Defining Straight Guy W/heels To Freestyler To Crossdresser To Lesbian

[bss]

I know everyone is different.  Some will just admire high heels.  Some will just wear high heels, and some will venture a lot further.  I've seen several people start from just a simple guy wanting to wear high heels, then they start to venture into our women clothing and accessories.  Some go further and transform to women.  Some people consider themselves as freestyle dressers, but they actually look more like women (or crossdressers).  I have nothing against how people dress or if they are Gay or Lesbian.  Lately, I've been asking myself this questions.

 

How do people define a straight guy who just wants to wear high heels?  I'm thinking of this as a guy who just wants to wear high heels and does not want to change his appearance.  In other words, he may wear them in public, but his hides them by wearing long pants that cover majority of the high heel shoes.  Or, he may wear concealed wedge heels like Nike Fore Sky High, which are not noticeable.

 

How do people define freestyle fashion?  I'm thinking of this as a guy or girl who mix and match men's and women's clothing to create a unique fashion.

 

How do people define crossdresser?  I'm thinking of this as a guy who wants to dress completely like a women; or a girl who wants to dress completely like a man.

 

How do people drawing the line and define Gays and Lesbians when a straight guy starts to transform into a women?  At some point during their transformation from a man to a woman, they would be also be going thru the cycle of being a straight man to Gay/Lesbian to straight woman.  I'm not sure how you would be able to draw the line and define Gay and Lesbian thru this cycle.  I'm thinking that they will always consider themselves as being straight thru the whole transformation.

 

Is this about correct?  I like to hear your opinions.

[HappyinHeels]

bss,

 

I see you want to understand but I need some clarification. You refer to "then they start to venture into our women clothing and accessories." I have yet to see any claims of men remarking on women venturing into the men's side of a store. A year ago I saw two biological women enter a shoe store I was in. One had long hair, plenty of makeup, a skirt and sandals with stiletto heels. The other had short hair, androgynous jeans, a men's type flannel shirt, a ball cap, and athletic shoes.  They were not a couple and tried on different heels and eventually spotted me. They didn't react negatively toward and nor did anyone toward the two women. But...imagine two different men entering the same store; one dressed typically as a man and the other dressed in a mix of "men's" and "women's" items and I'll bet the reaction would be different. My point is women can, and do, wear men's things but seem to have greater latitude. They are, in fact, crossdressing but never think of it because they just do it and there is no adverse reaction to fear. Society is hypocritical this way. Masculunity is celebrated and encourages but femininity is not.

Drawing lines and making distinctions based upon clothing is precisely why there are problems. Judging, and making judgments, based upon appearance, of one's character and values is as wrong as dong the same thing based upon skin color or national origin. This isn't , as the left would have you believe, the sole demain of the enlightened liberals as much as it the responsibility of all decent human beings to be understanding and dignified toward one another.

My overall answer to you is to engage the person with a compliment. Whether it's a guy with wedges and painted nails or a girl with a ball cap and sneakers there is a personality behind the clothing and shoes. People often choose (women do this all the tme) clothes that are comfortable and stylish but nearly always project what they are feeling that particular day.

I am male who loves football, hockey, and baseball. I adore gardening and the great outdoors. One day I might rebuild a lawn mower and the next I may be shoppng dressed in skinny jeans, a polo shirt, a woman's dress watch, knit cap, and 6" wedge sandals. I am the same person but expressing myself according to what I feel that day. I don't want to turn into a woman but do like the things about women. As a man I can walk along the road with no concerns over safety or drive across the country without bringing along a friend for security. I do think you have come to the right forum though. Just watch the replies come in and you'll learn more as your questions get answered. HappyinHeels

[pebblesf]

Yeah, I guess society would love to have concrete definitions for all these terms. Admittedly, I don't know what half of the terms and abbreviations mean that try to define gender variations. All I have learned is that you can not make any conclusions about a person based on how they are dressed.

[LuvyourShoes]

I agree with Pebbles, as the gender/sexuality spectrum is incredibly vast.

Gender is defined (from my experience) as what you feel like you identify as... a man or woman, or something in between.

Sexuality is who you're attracted to, as in if you like men or if you like women.

These two traits can be totally unrelated. Society wants them to be clear cut, but they aren't at all. You can be a dress and heel wearing man, but still adore the touch of a woman, as many of us here are. A big burly stereotypical man's man can also enjoy being with a man sexually. A woman who dresses as a man can still fall in love with a guy who also dresses like a standard man.

I've seen it all in my lifetime. It continually gets better as I go along!

I hope this helps!

[robbiehhw]

Society is changing and so are the definitions. Women x-dress all the time and never get a second glance. Definitely separating any thought of "straight, gay, lesbian, bi etc." from expression of one's gender is the first thing. Nothing fits into neat little boxes and it was never supposed to. 

 

Some people really have trouble with this and of course it varies by culture a lot. I was reading a story of a TG woman in Japan, a society that is pretty liberal on many things and very accepting of the transgender spectrum in entertainment and culture, but most of the Japanese folks she spoke to were like...."you must like men" , when she replied she did a bit, but was mainly attracted to women, everyone gave her a puzzled look. 

 

Life is not simple - i guess now we just have to get to know people

[Histiletto]

These multiple definitions for alternative activities would have been unnecessary had everyone been taught the real truth about human behavior. Our perspective about people comes from society's use of the gender theory. I don't know when the social think-tank was created for undertaking the massive effort to control people's lives, but it came into being in order to help bring some understanding concerning mankind. They gathered lists of human behaviors, mannerisms, activities/roles, and physical appearances to determine how people should be classified. The obvious first step separated them by their birth assignments for how they would contribute in the reproductive process. Then the lists were divvied according to that era's social perspective about what a person is or should be from the understanding of this think-tank. Individuality and personality were ignored as unimportant, because this was an effort to classify mankind into two groups - masculine and feminine. It didn't matter that either of these gender traits were just as likely to be exhibited by both males and females, this so-called elite group had their own ideas about what people should be like. Over the eras of history, these classifications have been updated and their use has been promoted so that most rules and laws support the ideas expressed in the gender theory, but it never really properly addressed the reality of individual personalities. Now we have people who have desires and feelings that cross the man-made gender line and society doesn't recognize them as legitimate human functions, particularly should the offending crossers be male. Somehow, females have been able to blur. if not completely erase, the gap that kept them out of the male realm. This would not be viewed as a double standard had the gender theory never been used to set up society's stereotyping.  

 

The real problem now is how can an appropriate correction be done to make right people's understanding of mankind, when the faulty programming has been so ingrained traditionally, it seems to be as if it were "written in stone" so to speak. When men and women don't seem to comply with their expected stereotyping, especially in committed relationships, most of the partnerships are soon dissolved even if they reach that level of commitment. The compliant ones usually don't want to deal with the embarrassment or shame associated with any of the non compliant activities their spouse/partner/associate may participate in, even though they are actually normal human activities and desires.  

[LuvyourShoes]

The last few sentences of Histiletto's post really ring true. It's sad that ppl just do not think for themselves and must rely on others validations to make it through life.

I like me, and I like items from the women's section. I'm going to buy and wear what I want.

[Gudulitooo]

Somehow, females have been able to blur. if not completely erase, the gap that kept them out of the male realm.

 

Not sure about this.

Male ream is practicality and force.

Female realm is beauty and impracticality for seduction.

 

1) Although beauty and impracticality was also the noble men's realm under the renaissance era, the vast majority of them were not into this. This led to some misunderstanding about men in heels (look at the articles on the net "why does men stop wearing heels" this is misleading: men did not stop wearing heels. Some men stopped wearing heels. Only the ones that wore heels.).

 

2) Although women have now gained the ability to decide for their lives and supply for their family by bringing income, they have kept their habits of "beauty coming from body alterations" as a seduction mean. They do sport to reduce weight and shape their body, they use make up, skin care, and ultimately surgerie). Everywhere in the world, even in remote tribes, women do body alterations for the sake of seduction.

On the contrary, men chose not to alter their body for this. When they do sport, it is for strenght, performance, fun, health, whatever, but not seduction. Yes, their appearance is important for seduction, but without body alteration (or keep it basic : shave, wash, fragrance).

[JeffB]

Speaking just for myself, I don't subscribe to labels when it comes to this subject. If I were to describe myself, I'd say I am a freestyler in that I'm perfectly content to wear women's clothes and shoes as a man, no wigs, no makeup, no false breasts, nothing like that. I'm the living example of my signature, "I don't want to LOOK like a woman, I just want to DRESS like a woman.", and that's more than good enough for me. I've never had anyone ask about my sexuality when out and about in the clothes I chose to wear, nor would I pretend to be something I'm not, I'm simply a heterosexual male who happens to love wearing women's clothing. If that makes me a square peg in a role hole, so be it.

[robbiehhw]

Well said Histeletto and all. Funny thing is these "traditionalist" mind set (there is nothing wrong with a lot of tradition, but bear with me) are often being "antibodies" for a system that maintains a power structure that they do not benefit from. Fortunately at least in western societies, things are changing. 

[Histiletto]

Not sure about this.

Male ream is practicality and force.

Female realm is beauty and impracticality for seduction.

 

1) Although beauty and impracticality was also the noble men's realm under the renaissance era, the vast majority of them were not into this. This led to some misunderstanding about men in heels (look at the articles on the net "why does men stop wearing heels" this is misleading: men did not stop wearing heels. Some men stopped wearing heels. Only the ones that wore heels.).

 

2) Although women have now gained the ability to decide for their lives and supply for their family by bringing income, they have kept their habits of "beauty coming from body alterations" as a seduction mean. They do sport to reduce weight and shape their body, they use make up, skin care, and ultimately surgery). Everywhere in the world, even in remote tribes, women do body alterations for the sake of seduction.

On the contrary, men chose not to alter their body for this. When they do sport, it is for strength, performance, fun, health, whatever, but not seduction. Yes, their appearance is important for seduction, but without body alteration (or keep it basic : shave, wash, fragrance).

I have to agree with you to some extent about the idea that men are into strength and practicality and women are in the mind-set of beauty and impracticality, but this is due largely to the latest stereotyped and programmed attitude. From birth men are groomed to be the head of the household and the supplier of their family needs, while women learn the skills of child nurturing and being their man's companion/helpmate (and/or trophy wife). This way of thinking has led to the dismissal of the fact that many men also have desires to experience and surround their countenance with items of beauty and softness, feeling secure in their relationship, and be impracticality at times, just like women also have the desire to be in control or dominate, wear kakis and work boots (or even sports cleats), and be practical at times. Getting hooked on the gender theory for understanding the human condition has squashed the agency of freedom individuals are suppose to have in expressing/exhibiting their personality. No one else has the ability to understand life from your perspective nor do they know better, than you, your thoughts and desires as to the way you want to be perceived and projected. The stereotyping we have been saddled with causes everyone to expect a status quo that usually doesn't fit the human being we are or want to be. Living to others expectations either diminishes us in their eyes or in ours.  

 

So, here we are, in a thread trying to bring some understanding/defining concerning people's behaviors and activities. As long as the faulty premise on gender is used as the base for this undertaking, the task becomes more complicated and fruitless. Humans are relatively simple entities that have been incorrectly labeled/understood and subjected to ideals that tries to lead them toward a man-made perfection. What's so hard or life altering for a person to choose the look they want to exhibit as theirs. The late pop-star Michael Jackson was endlessly ribbed or sighted for his appearance changes, but it was his life (no matter how much you revered or disliked his music and/or lifestyle). A choice to wear high heels isn't a man or women thing, it's a human thing. Usually they like the way heels accent their appearance and how they feel when walking in them. Under the assumption that gender separates and classifies people, whether they are straight, bi, or whatever, it's their choice! In the real world people are who they are with thoughts, feelings, and desires that fit their personality. 

[Heelster]

It's tough to try and determine what someone may be, based on all the different "names" placed on Sexual and Gender behavior. In all reality, it doesn't matter what you call it as long as you, the individual are happy.

 

As much as I hate to bring it up, religion is a major factor in the Gender/Sexuality issues society currently has. Don't get me wrong - - Belief in someone greater than ourselves is fine - - I can endorse that.

 

The doctrines of all the major faiths has causes me great concern. This alone is a major cause of how people think regarding appearance and roles of men and women. Anymore, I have to consider religion as self inflicted social control, and that bothers me. Everyone thinks their way is the only correct way - - Everyone else is wrong.

 

I could go on a rant, but not interested in that much keyboard work today. It would just to get me riled up.

 

All I ask is that when someone tells you that your actions are wrong, Ask then "who says it's wrong?" and "Where does it say I shouldn't" and you may be surprised where the source really is.

 

I'll go back to my corner now - - - 

[HappyinHeels]

Heelster,

 

If religion were the asnwer behinf all the labeling then there may be more intolerance in other countries with higher church attendance than in the US. I believe the answer has more to with a sort of busybody mentality if not all-out bully culture. You may wear heels in Thailand or Peru or Sweden and just as many people will notice you as in the US but the likelihood of anyone saying anythnig negative in those three countries may be dramtically lower than in the United States. I think there are far more people here who look upon their entire surroundings and try toput  everything into a checkbox. What they can't checkoff causes them fits and they react negatively. It never occurs to them that their acceptance is not sought or needed. We waste more time analyzing this or that and it never occurs to us, as a society, that analysis was never needed just understanding. The world is a mosaic of colors, sounds, and experiences that is not meant to fit upon just one canvass.  HappyinHeels

[Heelster]

Happy in Heels.

 

Maybe the case - - I'm seeing a lot of subjects of discussion lately here in the sticks, and sooner or later, religion becomes a determining factor. Drives me nuts.

[LuvyourShoes]

Great points on religion. I grew up the son of a pastor, in a strictly religious household. I hated it. I don't wish forced religious beliefs on anyone. It is very restrictive and ignorant.

I have since begun to move away from church and religion, and move toward a more spiritual and mentally uplifting approach to spiritual growth. This has enhanced my well being tremendously, but it makes me question society's rules even more, which is a whole other situation in itself.

This topic is pretty awesome though. Keep the great points coming.

[bss]

Thank you all for your comments and opinions.  There are a lot of great points there.  Please keep them flowing.

bss,

 

I see you want to understand but I need some clarification. You refer to "then they start to venture into our women clothing and accessories." I have yet to see any claims of men remarking on women venturing into the men's side of a store. A year ago I saw two biological women enter a shoe store I was in. One had long hair, plenty of makeup, a skirt and sandals with stiletto heels. The other had short hair, androgynous jeans, a men's type flannel shirt, a ball cap, and athletic shoes.  They were not a couple and tried on different heels and eventually spotted me. They didn't react negatively toward and nor did anyone toward the two women. But...imagine two different men entering the same store; one dressed typically as a man and the other dressed in a mix of "men's" and "women's" items and I'll bet the reaction would be different. My point is women can, and do, wear men's things but seem to have greater latitude. They are, in fact, crossdressing but never think of it because they just do it and there is no adverse reaction to fear. Society is hypocritical this way. Masculunity is celebrated and encourages but femininity is not.

Drawing lines and making distinctions based upon clothing is precisely why there are problems. Judging, and making judgments, based upon appearance, of one's character and values is as wrong as dong the same thing based upon skin color or national origin. This isn't , as the left would have you believe, the sole demain of the enlightened liberals as much as it the responsibility of all decent human beings to be understanding and dignified toward one another.

My overall answer to you is to engage the person with a compliment. Whether it's a guy with wedges and painted nails or a girl with a ball cap and sneakers there is a personality behind the clothing and shoes. People often choose (women do this all the tme) clothes that are comfortable and stylish but nearly always project what they are feeling that particular day.

I am male who loves football, hockey, and baseball. I adore gardening and the great outdoors. One day I might rebuild a lawn mower and the next I may be shoppng dressed in skinny jeans, a polo shirt, a woman's dress watch, knit cap, and 6" wedge sandals. I am the same person but expressing myself according to what I feel that day. I don't want to turn into a woman but do like the things about women. As a man I can walk along the road with no concerns over safety or drive across the country without bringing along a friend for security. I do think you have come to the right forum though. Just watch the replies come in and you'll learn more as your questions get answered. HappyinHeels

 

Thank you for your comments!  Lots of great points and topics.

 

Acceptance by society seems to affect everyone in a different way.  As for most of the men here, they want to wear high heels but the society around them do not really accepts it.  As for women, some of them maybe pursuing jobs that society does not accept or deem unsuitable for women.  Now getting back to the fashion industry, women can wear anything they want since society seems to accept it.  Fashion designer have introduced men's fashion into the women's fashion....so technically speaking, women are not cross dressing.  Women's fashion has changed.  They don't have to come into the men's department.  Men's fashion has not changed much.  Pink and purple have appeared in the men's department.  Small stud ears have been added to the men's fashion.  I've seen a couple of high heel men's shoes, but most of society have not accepted them yet.... so most men have to venture into women's department for the high heel shoes and maybe some other things too.

 

Classifying and judging others is not my thing, but people using the incorrect words to describe themselves or things bothers me:  

 

Women have curvy body.  Their hands and feet are slim and small.  Men do not have hips like women, and men also have larger and wider hands and feet.  Most women's fashion is form fitting, so they are meant to fit a women.  Most of the men here love wearing high heel shoes and some of them refuse to call them women's high heel shoes.  They would say things like "these are not women's high heel shoes.  These are my high heel shoes."  I like the wording, but let's get real.  Women's high heel shoes are form fitted to a women's feet.  This is why they are called women's high heel shoes.  Now please do not get me wrong.  I love high heels shoes.  I have a lot of them.  I wear them...and I still call them women's high heel shoes.  Just because the fashion industry designed high heel shoes for women, does not mean men can not purchase them or wear them.  If the shoes fit, wear it.

 

I've heard a person say they are a freestyle dresser.  They like dressing as a woman, but they don't want to be a woman.  I can understand and have no issue with a person dressed like a woman and not wanting to be a woman, but this would mean your are cross dressing and not a freestyle dresser.  There is nothing wrong with cross dressing and it does not mean you are gay, but society may have other opinions about it.

[robbiehhw]

Freestyling is crossdressing but i usually think of it as more subtle.

 

Gender fluidity is growing and more people are identifying themselves as that. The dress that expresses that is often some form of crossdressing or freestyling. Think about a guy with a beard in a men's leather biker jacket. Diamond studs in his ears, leather skirt, tights and women's leather boots with heels. To me, that is a good picture of presenting for a gender fluid person.

 

I refer to my wardrobe as women's close but then i am a woman. When i was not sure about in the past, i still referred to them as women's.

[LuvyourShoes]

I think I identify as gender fluid as well. I have a feminine side that craves expression and creativity. I don't identify as a cross dresser though, as I mix men's and women's clothing. I have on men's boots, shirt and blazer, but womens jeans. I frequently dress this way. Just a thought.

[bss]

Freestyling is crossdressing but i usually think of it as more subtle.

 

Gender fluidity is growing and more people are identifying themselves as that. The dress that expresses that is often some form of crossdressing or freestyling. Think about a guy with a beard in a men's leather biker jacket. Diamond studs in his ears, leather skirt, tights and women's leather boots with heels. To me, that is a good picture of presenting for a gender fluid person.

 

I refer to my wardrobe as women's close but then i am a woman. When i was not sure about in the past, i still referred to them as women's.

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I've always thought of freestyle and crossdressing as a category or type of fashion; and it has nothing to do with your gender or personality.  I think you are correct about Freestyling is Crossdressing.  Freestyling evolved as mixing men's and women's fashion together to create a unique look.  Crossdressing in my opinion is a man who dresses like a women or a woman who dresses like a man.

 

Gender fluidity is an interesting topic.  I had to google it and read up on it.  It sounds like it is a person (man or woman) who flip flop between being a man and a women.  One day, a man dress as a man and present himself as a man (including their personality).  Another day, the same man dress as a woman and present himself as a woman (including their personality).  He may also choose to freestyle on another day.

[Puffer]

This is a difficult topic!   As always with definitions, the devil lies in the detail.

Until I read through this topic, I would have defined as follows:

• freestyler:   someone who wears whatever mix of clothes he/she feels appropriate to the occasion, regardless of the alleged gender allegiance of those clothes;
• crossdresser:   someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender, for whatever reason, but without trying to appear to be of that other gender;
• transvestite:   someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender and endeavouring to present as that other gender (with make-up, wig, 'body enhancers' etc if necessary).

That seemed to me to provide useful distinctions, but I agree the boundariers may be blurred - and the progression from freestyler to crossdresser may be a subtle one, although moving on to transvestite involves a deliberate shift in behaviour and lifestyle, whether or not permanent.   On that basis, I would suggest that most of us here are 'freestylers' (however mildly), JeffB (for example) is a crossdresser, and Dr Shoe (for example) is a transvestite.   All these activities are independent of sexuality and I will say nothing about actual or intending transsexuals - that takes things into another realm entirely, but necessarily involves transvestism as part of the process.

If anyone has a better or differing opinion, please share it.

[robbiehhw]

Good comments! Over here at least, the term transvestite is fallen out of favor. These individuals like myself, just say Transgender Woman (or man on the other side). We can be presenting ourselves as women, male or androgynous, but women we are. It certainly is complicated at times.

 

 

[Puffer]

Good comments! Over here at least, the term transvestite is fallen out of favor. These individuals like myself, just say Transgender Woman (or man on the other side). We can be presenting ourselves as women, male or androgynous, but women we are. It certainly is complicated at times.

 

 

Thanks.   Yes, I gather that 'transvestite' is not used so much these days, outside perhaps a truly medical context, but I used it to make a useful distinction from 'crossdresser'.   The problem is that 'crossdresser' has, in medical terms, apparently come to mean something rather more positive than just a label for someone who likes to wear clothes of the opposite gender (and who therefore literally 'cross-dresses') and indicates a desire to present as of the opposite gender and be accepted as such.  

But you are not suggesting that 'transgender' is a replacement for 'transvestite', are you?   'Transgender' is surely descriptive of people who feel they are in the 'wrong sex' (and may or may not go on to become transsexuals, i.e. to have surgery) and is nothing to do with 'crossdressing' in any of its forms.   The discussion here is about clothes (or at the most, overall appearance) rather than gender identity or change of sex/gender - which is why I deliberately avoided discussion of the latter - and am not qualified to do so meaningfully.

Such is the stuff of a PhD thesis - but I'll pass on that (and not as a woman, either!)

[robbiehhw]

Understood, i think from a pure clothes perspective it is better to say " presenting as a woman" . A cross dresser or freestyler may not present as a woman but certainly has a path chosen in their own right and that involves dual gendered clothing. Think about the example of the guy with the very masculine upper body with face and beard, but wearing a tutu and ballet slippers That way you leave the gender question to itself and for the transgender woman for instance, you are just presenting as a woman, Why wouldn't you? because that is what you identify as.

The OP crossed quickly from clothing all the way over to sexual preference which is even less solid ground to stand on. It is a common mistake to make, so no problem for him but it begs correction in light of what we know today. Transvestite sort of says someone is a citizen of a sub-group, transgender women are just women from a gender perspective and choose to dress that way.

Even Wikipedia struggles with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism

[Histiletto]

Society has produced all manner of labels to identify human behaviors and appearances. Its mind-set is driven to promote a one size fits all approach in dealing with stereotypes. This perspective sees people as robots that only have certain functions which they are expected to perform in order to be in favor with the social norms. Individuals are not robots. They each have their own set of abilities, desires, and ways of processing and disseminating information. Their instincts to prefer or reject doesn't come from anyone else. They may be influenced to follow the crowd, so to speak, but that doesn't mean they whole-hardheartedly support the crowd's objectives. A woman wearing a shirt and trousers with work or "jump" boots doesn't define her as a male, neither should a man's image be seen as a woman wanna-be when they choose to wear a lacy and/or floral print top, pants or skirt with high heels. This is choosing your own look from who you are inside. All the social labeling can't deter a person from wanting to adorn their appearance with the items they find pleasing to be identified with. It's society promoting its man-made stereotypes that unjustly cause individuals to feel threaten to openly exhibit their natural sense of adornment.

[Puffer]

I agree that labels can be divisive, too specific or not specific enough, and stereotypes can be pejorative (often unintentionally) or threatening.   The reality, however harsh the effects may be on some, is that stereotypes are convenient and readily understandable by the masses, who might otherwise struggle to visualise the subject at all.   When used broadly and with consideration, stereotypes are useful if not definitive; objections to them seem to arise as much if not more from PC supporters and do-gooders as from the alleged 'victims' themselves.   (And the same is true of other 'categorisation', such as by colour, ethnic origin or religion, where we are expected to use weasel-words rather than those which are simple,direct and unequivocal.   So the established and innocuous word 'gay' has been hijacked and made to describe a whole raft of lifestyle that has nothing to do with its original meaning - and I for one feel uncomfortable (mis)using it thus.)

I once had to commission for a handbook some lighthearted cartoons which illustrated various legal issues relating to employment in the UK.   The one I suggested concerning women working at night (then a regulated activity) showed four females: a prostitute, office cleaner and burglar about to board a night bus (driven by another woman) to go home.   It was effectively vetoed by the PC feminists on the grounds of showing stereotypes - but that was exactly the point of the cartoon, and it was not easy to think of, or illustrate, acceptably 'ordinary' working women in such a night-time situation.   

There is no magic answer but I wish people would concentrate on those issues and actions that truly threaten their lives and those of others, physically or financially.   Sticks and stones ...

[robbiehhw]

Yes a changing society, means the way in which we deal with society's labels changes. I never really have an issue with political correctness and generally see it as a positive because its seeks the higher good for the most people. Being ultra-careful not to offend anyone is generally, but not always a good thing and if said behavior protects diversity even better. Still, the price to pay is sometimes confusion, awkwardness and at times communications can be made more difficult. I work in a fairly male dominated business and as a trans woman, i see i all the time. Guys who would have made certain jokes a decade ago in all company, catch themselves in mid sentence. (not only because of my presence but other people's as well )

In another forum, i saw many very liberal folks discussing a Chinese mall that had a "bra-unfastening" contest to celebrate international women's day. My response was "on what planet do you think this is at all ok, or even cute? "  My question was met with dead silence. 

I think both those dedicated to PC modes and those who are not have to be somewhat forgiving of one another. The more we communicate on common ground the better we all are. Because just like the terms around gender fluidity, dress, gender, transgender, etc are changing, so they will continue to change, no doubt.

 

 

 

[Steve63130]

Robbie, yes, but sometimes things take a giant leap backwards as in North Carolina this week. Well, no one ever said progress was smooth and easy.

Steve

 

[Curt]

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Puffer said:

This is a difficult topic!   As always with definitions, the devil lies in the detail.

Until I read through this topic, I would have defined as follows:

• freestyler:   someone who wears whatever mix of clothes he/she feels appropriate to the occasion, regardless of the alleged gender allegiance of those clothes;
• crossdresser:   someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender, for whatever reason, but without trying to appear to be of that other gender;
• transvestite:   someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender and endeavouring to present as that other gender (with make-up, wig, 'body enhancers' etc if necessary).

That seemed to me to provide useful distinctions, but I agree the boundariers may be blurred - and the progression from freestyler to crossdresser may be a subtle one, although moving on to transvestite involves a deliberate shift in behaviour and lifestyle, whether or not permanent.   On that basis, I would suggest that most of us here are 'freestylers' (however mildly), JeffB (for example) is a crossdresser, and Dr Shoe (for example) is a transvestite.   All these activities are independent of sexuality and I will say nothing about actual or intending transsexuals - that takes things into another realm entirely, but necessarily involves transvestism as part of the process.

If anyone has a better or differing opinion, please share it.

There is another one. Transsexual.someone who has transitioned medically from one gender to the other. And wears clothes consistent to that gender. It's who they are. It's not about sex, it's about their soul.

[Curt]

Sorry, I didn't read the whole post.

[Curt]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:14 PM, robbiehhw said:

Yes a changing society, means the way in which we deal with society's labels changes. I never really have an issue with political correctness and generally see it as a positive because its seeks the higher good for the most people. Being ultra-careful not to offend anyone is generally, but not always a good thing and if said behavior protects diversity even better. Still, the price to pay is sometimes confusion, awkwardness and at times communications can be made more difficult. I work in a fairly male dominated business and as a trans woman, i see i all the time. Guys who would have made certain jokes a decade ago in all company, catch themselves in mid sentence. (not only because of my presence but other people's as well )

In another forum, i saw many very liberal folks discussing a Chinese mall that had a "bra-unfastening" contest to celebrate international women's day. My response was "on what planet do you think this is at all ok, or even cute? "  My question was met with dead silence. 

I think both those dedicated to PC modes and those who are not have to be somewhat forgiving of one another. The more we communicate on common ground the better we all are. Because just like the terms around gender fluidity, dress, gender, transgender, etc are changing, so they will continue to change, no doubt.

 

 

 

I work in a male environment.  I'm the only woman there. People will not take me seriously if I dress too feminine. 

 

Would any of the guys get flack about publicly wearing heels and other clothes deemed female? Or would it matter. If more came out and wore them, then it would be no big deal. Years ago,enjoy were the heel wearers.  Then some idiot came along and said: they are too feminine, you can't wear them any more. Makes so sense, when the women wore flats. Wouldn't flats be more feminine? Clothes are just a social construct.