Jump to content
krazykev64

Am i a crossdresser

Recommended Posts

You might also consider the site description of this forum. It is specifically not a cross dressing site, but a fashion site. There is a considerable difference, if not in your mind certainly in the minds of most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i totally agree shyheels.  i wear heels for 2 or 3 reasons

1/  they help ease the pain in my lower back and tone my leg muscles.  this is why i started to wear heels in the first place.  2/  i like the feel of a pair of heels on my feet.  3/  its a new fashion item which looks great with a pair of jeans.

i have no intention of wearing a skirt.  i do though wear my heels with pop socks either black or very light coloured.  overall i prefer to go barefoot regardless what heels i wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shyheels said:

You might also consider the site description of this forum. It is specifically not a cross dressing site, but a fashion site. There is a considerable difference, if not in your mind certainly in the minds of most.

We can argue the point to the end of time, but just Google the definition of crossdressing and we definitely have more than a few here that fit the definition even without the heels. Call it fashion site but don't you suppose that crossdressing might involve fashion?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should take a deep breathe and get over the cross dresser thing as the fashion world has blurred things to the point that pretty much anything goes. In reality if we choose to wear an item of clothing that is 'normally ' aligned with the opposite gender then we choose to cross dress. But so what, from what I have observed that's cool in the fashion world. Girls shop for shirts and jeans tailored and marketed as 'boyfriend styled' and I recently purchased a pair of guys jeans branded 'girlfriend ' jeans! One of the secretaries at work wears very male orientated suits ( with stiletto heels mind) and not a word is said . I wear high heels (Occassionally) to work with basically guys pants, shirt, jacket etc and whilst it's regarded as 'different' no one is complaining or inferring I'm a girl or gay or whatever. 

the important thing is that you are true to yourself and if you choose to wear high heels do so without fear of being labelled this or that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no doubt there are more than a few cross-dressers on the site and from what I have seen they do not appear to be at all backwards about it, so I do not understand your point about denial. They seem quite up-front about it.

The original question posed on this thread was whether wearing heels, on their own, constituted cross dressing. I took the position that it does not because wearing shoes and boots - unlike dresses and skirts - is common to both sexes, and beyond that it becomes a matter of styling. I gave several examples to demonstrate this and the illogicality of trying to present the wearing of various styled shoes - on their own - as cross-dressing. So far you have not challenged a single one of them.

I'll go back to them - briefly.  You have a pair of standard brogues with five-eighths heels - and you raise the heels by a quarter inch. Cross dressing? Add another quarter inch, then another, and another. At what point would you consider yourself to be cross-dressing, all other aspects of your clothing being the same? And is your answer going to be a universal one, agreed upon by all?

What about the biker who wears his tall biker boots on a day when he's not on his bike? Is he cross-dressing? After all only women generally wear tall boots for fashion sake rather than utility. If I buy and wear a pair of tall biker or equestrian style boots without owning a bike or horse, is that cross-dressing?

And the gumboots. If I go tromping down a muddy lane in pink gumboots instead of green - the make and style of boot being otherwise identical - am I cross-dressing?  If so, if colour choice constitutes cross-dressing, then any guy who wear a pink shirt is a cross dresser. Does anyone seriously believe that? 

You point uncritically to a broad definition supplied by Google and then adopt a hard line. The trouble with that is that you can so quickly get bound up in the sticky tape of logic. You end up having to declare that women wearing men's Levis are cross-dressers, as are men who wear pink shirts (or indeed any other subjectively defined feminine colour) School girls whose uniforms include neckties become cross-dressers, as would a woman who wore a men's fedora or panama hat.  Or a man who wore a pink baseball cap, or perhaps even a dark baseball cap but with the logo a woman's product on it. A Hell's Angel who walks into town one day because his bike's getting a new paint job and who wears his usual jeans and tall biker boots becomes a cross-dresser. It becomes absurd. The term loses all meaning.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well of course you can still invoke wiki and its

         "Cross-dressing is the act of wearing items of clothing and other accoutrements commonly associated with the opposite sex within a particular society"

And dissert infinitely on the "commonly associated with the opposite sex within a particular society" ("sex" ? -> "gender" / etc.;"associated with" ? -> "more often spotted worn by" / "labeled in the store as designed for" / "teached to be worn by" / "legally enforced for"). As wiki does on the second line: "Almost every human society throughout history has had expected norms for each gender relating to style, color, or type of clothing they are expected to wear, and likewise most societies have had a set of guidelines, views or even laws defining what type of clothing is appropriate for each gender."

Regarding passing, wiki states that "The term cross-dressing denotes an action or a behavior without attributing or implying any specific causes for that behavior". But if you look into the article, the actual reason for cross dressing remains disguise (though other reasons are proposed without emphasis). 

 

What is more important in this article is the "within a particular society". So that you may or may not be a crossdresser depending on what is in your mind, because you can define for yourself which "society" is relevant (you alone, your friends, mankind).

 

G.

Edited by Gudulitooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shyheels, what about the guy wearing a pair of floral, stiletto pumps? Or for that matter any stiletto heeled shoe? How about this but one, men's or women's?

http://m.dsw.com/shop/product/374025/zoom?colorCode=965&widthCode=M&frame=01

Sure there are shoes styled for men or women that are blurred as the style closely resembles shoes for either gender, but when was the last time you saw a stiletto heels in a men's shoe? There are many styles on the women's side of the store that you will not see on the men's side. Now on the other hand not many men's shoes are styled similar to women's.

Edited by Pumped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No different than wearing a pink shirt. Or a woman wearing a men's fedora.

True stiletto heels are generally worn by women. But a heel on a shoe is a heel on a shoe - the differences are a matter of styling. If a guy is dressed like a guy and happens to have a pair of stilettos on his feet, I wouldn't say that he was cross dressing but had flamboyant taste in footwear.

I say this by the way not as someone who wears stilettos and is looking for some kind of defence or justification - I do not own any nor have I any interest in wearing them. I don't think they'd suit me. (Similarity I'm a cyclist who doesn't own or wear Lycra for the same reasons) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

True stiletto heels are generally worn by women. But a heel on a shoe is a heel on a shoe - the differences are a matter of styling

By the same token a dress is nothing more than a long shirt! So if I wear a bright pink dress with flowers on it I'm ok then?

That stretch can be applied to pretty much any article of clothing.

Edited by Pumped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a dress and a shirt are two very different articles of clothing and are tailored, marketed and sold as different and distinct items. Just as a singlet is not a longer version of a sports bra.

 

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given some I am sure I could find a women's dress, styled after a men's button up dress shirt, or polo, but longer. Similar to your heel analogy. I fail to see the difference, using your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you could commission one, but what would be the point?

The question at the outset was - is wearing high heels, by a guy who is otherwise dressed as a guy, crossdressing? I say it ain't 

You seem to feel it is.

I am bored with this now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not commission one, just go shopping at any of the typical retail stores.

We seem to be deeply entrenched on opposite sides of the discussion and not budging. Perhaps the people reading have been entertained!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can but hope!

As a debate it was of considerably higher standard than Clinton vs Trump!

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched about half an hour of the debate and could not stand to watch any longer. 

Sorry state of affairs when these two are the best we can find to run the country!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilary's lack of fashion sense is a mystery to me. Maybe it is her version of wearing  pants in the family.

Trump? Typical older male executive uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary has never been fashionable, I'd guess it goes back to her flower child youth. 

I have to admit that as a US citizen I'm embarrassed by this offering and despite how much I dislike her she'll have my vote. Trump is a clown through and through. Count this middle of the road Republican as disenchanted and fed up. The party is split between the moral minority Christian zealots and liberal conservatives that allows unelectable clowns through the door. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yes, Hillary seems to have the same fashion designer as Kim Jong-un 

Agreed - - she almost looks like - - A cross-dresser???

I'm voting third party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

Hillary has never been fashionable, I'd guess it goes back to her flower child youth. 

I have to admit that as a US citizen I'm embarrassed by this offering and despite how much I dislike her she'll have my vote. Trump is a clown through and through. Count this middle of the road Republican as disenchanted and fed up. The party is split between the moral minority Christian zealots and liberal conservatives that allows unelectable clowns through the door. 

Hang on! Don't blame the flower child era. I used to go out with some really nice looking and to my mind stylish boho-hippy chicks back in the day and they all aged gracefully and fashionably. I think Hillary has just always been homely with a Maoist fashion sense

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we even equate sexual preference with choice of clothes? Let's really get past this. They are two entirely different things and it does a disservice to gay people, hetero people etc as well as fashion.

If you wear a pair of panties under your men's suit or yes, if you wear a pair of heels, you are crossdressing. Maybe not as much as some crossdress but you are. When a woman wears a pair of men's jeans, she is crossdressing too. Because you are choosing clothes designed for the other gender. That's it, you are simply making a choice to cross-over. If you wear a pink t-shirt and a pair of pink unisex converses, while some might call that "feminine" you are not crossdressing because the shoes are unisex  (its says so right on the box)

Labels and concepts change but they are just labels. Nothing about about being a crossdresser, pigeon-holes you into any "lifestyle". Many crossdressers have no desire to be women and are only on the gender variance (transgender) continuum because they are stepping outside gender norms. Many crossdressers want to blend in perfectly, others want to stand out. (think of a guy in a bikers jacket and a pink tutu at a pride parade)

Crossdressers are not transgender woman wannabes in general. (although sometimes trans women start out as crossdressers because they haven't fully discovered themselves yet)  Women who crossdress to the extreme (adding makeup to simulate a shadow for instance) are not generally trans man wannabes,

Drag queens are generally (but not always) gay men that only dress up to entertain people.  Some trans people barely dress in the style of their preferred gender. Then you have genderfluid, genderqueer and non-binary people and their fashion choices. 

I encourage everyone to read the wikipedia articles on gender variance, transgender etc. They are maintained pretty well.

 

Edited by robbiehhw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, if it says so on the box then that must be that, huh? 

Cross dressing - gender variance as you put it - is not at all the same as making alternate fashion choices in footwear. Other things are going on inside the minds of cross dressers  that are not taking place within the minds of those who are choosing their styles based on appearance and fashion sense alone. 

That is why this is a fashion website not a cross dressing website. There is a considerable difference.

Edited by Shyheels
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it does. For some people I'm sure that it is just a choice in alternative footwear, they are still purchasing it on the women's side of the aisle and except in the rare instances where the heels are manufactured as unisex or for men specifically, yeah you are choosing to crossdress. Quoting the Wikipedia author:

"Cross-dressing has been used for purposes of disguise, comfort, and self-actualization in modern times and throughout history. "

This pretty much covers all the bases. But I challenge that it goes beyond that, i would guess that at some level most male wearers of heels (not all) are attracted to the footwear because it allows a small expression of the feminine side.  Masculinity and femininity are mainly social constructs and learned, so it stands to reason that many people who otherwise love their masculinity, would want some level of the other side, and vice versa. I have hung around these communities too much and seen the language used, and how people represent themselves to think otherwise. Certainly, though there are men who wear because they just think they are cool, like the feeling of walking in them and the designs in general.

..But that is absolutely ok. The world does not implode or the government will not confiscate anyone's man card, because they want a little femininity in their lives. When people say masculinity is fragile it is because that many men act like it is. '

The reason this community is not a crossdressing site I'm guessing is because the people that created it and run it want to focus mainly on wearing heels. That is its niche. Yet, they allow threads/questions like this to exist and indeed have a "free styling" and fashion sections because they know, naturally that this footwear choice, leads to discussions about this.  A look at the pictures on this site again confirms that there is a level of that, but it is awesome that it wants to retain its focus.

When the focus of it becomes too x-dressing, then they shepherd back to the main topic. There are many sites like this. There is one for skirts, one for panties, one for bras and they all do some level of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that it is people on the site who do cross dress who are the keenest to broaden as far as possible the definition of what is crossdressing. 

Look at the photo of Chris Eubank posted above. Is that crossdressing? And if you think so, why? He's in a hotel corridor in the photo. If I photoshopped it and put him on a polo ground instead would he still be crossdressing in your opinion? 

By these absurdly broad definitions, labelling women who wear men's jeans or a man's fedora as cross dressers, or a man wearing a so called feminine colour, you could ultimately declare ninety per cent and upwards of the population to be crossdressers. But then perhaps that is part of an agenda

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a trans woman, i am not real qualified to expand on the motivations of all crossdressers. I know what i read and i know some of what is published by modern psychology. I do know that in many instances it has its limits and zones of comfort just like any form of self-expression

The pic of Chris is really cool, yeah if those are women's boots he is crossdressed. He also adds a bit of the feminine with the flowers. But colors associated as feminine do change, so i am not sure the colors have much to do with it. Can you take it to the extreme and say that any woman who dons a man's football jersey, hat, a pair of guy jeans etc is crossdressing? Yeah definitely, but its a pretty light and more socially common form of it. Back in the days i had male clothing, i had some pretty neat floral shirts they looked pretty feminine from a design perspective, but that wasn't crossdressing.

Again look at most of the pix on this site, the guy wearing the shoes is very often wearing jeans, skirts, hose, tights, etc that are bought on the women's side.

I'm not sure what is so wrong with the label for some people, if you don't identify as such that is great. You get to choose your identity, nobody chooses it for you. I just saw the original question as one about what constitutes crossdressing. If it instead was all about what should my identity be? Then only the OP can figure that out for themselves. 

Edit: Actually now that i re-read the OP, i do think it was more of an identity question and not a definition question. I should have led with "you are what you want to be"

Edited by robbiehhw
Added further thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you can't tell - and neither can I - whether Chris Eubank's boots were from the men's or women's aisle when he bought them, yet you are willing to say he'd be crossdressing if they were not specifically sold as men's boots. The look, the outfit is identical either way, indistinguishable in a photo. That seems extremely rigid and judgemental, almost Bible Belt. 

There is a mail order clothing outlet over here, Cotton Traders, and often they will sell clothes where literally the only difference between male and female is colour. The same shirt offered in blue, red or green in men's sizes, lavender mulberry or pale yellow, say, for women. It is a matter of ticking the box when you order. So by your logic a man who ordered the mulberry would be crossdressing (but not if he ordered the blue) simply because a marketer has determined that (this season at least) these are feminine colours. 

A deeply conservative point of view in my opinion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a long time since i had any view of mine deemed conservative, but you are welcome to that opinion :) 

Yeah indeed i could also put up pictures of women models in clothes that would make you wonder what side of the aisle it is from. I love fashion and one trend i do see in fashion now is the feminization of male fashion and the masculization  of female fashion. (again from a design perspective, for lack of any better terms). Men's jeans now have spandex in them and are often skinny, a few designers put skirts out for men (not kilts mind you), there is a major makeup line that is put out as unisex etc. Zara puts out a completely unisex line.  Things show signs of sort of merging. Of course, women's fashion has had its suits and oxford shoes etc a long time. 

The evolving modern view on gender expression is a pretty decent thing in my mind because for one thing it promotes equality and reduces rigid social norms. Could there be a time when the line of what is crossdressing and what is just everyday fashion expression is further blurry? Yep and i'd welcome that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×