Mixing Menswear & Womenswear

[Tor]

Here we need to be really careful as the term is used quite differently even in various English-speaking cultures. For instance, "vest" in US English describes a formal or semi-formal sleeveless garment. That's a "waistcoat" in UK English (and, as a bit of an obsolete usage in US English) -- for the Brits, a "vest" is what Yanks would know as a "wifebeater" (an unfortunate term, but I'm sure it's that for a reason). This is why I use the older term "waistcoat" in my posts to describe some of my kit -- I don't want that confusion. Yes, it can make me sound pompous (as in "pompous ass"), but I'm willing to pay that price to get the clarity.

Interesting... And here I was tending to make the distinction that a "vest" was either a lightweight sleeveless garment typically high-visibility for safety, or a heavy-weight sleeveless garment to keep the torso warm, while the similar sleeveless garment for elegance or formality was a waistcoat. Probably is (thanks in part to you, and I think rightly) in part due to the usage here on the forum.

Yes, I have often thought that spending some time studying the rootstock languages of English would be fun (especially in a greater understanding of modern English), but haven't actually taken the time to do so.

[skirtyscot]

Here we need to be really careful as the term is used quite differently even in various English-speaking cultures. For instance, "vest" ...

And all the more so when using the word "suspenders"! Are you trying to keep your trousers or your stockings up?

[Sinned]

Adding my 2d worth. I wear some clothes - hosiery, underwear, skirts, trousers, tops, the odd dress ( but not all combinations at the same time ) that are MARKETED towards women but in the majority of the things I have they are pretty asexual, as in there are no frills or flowers to particularly identify them as feminine. I emphasise marketed because unless clothes are cut for a particular body form clothes can be for either sex and it is only marketing and social conventions that at the moment dictate who should ( but not necessarily could ) wear them. Consequently I don't identify myself as a cross dresser or transvestite as has been defined in previous entries. I wear clothes that I like, think that I look presentable in and have the confidence to appear in to the general public even though certain parties close to me aren't comfortable with me doing so. I don't want to present myself as a woman but to wear the clothes that I want to wear when I want to wear them.

Drk's posts about cross dressing and transvestism that has triggered a great deal of comment here have been particularly distasteful to me as I don't consider myself and a great many of you as belonging to those particular groups. But life is short and words mean what they mean and I'm not particularly going to get upset about a differing of opinion.

[crfriend]

Drk's posts about cross dressing and transvestism that has triggered a great deal of comment here have been particularly distasteful to me as I don't consider myself and a great many of you as belonging to those particular groups. But life is short and words mean what they mean and I'm not particularly going to get upset about a differing of opinion.

It is possible that Derek was trolling for a response -- and he got one, although probably not quite what he was looking for.

From a strictly literal interpretation -- bereft of all the baggage and junk that society overlays on words -- technically when we don an article of clothing that was specifically designed for the other sex we (and this means both men and women) are crossdressing, whether these by Y-front "tighty-whities" that gals seem to like or a bloke in a skirt. However, given the vagaries of the human shape, what may have been originally designed for one sex may happen to work quite well on the other if the overall shape is right: what does that become?

Given the current vogue for women to have teenage-boy-like bodies, seemingly bereft of curves, this means that a whole lot of clothing designed for that body-type will work on guys of similar build and stature. In this case are the designers consciously designing for women -- or are they really designing for both men and women? If the question was put to them directly, they'll probably say they're designing strictly for women (although given the body-type in mind, they're really designing for scaled-up little-girl's bodies); however, he upshot remains the same. in my new job I'm out and about when there are more people around, and some of the body-types are almost reminiscent of concentration-camp photos from the second World War; the current fad for "capri-length" leggings doesn't help, either.

The worst problem, though, is the way that society and local culture associates value with words -- and in this case the "value" of both "crossdressing" and "transvestism" is entirely and wholly negative. It is for that reason that neither of those terms are particularly welcome here unless we can detach from those "values" and approach the matter strictly rationally and check our emotions at the door. Checking one's emotions at the door is a very difficult thing to do, which is why I wince each and every time I see either of those words here.

[Ron]

and what about places were men wore and still wear skirt like cloths?
are you going to call them crossdressers too?

and these guys who wear what could be called a dress

[couyalair]

The men on Ron,s pics are definitely not cross dressing, since the women of their culture do not wear garments such as the ones shown and which are commonly worn by men.
I would even say their long clothes have nothing to do with our liking for the Unbifurcated life, since they wear trousers under their robes, as is clear in the second photo.
Martin

[Ron]

The men on Ron,s pics are definitely not cross dressing, since the women of their culture do not wear garments such as the ones shown and which are commonly worn by men.
I would even say their long clothes have nothing to do with our liking for the Unbifurcated life, since they wear trousers under their robes, as is clear in the second photo.
Martin

while it is true some wear trousers under there robes it is the idea that they are wearing something that looks dress like.
here is some from another part of the world.

[pelmut]

From a strictly literal interpretation -- bereft of all the baggage and junk that society overlays on words -- technically when we don an article of clothing that was specifically designed for the other sex we (and this means both men and women) are crossdressing,

I design and make most of my own skirts so I am definitely not cross-dressing when I wear them - but any man who buys an identical skirt off-the-peg in the women's department of a shop and then wears it, technically, becomes a cross dresser. One or two of my skirts were given to me by women, who didn't want to wear them any more - so if I wear those, then I'm a cross-dresser (but I'm not telling anyone which ones they are, so they can't tell if am cross-dressing or not). Oh what a tangled web...

I am a great believer in preserving and continuing to use some of the older words and expressions in our languge, but the sooner that bit of idiotic and obsolete terminology is knocked on the head and buried, the better.

[Tor]

It is possible that Derek was trolling for a response -- and he got one, although probably not quite what he was looking for.

Now that I think about it, you could be right. Ah, well. A levelheaded trawl through dictionaries for changes in sense and definition of words over time probably isn't especially rewarding to a troll. Besides, even if that were the intent, it hopefully gives the rest of us some interesting and useful insight that can help in conversations with others about the question.

I design and make most of my own skirts so I am definitely not cross-dressing when I wear them - but any man who buys an identical skirt off-the-peg in the women's department of a shop and then wears it, technically, becomes a cross dresser. One or two of my skirts were given to me by women, who didn't want to wear them any more - so if I wear those, then I'm a cross-dresser (but I'm not telling anyone which ones they are, so they can't tell if am cross-dressing or not). Oh what a tangled web...

I suppose you are technically right - and it underscores the ambiguity of the words. Better (probably) to simply move towards a different word (probably already existing that I'm not calling to mind just now) for those who like clothes aimed at the opposite sex for that reason, and leave the rest of us alone. Of course, that's a rather tall order, but without the thought expressed movement cannot start.

[crfriend]

I suppose you are technically right - and it underscores the ambiguity of the words. Better (probably) to simply move towards a different word (probably already existing that I'm not calling to mind just now) for those who like clothes aimed at the opposite sex for that reason, and leave the rest of us alone. Of course, that's a rather tall order, but without the thought expressed movement cannot start.

That's all very well and good, but what about those of us who choose to grab something from "the other side of the aisle" for reasons other than the fact that the articles are marketed towards women? For instance, reasons of fabric choice, colour choice, garment cut, or any reason other than trying to "embrace femininity" -- do those reasons drive us automatically afoul of society and its definition of crossdressing?

The point I'm driving at here is that, no matter what society thinks, there are more factors in play than (supposed) perversion.

[Tor]

That's all very well and good, but what about those of us who choose to grab something from "the other side of the aisle" for reasons other than the fact that the articles are marketed towards women?

By preference, let the word die on the vine and leave us to be men - who may happen to like less common garb (for men, that is). As I said, a rather tall order. Hard to reach utopia without a blueprint thereof, and probably a mountaintop too high in our own futures, but possessing such a blueprint at least gives a notion of direction.

As for most people's current definition, probably we do run afoul of it, and end up looked upon as fitting some of the other reasons (false though the latter may be). Hard to be a leader in much of any change without being on the receiving end of derision from one quarter or another, if perhaps not obviously expressed.

[crfriend]

By preference, let the word die on the vine and leave us to be men - who may happen to like less common garb (for men, that is).

That's my main thrust. Just let it go as a quaint anachronism from the past.

As for most people's current definition, probably we do run afoul of it, and end up looked upon as fitting some of the other reasons (false though the latter may be). Hard to be a leader in much of any change without being on the receiving end of derision from one quarter or another, if perhaps not obviously expressed.

Indeed, and that's a risk we put ourselves at when we try to lead -- as does everybody else who tries to lead, but a world without leaders would be a pretty unchanging and stagnant place. And we all know the sorts of things that fester in stagnancy.

Onward and, hopefully, upward!

[pelmut]

By preference, let the word die on the vine and leave us to be men - who may happen to like less common garb (for men, that is).

That's my main thrust. Just let it go as a quaint anachronism from the past.

I've been giving this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that the term "transvestite" (or "cross dresser") applies to the intent, rather than to the act, this is why many of us get a bit indignant when the term is misused to describe what we do.

A transvestite wears a skirt *because* it is perceived by many people as women's clothing.
A man in a skirt wears it *despite* it being perceived by many people as women's clothing.

Unfortunately there is no easy way the casual bystander can discriminate between the two, so their brain takes the easiest way out. Tranvestism is more widely known (if only through schoolboy jokes) than men wearing skirts for comfort or other reasons, so they immediately latch on to that as the obvious explanation. Only if the context (public places), demeanor of the wearer (treating it as normal) and style of the garment itself (appropriate and non-provocative) demonstrate that this isn't being done for exibitionism or some sort of private sexual thrill, will they start looking for another explanation.

Sullen catwalk models, outrageous pop stars and drag exhibitionists do nothing to help our cause; but we can aid it ourselves by just going about our normal lives, wearing skirts when the opportunity arises, and getting people used to the idea that a man in a skirt might be wearing it just because it is comfortable or convenient and for no other reasons.

[Ralph]

A transvestite wears a skirt *because* it is perceived by many people as women's clothing.
A man in a skirt wears it *despite* it being perceived by many people as women's clothing.

That's some brilliant insight, pelmut. Unfortunately I think I still manage to fall through the cracks somewhere in between. I do wear the skirts and dresses as a man wearing them, with no desire or attempt to look the least bit female. And yet... the clothes I am drawn to, the ones that scratch that indescribable itch, are invariably the ones that are undeniably more feminine -- certainly more feminine than clothes worn by most women in the past 30-50 years. Soft, silky fabrics, layers of ridiculously impractical skirts, ribbons and ruffles.

I'm sure there is some deep psychological issue that these clothes address for me, but I can't for the life of me figure it out and after more than half a century, I've given up trying. I yam what I yam.

[dillon]

Popeye! And I second that emotion. Be who you are; you only get one chance to be that unique person; embrace him! Go with the flow of your own muddy river. Live your life and love it!