually despised by many transsexuals. Any hierarchy produces a natural urge to climb. This hierarchy, express or implied, may be driving some people to sexual reassignment who would be better off with less invasive approaches.

4. With all the cross-dressing and hormones and surgery and other body modificaiont going on, surprisingly little thought is put into the meaning of gender to begin with. Gender theorists agree that while sex is biological, gender (perceptions by ourself and others) is a social construct, one which has changed over time. An article "Perspectives Used to Look at Gender" suggests many different "dimensions" of gender:
a) Gender as Identity: I'm a man, therefore my skirt is a man's skirt.
b) Gender as Roles: I'm taking of care of babies and cleaning houses, therefore I'm a woman.
c) Gender as Expression: When I wear a skirt, I become a woman.
d) Gender as Performance: I perform the actions, mannerisms, etc. expectected of a man/woman, therefore that is my gender.

It can get even more complicated, of course, with some people claiming to be "none of the above" when asked whether they're male or female. And some people, believe it or not, wake up each morning and decide what gender they will be, the way you or I wake up in the moring and decide whether we'll wear trousers, shorts, a kilt or a skirt. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to stick with the simplified male/female idea.

So... what perspective(s) of gender are at work driving the transsexual and cross-dresser moements? One need only read the trans message boards to get a clue. Also, there is an entire genre of cross-dressing fantasy literature --- and when deconstructed, it can be VERY revealing in this regard. I would summarize what I've seen by saying that the trans communities, especially the cross-dressing communities, tend toward a very "traditional," stereotypical perspective on gender. The act of putting on a skirt is equated with becoming female; the skirt iself is seen as having feminizing powers. Just about every social activity or situation becomes rigidly gendered --- working at a sports store is male, doing domestic chores is female, ballet is female. The cross-dressing boy is not able to gain access to any female realms until he becomes female himself through cross-dressing --- and at that point, he loses access to male realms. By periodically assuming a female personna, he is able to have access to all realmes he may desire, not just the ones he was assigned at birth.

This stuff is heavy on the perspectives of gender as role, expression and performance --- and non-existant in terms of gender as identity. It can also be seen as mysogenistic, in that maleness is implicitly placed as smarter/better/more powerful than femaleness (except for the few areas in which men lose access as men). The personal identity is seen as malleable and unimportant, bent to the whims of whatever is being expressed, role-played or performed at the moment.

Feminists have (rightfully) heavily criticized the transvestite movement for being retrograde, gender-wise, thereby hindering feminist goals of gender equality in the public sphere. The transsexual community is less rigid and stereotypical in its approach to gender, and more "natural" --- but it has also received its own share of feminist critique.

As I said above, I've seen very little real thought be put into ideas of gender within the trans communities. Too often, these men "know" what a woman is, and they're trying as hard as they can to become or simulate that ideal. Women in reality are somewhat (a lot) more diverse --- and interesting, as people.

---------------------------------------

OK, enough of the literature review. Where does SkirtCafe come in? Hopefully, many of our members were tempted to hit the reply button in earnest reaction to the above summary. "But, but, but....," we are tempted to say, as we see yet another unchallenged assumption go by. I believe that we, a bunch of regular guys yakking on the Internet, have come across a new and potentially ground-breaking approach to gender dysphoria.

It starts with an identity perspective on gender: "I'm a man because inside I know I'm a man." With that foundation, our fundamental masculinity overwhelms any skirt we wear, and any activity we partake in. Or put another way, "my mojo is so strong, it masculizes my skirt." Note that this is the reverse of the classic cross-dresser belief that a skirt feminizes its wearer. As has been said many times in these parts, "it's just a piece of clothing."

So where does this gender dysphoria come from? In many cases, I believe that gender dysphoria is a result of a conflict between our personal identity and needs, and the wider societal expectations of gender as role, expression and performance. Gender is a social construct, but one that is constructed not just once but twice --- once by the individual, and once by society. When the individual and societal construct of gender don't match, that's what can cause problems.

For example, the character Yentl in the movie of the same name experienced gender dysphoria. Why? Because she really, badly wanted an education, and she lived in a society that did not allow women to be educated. She got what she was after by disguising herself as a man, thus providing her access to the university. Was she a transsexual because of her need for an education? In her society, I suppose so. But a woman in America today who wants an education just applies to the university, she doesn't need to bother with breast binding or new names.

Another concrete example here: a boy might have a deep-set need for beauty. He may wish to incarnate that beauty by wearing beautiful clothing and jewelry and having beautiful hair. The problem is that his internal identity (a beautiful boy) now conflicts with the wider social identity of boyhood (only girls should be beautiful). This conflict will result in gender dysphoria.

How is that dysphoria resolved? In the traditional model, this boy will decide that he wants to "be a girl," either part-time or full-time. This desire is driven by his need for beauty and his lack of access to beauty as a boy. He eventually adopts a femme personality, either as a cross-dresser or a transsexual, which allows him the access his personality needs. He (she?) has reconstructed his personal identity in order to match the wider social construct of gender --- "passing" is essential because fitting a pre-defined, immutable gender sterotype is seen as important. The societal construct of gender is seen as immutable, with the personal view required to bend to match, if not this way than that way.

SkirtCafe offers a radical new deconstructionist view. In this case, that boy will modify his social construct of what it means to be a boy or a man. Accepting the idea that boys can be beautiful, he will adorn himself in beautiful ways. Maybe he'll have long hair, or wear earrings, or don a skirt. Statments like "only girls can be beautiful" will be modified to "most kids who want to be be beautiful are girls, but some are boys, and that's OK." The skirt no longer feminizes him, it just satisfies the need he had all along without requiring an identity change. He will no longer feel a need to conform to a feminine standard of beauty, just to be himself. And he won't look like a "freak" either. We know this works, as our growing collection of "non event" stories testafies to.

It's really that simple. But surprisingly, I cannot find even one gender clinic, or even one journal article, that describes or promotes this approach. We are new, and we are under the radar. But I think we're saying something that the psychology profession really needs to take note of, and I believe it could be clinically useful.

-------------------------------------------

So where does that put us? Organizationally, we really are just a bunch of guys yakking on the Internet. We have no assets, not budget, and hence no means to propagate anything. To really effect change, some kind of organization with money needs to be behind us.

I'm considering the possibility of apporaching various gender advocacy organizations, to see if I can pique any of their interests. These are existing organizations that already have connections and resources needed to spread good ideas. If any of our members are willing, we could make ourselves available to give talks on skirts and kilts for men and what it all means, and why we really are just a bunch of regular guys. We need to be perceived as basically mainstream, not yet another minority group.

Top on my list is [url]http://gpac.org[/ulr]. I like them because they span the range of gender issues, rather than being soley focused on the trans community (which can get a little weird, and which may not necessarily give our message a warm welcome).

Anyway, as I said above, I'm hoping this does not put people off. SkirtCafe is still (and will always be) the place for skirts and kilts for men, regardless of your motivation for wearing such alternative fashion.

------------------------------------------

OK, a few links to articles referred to above:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~mpw1/gender_th ... ves4.shtml

http://www.mhsanctuary.com/gender/dsm.htm#para2

http://www.elevated.fsnet.co.uk/index-page7.html

[AMM]

I don't usually like to post to just say, "I agree," but this is one case where I feel compelled to say, this is just what I've been feeling for a long time.

Every now and then I Google phrases like "boys in dresses", "gender variance,", etc., and it is really depressing how every time it comes up, "little Johnny wants to put on a dress" turns into "little Johnny wants to be a girl." Even if little Johnny also likes to play baseball, or is shooting robbers with his cap pistol while dressed as a Princess. It almost amounts to a neuroligical deficiency: the neurons that might hold the idea of a boy both wanting to be a boy and wanting to wear a tutu/put on makeup/take care of a baby are broken, so the idea gets rerouted to the neurons that hold the idea of the boy wanting to be a girl. There is no term for little Johnny, because each new term (I was rooting for "gender variance", since the formal definition is "behavior that differs from the behavior normally assigned to the patient's sex) gets turned into a synonym for transsexualism.

As a man who wants to be a man but also likes to wear skirts, and (occasionally) tights, and might like to try a dress or a frilly blouse, or other things normally reserved for females, this makes me feel like I'm regarded as a non-person. To the Crossdressing community, I don't exist. To the "transgender" community I don't exist. To the entomologists who study "gender variance", I don't exist. The few times I have posted to crossdressing groups, I've had people tell me point-blank that I am deluded about myself, that I'm really female inside and in denial about it. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can't help thinking of a passage in Black Like Me, where Griffin, posing as black in the segregated South, is riding with a white man, who says of all blacks, "... you're just completely off the record as far as we're concerned."

[cessna152towser]

Some interesting thoughts there Bob, and the heading gender dysphoria caught my eye because my long term girlfriend who had been my teenage sweetheart went off with a guy whom I had always regarded as femme and never as a love rival. It turned out he suffered from gender dysphoria and she gave him very considerable support through his surgery in becoming a woman. They now live together as two women sharing a male partner. It took me years to get over the break up - initially I married another girl in haste and she became pregnant on honeymoon with our now adult daughter but we split up within a few months. I eventually married a nice lady later in life, sadly too late for us to have children and I went through many years of hatred of transexuals, homosexuals, indeed anyone whom I didn't see as 100% straight, seeing them as the cause of the breakdown of the traditional society where an ordinary guy would get married to his young sweetheart, produce sons and daughters and live happily ever after. Never would I have considered wearing a kilt or skirt and I thought anyone who did was queer. Then something strange happened. My new lady wife already knew several men who wore kilts. She knew them through her interest in Scottish Country Dancing. She eventually persuaded me to get a kilt which I would wear to go dancing with her. Even then I only regarded it as costume until one day five years ago I injured my leg. Not being able to get into trousers but not wanting to be off work I strapped the kilt round my waist and a colleague drove me to the office. Well the kilt was so well accepted by staff and customers and felt so comfortable compared to the usual trouser suit that I began wearing it regularly. By and by I began to wear kilts almost every day, to the point that I now rarely wear trousers. I began to look for alternative styles and went through solid colour kilts to non-traditional kilts, to a box pleat skirt and unpleated plain denim skirts. All this change has made me much more tolerant of others, and have lost my longstanding antagonism towards homosexuals, transvestites and transgenders. I like to think wearing kilts and skirts has made me a nicer, kinder, more understanding person. Part of the mellowing with age perhaps but I don't see my change of clothing preference as a symptom of any gender dysphoria within myself. I always want to remain a man and have no notion to live a woman's life or to disguise myself as one. I think my change in clothing choice may also be partly down to social change - nowadays my wife always wears trousers. Few women wear skirts nowadays so a skirt is no longer seen as female clothing in the way it would have been twenty years ago.

[Peter v]

This is great stuff, gentle men, and I can't add much to that. Well spoken!

I agree, this site, forum, is just that, a place where MEN can go in safety, comfort, and talk to other MEN, who are on the same wave length, and have a general understanding of OUR situation. Each of us must choose for himself, in his own parameters, in relation to OTHERS, who he is, and what gender he thinks that OTHERS will place him in, and which he is happy with, as a person. As a person, we have NO gender, we only have a gender when ANOTHER looks at us, and HE or SHE has to put us in a place in their mind which THEY can relate to. So in one place you may be an outcast, and in another you may be just another person. All the while you are the same person, with the same feelings. I think that we must all try to be at first our selves, then and only then, should we look around and give ourselves a name that Others can relate to, in their way of thinking. And irregardless of what others think, and name us, we are always ourselves.

Does that make things even more difficult to understand?

By the way, I think that many men fantasise, to being a woman, from the man's vision of being a lussious sexy, beautiful being, which many woman are, but would they think that way if they accepted the other typical womanly things, which are unseperable with being a woman, like having a period for a week every month? I also think that when we have a better, good understanding of how other people's lives are, women's lives are, or much life experience, that we men then better understand who we ourselves are, and are more easily satisfied with how and what we are, may find it easier to give ourselves a "name"as to what we are in the general public's dictionary.

Peter v

[sapphire]

Oh Peter!!!
You said

but would they think that way if they accepted the other typical womanly things, which are unseperable with being a woman, like having a period for a week every month

At the risk of making all of you manly men faint, women who have a period for one week a month are lucky, lucky, lucky.

At the virginal age of 16, I had my first "monthly". I knew what was supposed to happen; my Mom prepared me for normal events and let me stay home from school to learn how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, what happened was that every time I stood up, I hemmoraged and passed clots. Over the next 12 years years, I had multile hemmorages and bleeding that lasted months on end.

For the most part the medical profession was "supportive" by saying it was all in my head, stop complaining and get back to work. F inally a doctor did a more thorough examination which led to the scary diagnosis that unless I had major surgery immediately, I would die.

Post op support for that life threatening condition from my partner (not Carl) was "spread yer legs, satisfy me". All that mattered to that man was that I take care of his needs.

Didn't matter that they split me from sternum to pubis and took out everything they didn't like. Didn't matter that I woke up, fully conscious, several times during surgery.

Try having a fantasy about beoing conscious with your belly split wide open and listening to doctors talking about what your chances are and FEELING everything they are doing to you. And you do not know if you are going to live or die and when you come home, not able to stand up straight, or climb stairs, or cough or laugh without tearing yourself apart, but knowing that you MUST provide sexual satisfaction

Have your fantasies about that happening to you. Being a woman isn't any fun

[Since1982]

Just a small question. All of what was said makes a bunch of sense. Just one thing confused me.

To the entomologists who study "gender variance", I don't exist.

I'm probably wrong, but, (and it's been 40 years since I graduated my last degree in college) I always thought "Entomology" was the study of Insects. Am I incorrect? Did I lose the correct word in my vocabulary through old age and/or mental blurriness?

[sapphire]

entomology = study of insects

etymology = study of words

[r1g0r]

gender dysphoria...

hmm

due to the difference in the way i feel (dressed as i please vs dressed as others would please), i think i will borrow a phrase from the obscure past:

gender EUPHORIA.

that seems much more appropriate.

[sapphire]

There are two issues that seem to be missing from this thread: androgyny and asexuality. Why?

Certainly, in the realm of gender identity issues there are those who do not have a strong sense of "masculine" or "feminine" or who wish to have the freedom to explore those dimesions at will without having a label attached and access to the "other" form of expression barred.

We may see some of that expressed in some posts here. In the world, there are those who prefer to ignore the labels imosed by their genetic configuration, and embrace all of the expressions of all of those labels labels all at once in their own happy (or not) muddle.

How or what would describe me?

As a child, I could sew and cook better than most adults and took great pleasure in creating fantastical machines from my Tinkertoys and Erector sets. I loved Disney and Science Fiction. I studied math, science, history, English and Latin in high school, threw a tantrum when I was not allowed to take mechanical drawing, auto shop or wood shop and threw another tantrum when it was suggested that I take typing, stenography and home economics.

I have laid ceramic tile, taped drywall, sweat soldered pipes, and soldered electronics. I've worked in stained glass, ceramics and weaving. I've built custom stereo equipement, built and repaired computers, created computer networks and databases. I've successfully managed computer projects on three continents. I've taught database design, project management, mathematics and computer science. I've been a Trustee of a college but have never had a baby. (nor wanted to)

When forced into a strictly "feminine" mode of expression, I become suicidal.

I feel more comfortable in the company of men than the company of women. I feel more comfortable in pants than skirts.

I can't get a sense of gender identity from my name. Diana is straightforward enough, but Francis (yes, the male spelling - named for the saint of the same name) muddies the waters of gender identity a bit.

It has been suggested in another thread that because I have two X chromosomes, that I am deficient in the use of rational thought. So much for college degrees and career success.

So in terms of gender identity, just what am I? I've got these two X chromosomes, I've been surgically castrated, am post-menopausal and had a "masculine" career. I don't identify as a "woman" but know that I am not a "man"

What sayest thou?

[Peter v]

First of all, I tried to keep it relatively simple, in my description of what women can go through, just to be one. It can of course be much worse, which I did realise. And that is what I meant to say, that if it were actually possible, to make the fantasy into reality, to actually change sex, as in some movies has been fantasised, it would I think be a shocking experience to go through the things that are inherrant to being a woman. As that are not the things generaaly though about. (it was a sideline of thought).

I know what you are, a very nice person, of a female body, are a woman, and very handy. That description is enough. Weather you can have children, sew or whatever is not relevant. This leaves all deviances of the person inside open. To me atleast. There are however those who may take that litterally, but they have apparently not learnt to think, or just think very narrowly, and those people generally give the problems because they're thinking is so rigid. And you know very well who you are, it is that the others don't or may not have a name for you, that's their problem.

We all know who we are, that is never the problem, it is when we want to be recognised by others, want to know how others will name us, that we then need to have a name, and fit into the other's discription. That is where things start to go astray. Many people only understand man and woman, so you are either one, but as they can't think for themselves, being rigid, when you do things that they see as manly, but also womanly, in their narrow vieuw, then you become either one, or an outcast, that being everyone that is in their eye neither man or women. This goes further and further of course, the more they have learnt, with people having more "specified choices" to choose from and name you. We do not have to fit into what others have in their dictionary. They must think, and see us as we really are, first of all just human beings. Then see if there is a name available that fits us, not the other way around. And then that description is always very spacial. When any description is taken litterally, then that is where the problem is.

Peter v.

[AMM]

(The following "quote" is there mostly to reference the post I am responding to, as I'm not sure which are the most relevant parts. My response may not make sense, or make the wrong sense, if you haven't read sapphire's post.)

There are two issues that seem to be missing from this thread: androgyny and asexuality. Why?

Certainly, in the realm of gender identity issues there are those who do not have a strong sense of "masculine" or "feminine" or who wish to have the freedom to explore those dimesions at will without having a label attached and access to the "other" form of expression barred.

I'm not surprised that androgyny was not mentioned in this thread. SkirtCafe's stated mission is to promote skirt-wearing, etc., as an option for men who wish to continue to regard themselves as men. The focus tends to be upon how to redefine gender-typed clothing in our own minds and in the minds of those around us as "suitable for men," which sort of implies men who see themselves as men, not as some mix of man and woman.

I haven't spoken to "androgyny," because I don't see myself as "a mix of male and female," and so have no experience as to what it's like, any more than I can really speak about what it's like to be pregnant, or to have spent a month on a space station.

Not that I would object to people posting who don't see themselves as being firmly in category "male" or category "female" (as long as they don't put me down for considering myself firmly in category "male"), but I can see how such people might prefer to discuss this aspect of themselves elsewhere.

Also, because this group is about separating what one wears from one's gender identity, I'd guess that people who post here are less likely to feel that their own or other people's gender identity is defined by what they do.

(I can't speak to "asexuality," as I don't know what you mean by it. I'm mostly familiar with it in reference to sexual orientation. That is, completing the square: bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, .... But I have the impression that's not what you meant.)

When forced into a strictly "feminine" mode of expression, I become suicidal.

Since this comment was preceded by all the "male" activities you engage in, I'm guessing you mean by "feminine mode" being restricted to "gender-appropriate" (feh!) activities. I can sympathize: if I were required to restrict myself entirely to certifiably "male" activities, I'd go crazy. (I seem to recall that mass murderers are almost exclusively male, so I could go that route and stay in character!)

So in terms of gender identity, just what am I? I've got these two X chromosomes, I've been surgically castrated, am post-menopausal and had a "masculine" career. I don't identify as a "woman" but know that I am not a "man"

What sayest thou?

Since thou askest me what I say, I say: it's really up to thee. Thou canst do whatever thou wishest. (I also say: thou hast inspired me to revive the English 2nd person singular....)

Thou canst say that the two X chromosomes and perhaps also the presence of certain externally visible organs, etc., are sufficient to define thee as a "woman," and those who wish to define thee otherwise based on irrelevancies such as thy vocations, thy avocations, and thy manner of dress can go to H---, do not pass GO, do not collect $100. (This is the standard feminist approach, and it's also more or less mine as well.)

Thou canst define thyself as "male" on the basis of thy interests, or thy inability to bear children, thy preferred companions, etc. And perhaps have thy body modified to fit society's expectation of how a "male" looks without clothing. (Or not.)

Thou canst define thyself as "all of the above" or "none of the above," and/or define thyself as belonging to a third gender, or a fourth, or an n-th gender, and define thy own "gender-appropriate" categories, not to mention pronouns.

Etc.

[sapphire]

Well, shut my mouth..... I thought this thread was about gender dysphoria. I didn't realize that the discussion was restricted to male gender dysphoria.

Androgyny refers to people, as you correctly point out, who exerience both masculine and feminine at once. . In looking at the spectrum of gender identities or confusion about gender identities androgyny fits as validly as trans folks, et al.

Asexuality also fits in the physical, emotional, psychologicial specturm of gender identity disorders and human sexuality and effects both XX and XY persons (and perhaps XXY). These people experience negligible or no sexual urges, although they are able to develop intimate relationships that are not based on sexual contact. These people identify as male or female

I believe asexuality also has a place in the understanding of human sexuality and gender identity.

Then in trying to understand human sexuality, there are people who identify as neuter, neither male nor female.

So, a question for Bob. What did you intend for this thread? XY people only? What about Kleinfelter's people? Oh yeah, let's not leave out the Chimeras.

[Bob]

Sapphire, I admit I wrote what I did from my own perspective, which is XY. Also, gender dysphoria and "cross dressing" are most commonly "diagnosed" in men; most agree this is because of narrower social bounds of gender presentation "allowed" for men. I mean, if women are "allowed" to wear trousers or ties or tuxedos, etc, then a woman can't be "cross-dressed" while doing so, right? This fact alone should make one question the established "wisdom" in the psychology profession.

I did mention Yentl as a possible example of "gender dysphoria" and "cross-dressing" among women. Anyone watching the movie today will also realize that this was not "mental illness," but rather a woman denied opportunities that she desired and that men had as a matter of right. Thus, we would not call it "gender dysphoria," although people might if they weren't able to get their minds around women going to school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yentl

But a quick answer to your question: absolutely, your views from your XX perspective are absolutely welcome. You continue to make insightful observations on this forum, to everyone's benefit.

[Bob]

Sapphire, I admit I wrote what I did from my own perspective, which is XY. Also, gender dysphoria and "cross dressing" are most commonly "diagnosed" in men; most agree this is because of narrower social bounds of gender presentation "allowed" for men. I mean, if women are "allowed" to wear trousers or ties or tuxedos, etc, then a woman can't be "cross-dressed" while doing so, right? This fact alone should make one question the established "wisdom" in the psychology profession.

I did mention Yentl as a possible example of "gender dysphoria" and "cross-dressing" among women. Anyone watching the movie today will also realize that this was not "mental illness," but rather a woman denied opportunities that she desired and that men had as a matter of right. Thus, we would not call it "gender dysphoria," although people might if they weren't able to get their minds around women going to school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yentl

But a quick answer to your question: absolutely, your views from your XX perspective are absolutely welcome. You continue to make insightful observations on this forum, to everyone's benefit.

My quick answer to your first post: I see you as a woman because that's what you look like to me. I do not see gender as being constructed through our activities --- thus, your long list of "classically male" activities don't make you look any more or less female to me.

Also, I am very opposed to the (often-cited) equating of womanhood with ability to reproduce. Such a construction marginalizes women who for one reason or another have "issues" with the reproductive system. We just adopted, I don't see my wife as being "less than a woman" because of our infertility, and I resent those who do.

[sapphire]

I agree that men function within a

much more narrow social boundary of gender presentation "allowed" for men

Women have worn pants for a very long time, but the general, widespread acceptance of women in pants in a wide variety of social settings is a relatively recent social phenomenon: 50-60 yrs.

Prior to that widespread social acceptance, women in pants were considered cross dressers. It still stands that when a woman dresses in trousers and other male garments so as to appear as a man, she is considered to be cross-dressing and/or the woman is thought to be in drag.

Two examples:

In my family's archives are photographs of my grandmother dressed in a man's suit. The pictures were done as a joke. The man's suit belonged to my grandfather and my grandfather, a professional photographer, took the pictures. However, for the time, the 19-teens, my grandmother was considered a cross dresser.

At a fundraiser for the college, the Trustees posed as gangsters and folks were betting on which "gangster" would score highest in a game of pool. Well, the college President was a woman, and she dressed up in drag and even won the game of pool

She also looked equally good in a hard hat and work boots as she did in an evening gown or a skirted suit.

OK, those are examples of cross dressing by women for fun and do not represent gender identity issues.

During my career, I have had female lesbian employees who would NOT wear skirts and dressed as men and wore men's haircuts. These women identified as men. In this instance I'd call their fashion choices as cross dressing because of the intent behind their decisions. I would consider these women to have gender identity issues.

One thing of note, my therapist does not consider Carl's skirt wearing as cross dressing or in any wa "deviant" He regards Carl's skirt wearing as an unusual fashion choice.