Explain cross-dressing to me, please

[DrZoidberg]

I have been peripherally exposed to people who are dealing with cross-dressing. And I know nothing about it.

Is it a gender issue?
A hobby?
An art?
A fetish?
Something people like to do in private only?
Sometimes private?
I guess I know there are performers in cross dressing
Does it affect sexual identity?
Does it tend to affect it in the same way in most people who do it?

What would a supportive person need to know about it when interacting with an adult cross-dresser, or a teen? Or a child?

My baseline take on this is that it doesn't really have anything to do with me other than not really caring if the person I am talking to, meeting with, etc is a cross dresser or is currently cross dressing as we meet. But maybe I should know a little more about it in the case of a teen seeking reassurance since total uncaring is probably not what they are hoping for at the very first.

I can tell you about cross-dressing. Once I worked at a company where I shared a desk with two gay guys. One was a drag queen and the other a cross-dresser. I worked there for years and I got to talk extensively about their interest in it. So now I have deep knowledge about the psychological mechanisms behind it. Like you, I had no clue. The phenomena is to me entirely baffling. I don´t think it´s wrong or distasteful in any way. Rather the opposite. I love cross dressers. When I see one they always brighten up my day.

Basically, cross-dressers have very rigid definitions for what is manly and feminine and what type of behaviour is allowed or mandated for either group. By taking on a persona of the opposite gender they give themselves permission to engage in behaviours, they find, appropriate for that gender.

I was raised by liberal hippies in the 70´ies. So I was never taught that men and women aren´t allowed to do certain things. These guys at work taught me that, this upbringing robbed me of the tools to understand cross-dressing. You have to have a pretty conservative mindset for cross-dressing to at all be on the table. Yeah, I know. It sounds contradictory. But that was my impression. I´m also extremely and rigidly boringly straight. So most things regarding gayness has a tendency to fly right over my head. I just don´t get it without asking them.

I also learned that drag-queens has nothing to do with sex. It´s just that women are, for cultural reasons, allowed to have more outrageous clothes than men. It´s simply more fun for performers.

I have an anecdote regarding cross-dressing. I once lost a bet and part of the deal was to go to a club in drag. It was me and a gay friend who went. On the way home from the club a gang of four hip-hop thugs come up to us and asks in a menacing manner if we´re "fags". My friend immediately says "Yes. What are you going to do about it, little nerds". Which thought was an unnecessary escalation of the situation. But then my friend proceeds to kick the shit out of all four before I even have a chance to react. To my defence I was incredibly drunk. The thugs pretty quickly turn and limp away into the night. After a moment of stunned silence we burst out laughing, and then went home to my place to drink some more. Good times.

I now admire all women who can pull off walking in high-heels. It´s hard to do without looking like a bent legged monkey.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Google is you friend.
This isn't the answer but does indicate that there are different reasons for different people.

http://www.lightinthecloset.org/WhyDoICrossdress.html

WHY DO I CROSS DRESS?
Insights and Comments from 12 Cross-dressers

Many men who cross dress are not even sure why they do. Although the feelings are strong and compelling, the reason or the catalyst as to the "why" is elusive. Most are not able to articulate much beyond some vague compelling feeling. "It just feels good" or "I feel like the real me while cross-dressing" are the most common reasons given to family and friends as to why a person would pursue this expression. However, there is a concrete and knowable reality behind the need for genetic males to express the feminine through cross-dressing, even if they themselves are not aware of it. They range from curiosity and sexual stimulation, to gender identity and even, in rare cases, mental illness. Some explore the opposite gender as a way to connect with suppressed emotions. Others use cross-dressing (CDing) to experience a different life-perspective. The one thing most all cross-dressers have in common is that the need is neither frivolous, nor easily dismissed.

To help understand the mind-set of a cross-dresser, I have solicited the thoughts of twelve people who identify as transgender. None of those surveyed deal with serious mental illness. All those participating would be considered fairly mainstream. All live the bulk of their day as male, or what is referred to as "in male-mode." Most of their friends and family members are unaware of their need to cross dress. In other words, they would appear to most in society as "normal, upstanding male citizens." All identify as Christian, and most are either leaders or active members in their perspective churches.

............

Trans-gender is something completely different than cross dressing. It´s not dressing up as another gender and taking on a persona. Transgenderism is to strongly identify with the other gender. A cross-dresser always has a kind of emotional distance to the feminine side which transgendered people do not have at all.

 

[dystopian]

Trans-gender is something completely different than cross dressing. It´s not dressing up as another gender and taking on a persona. Transgenderism is to strongly identify with the other gender. A cross-dresser always has a kind of emotional distance to the feminine side which transgendered people do not have at all.

You seem to feel very confident in making authoritative statements about what the cross-dresser mentality is based purely on your own anecdotal experiences with a few cross-dressers. The truth is that while the reasons you have listed in your posts may (or may not) be the general mentality/reasons for cross-dressing, it is without doubt false to claim they are universal. People do the same things for many different reasons; and this will apply to cross-dressing as much as anything else.

Cross-dressing isn't something that can be defined as belonging to only a specific subculture/mentality. Cross-dressing is just an activity, one which can be engaged in for many different reasons. Transgendered individuals can engage in it the same as non-transgender cross-dressers. A transgendered individual may cross-dress as a way of having the outside match the inside; especially as a first step or a way of testing the waters. Another cross-dresser might do it simply because they have a preference for clothes of the opposite gender with absolutely none of the rigid mindset you described. Others, depending on culture, do it for purely practical reasons (like a woman in a male-dominated society passing herself off as male so she can get an education or a job or simply walk around outside without being hassled). For some, it is explicitly a sexual fetish; for others sex has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trans-gender is something completely different than cross dressing. It´s not dressing up as another gender and taking on a persona. Transgenderism is to strongly identify with the other gender. A cross-dresser always has a kind of emotional distance to the feminine side which transgendered people do not have at all.

You seem to feel very confident in making authoritative statements about what the cross-dresser mentality is based purely on your own anecdotal experiences with a few cross-dressers. The truth is that while the reasons you have listed in your posts may (or may not) be the general mentality/reasons for cross-dressing, it is without doubt false to claim they are universal. People do the same things for many different reasons; and this will apply to cross-dressing as much as anything else.

Cross-dressing isn't something that can be defined as belonging to only a specific subculture/mentality. Cross-dressing is just an activity, one which can be engaged in for many different reasons. Transgendered individuals can engage in it the same as non-transgender cross-dressers. A transgendered individual may cross-dress as a way of having the outside match the inside; especially as a first step or a way of testing the waters. Another cross-dresser might do it simply because they have a preference for clothes of the opposite gender with absolutely none of the rigid mindset you described. Others, depending on culture, do it for purely practical reasons (like a woman in a male-dominated society passing herself off as male so she can get an education or a job or simply walk around outside without being hassled). For some, it is explicitly a sexual fetish; for others sex has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I respect your views even though I suspect you are wrong. You witness of a variety of motivations that I have zero support for. The guys at my work also told me about all their cross-dressing friends. They were very much out and proud about it. I do think that our opinions are somewhat compatible since my justifications are pretty general, and yours are more specific. But mostly I think you´re just plain wrong. People just aren´t all that different. Superficially, sure. But deep down we´re all pretty similar no matter how kinky we are. All kinky activities have a pretty basic and very normal psychological foundation.

I also hate how gender issues have been so politicized. Peoples political opinions get to inform how they read the science. Very annoying.

 

[dystopian]

I respect your views even though I suspect you are wrong. You witness of a variety of motivations that I have zero support for. The guys at my work also told me about all their cross-dressing friends. They were very much out and proud about it. I do think that our opinions are somewhat compatible since my justifications are pretty general, and yours are more specific. But mostly I think you´re just plain wrong. People just aren´t all that different. Superficially, sure. But deep down we´re all pretty similar no matter how kinky we are. All kinky activities have a pretty basic and very normal psychological foundation.

So let me get this right.

You've had a couple of people tell you what *their* motivations for a thing are; and you believe them....

...but you reject the countless other people in this world who tell us that they do the exact same thing for entirely *different* motivations.

And you do this, because you think we're all essentially the same...

...even though you don't actually have any evidence for this; and are just asserting it without in any way establishing that cross-dressers can only do it for the reason you mentioned, instead of *also* the perfectly understandable and plausible (not to mention, self-reported) reasons I mentioned.

Thereby directly invalidating everybody whose motivations don't fit into your narrow understanding of the subject and essentially telling them they're lying to themselves, but *you* know the truth; whereas what I'm saying (and pretty much everyone else here) is to not make sweeping statements and draw prejudiced conclusions about a person's reasons for doing what they do but rather just *ask* the individual why they do it instead of *telling* them why they're doing it.

And I should take you seriously why?

I also hate how gender issues have been so politicized. Peoples political opinions get to inform how they read the science. Very annoying.

Oh the irony of someone believing that people are all the same; and who therefore tells people why they're cross-dressers instead of allowing for the cross-dressers to diverge from this explanation because that would conflict with the belief that people are all the same; complaining about other people's political opinions informing how they read the facts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So let me get this right.

You've had a couple of people tell you what *their* motivations for a thing are; and you believe them....

They were very convincing and we spent a lot of time together.

...but you reject the countless other people in this world who tell us that they do the exact same thing for entirely *different* motivations.

You´ll need to back that statement up with evidence. Yes, I´m aware that I´m light on the evidence. But I´ll need evidence from you for me to swing my opinions around.

And you do this, because you think we're all essentially the same...

Yes, all humans have extremely similar emotional needs. How we differ is in how those needs are met. But essentially, the underlying psychological mechanism I´d say are pretty universal for all humans.

...even though you don't actually have any evidence for this; and are just asserting it without in any way establishing that cross-dressers can only do it for the reason you mentioned, instead of *also* the perfectly understandable and plausible (not to mention, self-reported) reasons I mentioned.

Evidence please

Thereby directly invalidating everybody whose motivations don't fit into your narrow understanding of the subject and essentially telling them they're lying to themselves

WTF?!?

, but *you* know the truth; whereas what I'm saying (and pretty much everyone else here) is to not make sweeping statements and draw prejudiced conclusions about a person's reasons for doing what they do but rather just *ask* the individual why they do it instead of *telling* them why they're doing it.

And I should take you seriously why?

I did ask and got an answer. A very good and well thought out answer IMHO

I also hate how gender issues have been so politicized. Peoples political opinions get to inform how they read the science. Very annoying.

Oh the irony of someone believing that people are all the same; and who therefore tells people why they're cross-dressers instead of allowing for the cross-dressers to diverge from this explanation because that would conflict with the belief that people are all the same; complaining about other people's political opinions informing how they read the facts.

Allowing cross-dressers speak for themselves is EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING! I think it´s you who are running wild with speculation and ramming your opinions down their throats.

 

[dystopian]

They were very convincing and we spent a lot of time together.

The point seems to elude you. What they said was perfectly valid...

...for them.

You´ll need to back that statement up with evidence. Yes, I´m aware that I´m light on the evidence. But I´ll need evidence from you for me to swing my opinions around.

...how about just, doing a google search on people explaining why they cross-dress, so that you can actually see the wide range of motivations on offer instead of relying on your own anecdotal evidence? Or you know, use some common sense? Seriously, why the fuck should I have to provide you with evidence for something as blisteringly obvious as the fact that people have different reasons to do stuff? Do you really, for instance, think there has never been a woman who cross-dresses purely for practical reasons like getting a job? Or do you think that somehow doesn't count as cross-dressing?

Yes, all humans have extremely similar emotional needs. How we differ is in how those needs are met. But essentially, the underlying psychological mechanism I´d say are pretty universal for all humans.

While generally true; it is by no means universally true; as easily demonstrable by the existence of countless people with divergent neurotypes. One can not claim universal psychological and emotional mechanisms in a world where (for example) sociopathy is thought to be as prevalent as 5% of the total population. There are simply far too many different psychologies and alternate neurological states to define humans in anything approaching universal terms. Furthermore, even if it were true (and it isn't) that people all share the same emotional needs and psychological mechanisms, this does not translate to have the same motivations for doing things. As you yourself already acknowledge: "people differ in how they meet their needs". You make a gross mistake in assuming that cross-dressing fills only a singular need, when there is absolutely no reason to believe this and ample reason to believe the opposite. Again; people can engage in activities for different reasons. Just as someone can play a game of pool because he enjoys the application of skill involved while another enjoys it purely for the social interaction; someone can enjoy cross-dressing for different reasons, meeting different needs.

This is why it is a mistake to declare what cross-dressing is, rather than just ask the individual cross-dresser why they're doing it.

Evidence please

Again; I really should not have to provide 'evidence' for that which is painfully obvious. The idea that I should present evidence for the notion that people do things for different reasons is absurd; we don't demand evidence for that notion with literally any other topic. We don't demand evidence that people can like a tv-show for different reasons, so why the hell should we demand it for something like cross-dressing?

However, since you are apparently incapable of investigating for yourself;

On this site, a cross-dresser goes into their reasons, which appear to focus a great deal on sexuality, and who appears to view it as some sort of defect.
http://www.catherinel.tvheaven.com/custom.html

Here's a guy who as he describes in the first article just likes how the clothes look. No real sexual component to it. In the second article he explains that; in complete contrast to the explanation you gave; he does not have a rigid definition of male/feminine and in fact doesn't see gender as a binary thing; he doesn't see particular clothes as being male or feminine, he just sees them as clothes.

http://www.hisblackdress.com/2012/06/behind-seams-why-i-wear-dresses-i.html
http://www.hisblackdress.com/2012/06/behind-seams-why-i-wear-dresses-i.html

Alternatively, why not go to a cross-dressing forum (like this one: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?1-Male-to-Female-Crossdressing& ), and ask people for the reasons why they do it? I guarantee you that you will not find a single explanation.

There, three links that took me about 30 seconds to find.

WTF?!?

I realize you may not comprehend it; but that's exactly what you're doing. You made a very firm and absolute statement of why people cross-dress while rejecting out of hand any other reasons as valid. You only allow for the explanation that you have latched onto and in doing so you're invalidating people's own motivations and reasons. Do you really not understand how incredibly insulting that can be to someone? If I went up to you and told you why you were "x" (x being something that you consider important to your identity); you would probably find it incredibly arrogant of me to think I can just declare such things about you. Especially if what I'm saying doesn't actually match with what you know about yourself and your reasons.

I did ask and got an answer. A very good and well thought out answer IMHO

And then you stopped asking; and assumed the answer you got applied to everyone else. That is the problem.

Allowing cross-dressers speak for themselves is EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING!

No, you're demonstrably doing the exact opposite. You asked a few cross-dressers, got an answer, and are now projecting that answer on cross-dressers everywhere and rejecting all the *other* answers that are just as valid.

I think it´s you who are running wild with speculation and ramming your opinions down their throats.

Hard to see how I'm doing that when all I'm doing is allowing for a variety of motivations for cross-dressing to be valid instead of just whichever one I'm partial to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The point seems to elude you. What they said was perfectly valid...

...for them.

Wtf is your problem? Yes, obviously for them. And they convinced me. Which is why I claim that I understand this now.

You´ll need to back that statement up with evidence. Yes, I´m aware that I´m light on the evidence. But I´ll need evidence from you for me to swing my opinions around.

...how about just, doing a google search on people explaining why they cross-dress, so that you can actually see the wide range of motivations on offer instead of relying on your own anecdotal evidence? Or you know, use some common sense? Seriously, why the fuck should I have to provide you with evidence for something as blisteringly obvious as the fact that people have different reasons to do stuff?

I don´t get what you´re so upset about.

Do you really, for instance, think there has never been a woman who cross-dresses purely for practical reasons like getting a job? Or do you think that somehow doesn't count as cross-dressing?

Doesn´t that fall within my definition?

Yes, all humans have extremely similar emotional needs. How we differ is in how those needs are met. But essentially, the underlying psychological mechanism I´d say are pretty universal for all humans.

While generally true; it is by no means universally true; as easily demonstrable by the existence of countless people with divergent neurotypes. One can not claim universal psychological and emotional mechanisms in a world where (for example) sociopathy is thought to be as prevalent as 5% of the total population. There are simply far too many different psychologies and alternate neurological states to define humans in anything approaching universal terms. Furthermore, even if it were true (and it isn't) that people all share the same emotional needs and psychological mechanisms, this does not translate to have the same motivations for doing things. As you yourself already acknowledge: "people differ in how they meet their needs". You make a gross mistake in assuming that cross-dressing fills only a singular need, when there is absolutely no reason to believe this and ample reason to believe the opposite. Again; people can engage in activities for different reasons. Just as someone can play a game of pool because he enjoys the application of skill involved while another enjoys it purely for the social interaction; someone can enjoy cross-dressing for different reasons, meeting different needs.

I didn´t say cross-dressing fills a singular need. What I said was that only people with pretty rigid gender ideas/ or rigid concepts about gender will get a kick out of cross-dressing.

This is why it is a mistake to declare what cross-dressing is, rather than just ask the individual cross-dresser why they're doing it.

Which is what I did. But whatever....

Evidence please

Again; I really should not have to provide 'evidence' for that which is painfully obvious. The idea that I should present evidence for the notion that people do things for different reasons is absurd; we don't demand evidence for that notion with literally any other topic. We don't demand evidence that people can like a tv-show for different reasons, so why the hell should we demand it for something like cross-dressing?

However, since you are apparently incapable of investigating for yourself;

On this site, a cross-dresser goes into their reasons, which appear to focus a great deal on sexuality, and who appears to view it as some sort of defect.
http://www.catherinel.tvheaven.com/custom.html

Here's a guy who as he describes in the first article just likes how the clothes look. No real sexual component to it. In the second article he explains that; in complete contrast to the explanation you gave; he does not have a rigid definition of male/feminine and in fact doesn't see gender as a binary thing; he doesn't see particular clothes as being male or feminine, he just sees them as clothes.

http://www.hisblackdress.com/2012/06/behind-seams-why-i-wear-dresses-i.html
http://www.hisblackdress.com/2012/06/behind-seams-why-i-wear-dresses-i.html

Alternatively, why not go to a cross-dressing forum (like this one: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?1-Male-to-Female-Crossdressing& ), and ask people for the reasons why they do it? I guarantee you that you will not find a single explanation.

There, three links that took me about 30 seconds to find.

My explanation is on a higher level than all of these. There´s no contradiction between the statements.

I did ask and got an answer. A very good and well thought out answer IMHO

And then you stopped asking; and assumed the answer you got applied to everyone else. That is the problem.

That´s how knowledge works. When you´re satisfied with an explanation you apply it until the explanation stops working. Yes, I continually question my beliefs. I think I´m fairly good at it, being a sceptic at heart. But obviously there´s a limit to how much it´s practical to keep questioning held beliefs.

Allowing cross-dressers speak for themselves is EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING!

No, you're demonstrably doing the exact opposite. You asked a few cross-dressers, got an answer, and are now projecting that answer on cross-dressers everywhere and rejecting all the *other* answers that are just as valid.

...erm... no.

 

[dystopian]

Wtf is your problem? Yes, obviously for them. And they convinced me. Which is why I claim that I understand this now.

My problem is the arrogance inherent in that claim; especially in regards to you attempt to apply it universally. People just aren't that simple to explain.

Doesn´t that fall within my definition?

No, it doesn't. Your definition assigns an emotional motivation to cross-dressers based on their rigid personal opinions about gender roles. A woman cross-dressing in order to get a job is not motivated by such a personal rigid opinion but rather the rigid opinion of their society.

I didn´t say cross-dressing fills a singular need. What I said was that only people with pretty rigid gender ideas/ or rigid concepts about gender will get a kick out of cross-dressing.

Which as we've seen is demonstrably false.

My explanation is on a higher level than all of these. There´s no contradiction between the statements.

...a "higher" level. Riiight. Let's assume for a moment you meant a more 'fundamental' level instead of the way more insulting way that sentence actually reads... it's still proven wrong by the blog I linked to. Your explanation relies on cross-dressers having rigid-definitions of what's masculine and feminine. That is the core claim your entire explanation revolves around. Yet here we have a cross-dresser who clearly does NOT have such a rigid definition, and who in fact hardly separates between masculine and feminine. This immediately eliminates, completely, the possibility that your explanation is universally true.

That´s how knowledge works.

No, it's not. That's how confirmation bias works.

Yes, I continually question my beliefs.

Except for when you don't, like here? Indeed, if you're going to claim that you're continuously questioning your beliefs, you really want to avoid using the very next sentence you put out to argue that there's a limit to how practical it is to question them; it undermines the preceding sentence.

But obviously there´s a limit to how much it´s practical to keep questioning held beliefs.

Except that argument doesn't apply when you're faced with a whole bunch of people telling you your belief about them is wrong when the belief you hold concerns itself entirely with their motivations. There is no better evidence as to what a person's motivations are then them *telling you what their motivations are*. So when cross-dressers tell us that your blanket statements about what their motivations are *wrong*; skepticism *demands* that you rework your beliefs on the matter.

By stubbornly insisting that only your explanation as to their motivations is correct and everyone else's is wrong; you are proving yourself to be the exact opposite of a skeptic; since you now have ample evidence of multiple different motivations. A skeptic, follows the evidence; he doesn't reject it because it doesn't fit with his pet theory.

...erm... no.

Er, yes. You may not think that's what you did; but you very much *did*. And in fact you did the exact same thing in this post as well when you wrote "What I said was that only people with pretty rigid gender ideas/ or rigid concepts about gender will get a kick out of cross-dressing."; that's you projecting your beliefs about why someone might get a kick out of cross-dressing, and denying any other possibility. If this is not what you intended, then you should rephrase that statement to read: "*Some* people who get a kick out of cross-dressing have rigid gender ideas".

There's really no other way to interpret what you wrote; and it would require some pretty impressive backtracking at this point to argue that you somehow didn't invalidate the wide range of motivations people have and force your own interpretation of their motives onto them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My problem is the arrogance inherent in that claim; especially in regards to you attempt to apply it universally. People just aren't that simple to explain.

If I find some evidence I´m wrong then I´ll change my opinion. I have no problems changing my opinion or admitting when I´m wrong.

Any explanation of human behaviour will get weird around the edges. Any explanation is a simplification, and simplifications loses fidelity. So?

Doesn´t that fall within my definition?

No, it doesn't. Your definition assigns an emotional motivation to cross-dressers based on their rigid personal opinions about gender roles. A woman cross-dressing in order to get a job is not motivated by such a personal rigid opinion but rather the rigid opinion of their society.

No difference. It does not matter whether their opinions regarding the rigidity of the gender roles come from within the cross-dresser or from society. No difference. The result is the same.

I didn´t say cross-dressing fills a singular need. What I said was that only people with pretty rigid gender ideas/ or rigid concepts about gender will get a kick out of cross-dressing.

Which as we've seen is demonstrably false.

Agree to disagree.

My explanation is on a higher level than all of these. There´s no contradiction between the statements.

...a "higher" level. Riiight. Let's assume for a moment you meant a more 'fundamental' level instead of the way more insulting way that sentence actually reads... it's still proven wrong by the blog I linked to.

ha ha. Or lets not assume that.

Your explanation relies on cross-dressers having rigid-definitions of what's masculine and feminine. That is the core claim your entire explanation revolves around. Yet here we have a cross-dresser who clearly does NOT have such a rigid definition, and who in fact hardly separates between masculine and feminine. This immediately eliminates, completely, the possibility that your explanation is universally true.

Then why would they do it? If it doesn´t matter to them, then why? Just saying "because" does not explain anything. Also, I´ve seen cross-dressers change personality completely after getting changed. My ex wife was a make-up artist, and she had her studio in our house. Plenty of cross-dressers came through our house. The guys who got done up in drag for Pride had the same personality before and after. The cross-dressers... it might as well have been another person. Total personality change.

That´s how knowledge works.

No, it's not. That's how confirmation bias works.

It must be draughty in your glass house now with all the broken windows.

By stubbornly insisting that only your explanation as to their motivations is correct and everyone else's is wrong; you are proving yourself to be the exact opposite of a skeptic; since you now have ample evidence of multiple different motivations. A skeptic, follows the evidence; he doesn't reject it because it doesn't fit with his pet theory.

Here´s a suggestion what might be going on. Maybe you haven´t really thought through what I actually said? Maybe you misinterpreted me, pegged me for a certain type of opinion and then have filtered everything I´ve said through that filter? Maybe. Maybe you should assume less? Maybe.

 

[dystopian]

If I find some evidence I´m wrong then I´ll change my opinion. I have no problems changing my opinion or admitting when I´m wrong.

We have cross-dressers, in their own words, telling us their motivations; and we see that these differ from your opinions.

There can be no greater evidence that you're wrong than this.

No difference. It does not matter whether their opinions regarding the rigidity of the gender roles come from within the cross-dresser or from society. No difference. The result is the same.

This is not what you said. You said that the cross-dressers *themselves* had the rigid views. Now, suddenly, you claim it doesn't matter. But *of course* it matters; when we are talking about people's motivations as we are, then it doesn't matter if society has rigid views on gender roles. What matters is whether the cross-dressers agree with and share those rigid views... and we've seen that some don't. That is all that matters.

Agree to disagree.

No. This is not a thing where that platitude will work. When we are talking about whether or not people can have different motivations for doing a thing and you claim they can't; you don't get to say 'agree to disagree' when we see different people give us those different motivations. We will not 'agree' to disagree on fundamental reality. If you tell me that a thing does't exist, and I show you that it does... you don't get to tell me 'agree to disagree'.

ha ha. Or lets not assume that.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since you don't want us to make the assumption that you meant 'fundamental' instead of 'higher', that leaves us with the other interpretation: That you're self-important asshole who thinks that his assertions about people are somehow better than those that actually come from those people themselves.

Is that really the interpretation you want us to go with?

Then why would they do it?

Gee, I don't know; maybe READ the blog where he fucking explains it?

Here´s a suggestion what might be going on. Maybe you haven´t really thought through what I actually said? Maybe you misinterpreted me, pegged me for a certain type of opinion and then have filtered everything I´ve said through that filter? Maybe. Maybe you should assume less? Maybe.

No. I have looked at your words; which leave no other possible interpretation. When you say things like "only people who [x] get a kick out of [y]"; there is only one possible interpretation of what you meant. Those words used in that combination, do not allow for multiple interpretations. There is only one possible thing you could have meant when you wrote those words: that you think there is only one reason why people get a kick out of [y]. From this, it naturally and inevitably follows that you believe that any other stated reason must be false; because otherwise you would have taken my advice and rephrased the sentence to state "some people..." instead of "only people...".

So, that leaves us with what is essentially a binary possibility:

1. You believe that you have an explanation for why people cross-dress. And you believe this explanation applies to all cross-dressers.
2. You believe that you have an explanation for why people cross-dress. But you do not believe that your explanation applies to all cross-dressers, just some of them.

If 1) is correct, then my interpretation of what you said was also correct; and as should be clear by now I take issue with the arrogance inherent in such a belief.

If 2) is correct, then you used the English language incorrectly; and we then don't have a problem. Although I'm left wondering how someone with your apparent vocabulary could get such basic sentence/word structure/meaning so very wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We have cross-dressers, in their own words, telling us their motivations; and we see that these differ from your opinions.

There can be no greater evidence that you're wrong than this.

No difference. It does not matter whether their opinions regarding the rigidity of the gender roles come from within the cross-dresser or from society. No difference. The result is the same.

This is not what you said. You said that the cross-dressers *themselves* had the rigid views. Now, suddenly, you claim it doesn't matter. But *of course* it matters; when we are talking about people's motivations as we are, then it doesn't matter if society has rigid views on gender roles. What matters is whether the cross-dressers agree with and share those rigid views... and we've seen that some don't. That is all that matters.

Agree to disagree.

No. This is not a thing where that platitude will work. When we are talking about whether or not people can have different motivations for doing a thing and you claim they can't; you don't get to say 'agree to disagree' when we see different people give us those different motivations. We will not 'agree' to disagree on fundamental reality. If you tell me that a thing does't exist, and I show you that it does... you don't get to tell me 'agree to disagree'.

ha ha. Or lets not assume that.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since you don't want us to make the assumption that you meant 'fundamental' instead of 'higher', that leaves us with the other interpretation: That you're self-important asshole who thinks that his assertions about people are somehow better than those that actually come from those people themselves.

Is that really the interpretation you want us to go with?

Then why would they do it?

Gee, I don't know; maybe READ the blog where he fucking explains it?

Here´s a suggestion what might be going on. Maybe you haven´t really thought through what I actually said? Maybe you misinterpreted me, pegged me for a certain type of opinion and then have filtered everything I´ve said through that filter? Maybe. Maybe you should assume less? Maybe.

No. I have looked at your words; which leave no other possible interpretation. When you say things like "only people who [x] get a kick out of [y]"; there is only one possible interpretation of what you meant. Those words used in that combination, do not allow for multiple interpretations. There is only one possible thing you could have meant when you wrote those words: that you think there is only one reason why people get a kick out of [y]. From this, it naturally and inevitably follows that you believe that any other stated reason must be false; because otherwise you would have taken my advice and rephrased the sentence to state "some people..." instead of "only people...".

So, that leaves us with what is essentially a binary possibility:

1. You believe that you have an explanation for why people cross-dress. And you believe this explanation applies to all cross-dressers.
2. You believe that you have an explanation for why people cross-dress. But you do not believe that your explanation applies to all cross-dressers, just some of them.

If 1) is correct, then my interpretation of what you said was also correct; and as should be clear by now I take issue with the arrogance inherent in such a belief.

If 2) is correct, then you used the English language incorrectly; and we then don't have a problem. Although I'm left wondering how someone with your apparent vocabulary could get such basic sentence/word structure/meaning so very wrong.

This is insane. I´m done.

 

[Unbeatable]

I can tell you about cross-dressing.

And what follows is a personal anedcote. But are you a professional anthropologist, or trained researcher in some related field? Have you systematically corrected for all probable sources of bias in your collection and interpretation of data? Are you even operating with a statistically significant sample in the first place?

This is the Social Science forum, isn't it?

 

[Bronzeage]

This may or may not be anecdotal, but in my experience, the reason a person gives for what they do, is seldom reliable. This is especially true for things such as gender identity and it's many variation.

When given a free choice, I wear the clothes customary to a man of my culture and society. If I were a Roman in the year 22 CE, I would be wearing a white toga, with no more thought about it than the jeans I'm wearing right now. I don't have a good reason and never gave it much thought. Motivation is one of the least understood elements of the human psyche. A runner wants to cross the finish line ahead of all the other runners. That seems simple enough, but there has to be more than that to it. How much more is a mystery.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can tell you about cross-dressing.

And what follows is a personal anedcote. But are you a professional anthropologist, or trained researcher in some related field? Have you systematically corrected for all probable sources of bias in your collection and interpretation of data? Are you even operating with a statistically significant sample in the first place?

This is the Social Science forum, isn't it?

Yes, anecdote and anecdotal evidence. And holds reliability accordingly. I have made no secret of that.

Here´s more anecdotal evidence.

Once I spent a day in Hamburg hanging out with an 80 year old rubber doll transvestite from South Africa who´s name as a woman was Spirit. In his/her free time he/she was a trout farmer. He offered to take me on a tour of the Transvaal if I ever came to visit. I suspected he/she had ulterior motives. He/she probably didn´t only have sightseeing on his/her mind. So I never went. Anyway, he/she gave me an insight into elderly men who dress up in full rubber female suits.

On the same trip down to Hamburg I sat next to a guy who´s girlfriend walked in on him in full latex drag. Ie, he came out of the closet in lightning speed. And incredibly enough we stayed at the same hotel, so we got to know each other. I also got to know his very supportive girlfriend. He was the guy who introduced me to Spirit. Here he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9vP8BHEt-pc

Neither of them identified as women. First one gay. the second one straight as an arrow.

What can I say. I´m a very social guy who takes great interest in learning about other people´s quirks. For some reason I´ve come to meet a lot of cross-dressers, drag-queens and the odd transsexual in my life. I shared my knowledge in this forum. You don´t have to agree.

edit: Oh... I also helped the second guy on with his kit. That was fascinating. He had an inflatable ass-thingy. Educational!

 

[dystopian]

This may or may not be anecdotal, but in my experience, the reason a person gives for what they do, is seldom reliable. This is especially true for things such as gender identity and it's many variation.

It's true that self-reporting is inherently unreliable. But it's also true that in terms of determining personal motivation, it's really the best and often the only way of making an actual determination; especially when it comes to complex psychological issues like this.

Also, I don't think that it's necessarily true that a person's stated reasons are seldom reliable; that really depends on the form they do it in. Face to face? I'd agree; it doesn't really allow for extensive personal analysis and then there's all those pesky social factors which can lead to deception of both the self and others; and simply a lack of time to go into the matter beyond the simplistic, like your "i want to win" example. But in writing? When someone has the option to go into exacting detail and do so free of all those social pressures, analyzing the issue and themselves without any rush? I don't think it's the case that people are generally unreliable when explaining or examining their motivations in that form.

 

[Togo]

I know a fair few cross dressers.

Some only do it in ways that are borderline socially acceptable, and thus seen as merely slightly eccentric rather than violating social norms. My wife at work, for example, wears men's shirts, waistcoat, trousers, pocket watch on a chain and a bow tie. She wears woman's clothes as well, but only very occasionally. Some, like J, go the whole hog and change their names, dress and make up, but only at weekends or amongst friends. (J is a guy with a different name during the week, and a girl at weekends). Others, like Se and Sa, wear clothing of the opposite gender more or less all the time, but don't change their name or their gender identity. There's M, who always cross dresses, and identifies as the other gender. And then there is R, who likes 'messing around' by changing gender dress and name for parties, but it's a very occasional thing.

There are a wide variety of reasons behind it. Some don't like to be pigeonholed in terms of gendered behaviour. Some do, but want to be in a different pigeonhole, either in general, or in particular circumstances. And there's a wide variety in terms of how thoroughly they do it. R is easily mistaken for the other gender, and comes across as quite attractive. No one would mistake J for the gender they are dressed as, least of all J.

A few comments, not necessarily representative of their opinions, but just stuff I remember:
My wife: 'I just prefer it. Woman's work wear kinda sucks.'
Sa :'why do you dress as the gender you do?' Do you really think about it, or does it just feel right when you do it?
Se: 'It just feels right.'
J: 'Just for a while, I want to be me.'
M: 'It helps me pick up girls.'
R: 'Mainly I like playing with you head. But getting two cute girls to help me in and out of this outfit certainly doesn't hurt.'

I've not seen any obvious connection to sexual behaviour. Surprisingly few people will turn down a cute guy/girl/ just because they're wearing a dress/slacks. Some of these people are gay or bisexual, but most aren't, and it isn't a full time thing for most of them anyway.

Dealing with trans people is something I've had difficulty with in the past. I'd suggest just asking which gender tag they prefer to use, and just use that. That's not a surefire technique, but it works 80% of the time.

If anyone is interested in this subject, and are in the London area, I would recommend www.nineworlds.co.uk - a con held in London 7-9 August - that has a track for panel discussions of trans issues. It also has a lot of fan and gaming tracks, and a sceptics track that I think would be particularly suitable for people here.

 

[Perspicuo]

Two basic kinds of cross-dressing exist: the paraphilia (called 'transvestism') and actual cross-dressing.

Cross-dressing, for the layman, can be described as a sort of cosplay. For gay people in the days of persecution it was a sort of burlesque, from the Latin-Romance, "burla" = jest or mockery. A way of letting out some steam, let's say, of expressing the inexpressible. Although for many it was a way of expressing what had always been drilled into their heads since earliest childhood: that they were "sissy", "girlish", "unmanly", that only girls could love men, so it manifests the deep (uncnsc.) wish to be a woman in order to have access to men without guilt or fear. Fantasy is the spice of life.

Also, depending on cultural context, non-homosexuals would perform it. Think of theatre centuries ago, when it was thought "improper" for women to perform. Men had to act the women parts.

Transvestism is not a homosexual thing. It's a kinky thing, and it's related to heterosexual men wearing, say, panties under their work clothes.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is interesting that cross dressing is so common for females that nothing is thought of it. Women routinely wear men's clothing now but in the 1800s such a thing would be shocking in polite society, a woman in pants would create quite a stir.

I'd bet that male-to-female (MtF) verus female-to-male (FtM) "cross-dressing" are completely different phenomena with different types of causes and psychological associates.
The fact that FtM is so acceptable now means that no compulsion is required to do it. In fact, most women would wind up engaging in it unless they go deliberately out of her way to obsess about always looking "female". Merely wanting the comfort or convenience of some men's clothes would be enough, since there is nothing impeding it. And since men's "attire" are generally made more for comfort and convenience any women who doesn't really care much about gender roles would wind up wearing "male" clothing. In contrast, much female attire is attrociously uncomfortable, hated by most women, and only worn to avoid social ridicule for not being feminine enough. Thus, it is much more "odd" that any man would want to wear it (the exception are dresses and skirts on a warm day which might be nice). Also, MtF cross dressers risk massive ridicule and serious life harming, career harming consequences to wear female clothes or make-up that most females would rather not deal with. That requires a fetish-like compulsion where the person can't be happy without satisfying this desire to wear what is essentially a costume that happens to be currently designated for women. It requires an obsession with conforming to a gender role (just not their own) that is almost the opposite of the psychology of woman just wanting to wear comfortable men's clothing that they won't get ridiculed much for anyway. Note, there may be women that want to be seen as a man, but they are tiny % of women that wear men's clothes. In contrast, many more cross dressing men want to be seen as a woman. There is little incentive to do it otherwise and so much at risk.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is interesting that cross dressing is so common for females that nothing is thought of it. Women routinely wear men's clothing now but in the 1800s such a thing would be shocking in polite society, a woman in pants would create quite a stir.

But to the OP. I don't have a clue as to why some males enjoy cross dressing. There are likely several different reasons. As others have suggested, the surest way of understanding is probably to ask someone who does cross dress.

Hmmm... the gender coding for clothes and colours of clothes is of course completely arbitrary. As made evident for the pink/blue switch of the 1930´ies. Culture changes over time. So I disagree with you. Today a suit is not coded for men only. It is also a female dress. But we call it a pant suit. Same thing. There are subtle differences in that a pant suit has a tailored waist, while the male equivalent is more straight. But those differences are tiny. I don´t think it is cross dressing. Today I´d say that construction workers clothes are completely gender neutral. Any professional purely functional uniform, (I can think of), seems to be gender neutral.

Women in pants is not at all cross dressing. The male gender coding of trousers is completely gone today. I know women who fetishize femininity. Who go out of their way to come across as as feminine as possible. They all wear pants without flinching nor feeling like they´re cross dressing. It´s the style of how the pants are cut that code for gender. Not the fact that they´re pants.