Hello from Amsterdam

[Puffer]

We are agreed that a CD is not the same as a TV, despite crude public perception that they are one and the same.   We may differ on the degree of separation or that they are not mutually exclusive; that doesn't matter too much.   But I maintain that a TV, in wearing the other gender's clothing, is necessarily a crossdresser who takes the idea further in a co-ordinated overall look and presenting as a woman.   And a man wearing a dress (but otherwise in male clothing and of male appearance) is a Freestyler who is only a degree or two away from being a CD, but not a TV.   (I'm not sure where I am supposed to have identified a fourth group, or what it is.   Unless you count 'conventional male (or female)' as being the first of four.)

By my definitions, you are currently an admitted Freestyler, possibly verging on being a crossdresser.   You have been, historically and temporarily, an admitted TV.   Your own definitions may label you otherwise.  

I accept that the Freestyler label may be open to some misunderstanding but it is simple and carries no dubious overtones.   I did not invent it and its origin and usage seems to be seated in the US - which is not a country known for the precision and clarity of its thought or language.

As you say, we can agree to disagree on any or all of this for the good reasons we have respectively advanced.

 

[FastFreddy2]

3 hours ago, Puffer said:

But I maintain that a TV, in wearing the other gender's clothing, is necessarily a crossdresser who takes the idea further in a co-ordinated overall look and presenting as a woman.   And a man wearing a dress (but otherwise in male clothing and of male appearance) is a Freestyler who is only a degree or two away from being a CD, but not a TV.   (I'm not sure where I am supposed to have identified a fourth group, or what it is.   Unless you count 'conventional male (or female)' as being the first of four.)

By my definitions, you are currently an admitted Freestyler, possibly verging on being a crossdresser.   You have been, historically and temporarily, an admitted TV.   Your own definitions may label you otherwise.  

I accept that the Freestyler label may be open to some misunderstanding but it is simple and carries no dubious overtones.   I did not invent it and its origin and usage seems to be seated in the US - which is not a country known for the precision and clarity of its thought or language.

As you say, we can agree to disagree on any or all of this for the good reasons we have respectively advanced.

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

I have given adequate representative examples to explain myself, and where I think borders/limitations might exist. I have personal experience to lean on too. I'm not afraid of any labels. "Freestyler" to me, would be a snowboarder. I'm happy with cross-dresser because I like bits of both gender aligned clothing and (currently) make no attempt at feminisation. In my analogy, (as I repeat for the third time) someone born to black clothing that likes or prefers white clothing, is TV. Someone who mixes black and white, is CD. There are no two bites of the cherry. A TV isn't a CD too, unless you agree CD=TV and TV=CD. One mixes a gender orientated clothing style, one doesn't. 

That said (and throwing support at my perception "there is a generally accepted misnomer; CD=TV" remarks) spell checking "feminisation", brought these up as examples:

I haven't watched every minute of these, but I know they ARE NOT OFFICE SAFE.

 

 

 

 

These are all TV transitions (or the ones I watched), but are considered cross-dressing.

 

The 4 'dressing' groups debated are: FreeStyler + CD + TV and 'drag'. Given that in American circles at least CD=TV, then I might be considered a FreeStyle dresser. A bit like shoe and clothing sizes, there might need to be a slight shift in naming conventions for correct alignment. Measured on a US scale then, I would be considered F/S. I live in the UK, so would consider myself a CD. Androgynous in clothing style, and "non-binary" (not completely male, not completely female).

To some parts of the world I'm a F/S dresser. I can understand the need for a new group, since (going back to my original comments) CD = TV and in the Americas, TV's are best known for membership of the sex industry so it's an extremely unflattering association. In that respect:

F/S - someone who wears mixed gender associated clothing.

CD - (usually) a man who dresses/acts/looks like a woman or feminised man.

TV - possibly pre-TS, and often associated with worker in sex industry.

Drag - (usually) male dressed as caricature of woman.

 

I begin to understand why Americans might get so upset at being called CD's. 

[Puffer]

We are really singing from the same hymn sheet, albeit with slightly different words!   I had hoped that my attempts to address things logically would not lead to any misunderstanding, apparently they have.   I emphasise that I am tackling things from what I believe to be a British medical/academic stance; I'm not concerned with perceived PC or American prejudices, sensitivities or connotations - we can well do without them.

I accept that transvestism is the preferred all-embracing term - we can all use it if we wish whenever we adopt one or more other-gender garments.   But, for most purposes, it is too wide (or too extreme) in its generally understood form and both of us have identified useful sub-divisions.   They do not amount to (full) transvestism but are on the road towards it, if desired.   So, someone may start as a 'Freestyler' (the exact term itself doesn't matter), move on to being a crossdresser and thence to a TV - or of course either stay put or directly adopt a 'higher' activity from the outset.   As an analogy, if I have a Grade 3 piano certificate, I have already been through Grades 1 and 2.   The reverse is not true (in my terminology): a FS is not a CD and a CD is not a TV.   And the difference between a FS and a CD may well be slight and purely in the subject's own mind - I wear this garment primarily because I like it (FS) or I wear it primarily because it is 'other gender' (CD).   Only if I wear it as part of an intentional and co-ordinated attempt to pass as the other gender am I a TV.   You decide.

I don't accept 'Drag' as a necessary separate category; I stick at the three above.   I consider Drag to be transvestism - but where (intentionally or not), the subject is a caricature or at least unconvincing.   The late Danny La Rue, for example, could quite easily have been accepted in public as a convincing transvestite but (with rare exceptions) chose to be a drag entertainer, albeit still of very convincing appearance.   Conversely, the Two Ronnies often dressed/acted as women but, although clearly then transvestites, never attempted to 'pass' as it was again drag entertainment.  And we can all think of other examples of Freestylers or CDs who fall short of being true TVs.

I rest my case. 

[FastFreddy2]

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

I rest my case. 

At your age, perhaps you should. (Boom! Boom! - As Basil Brush would say.) 

Regarding backward compatibility .... A TV isn't a FreeStyler in the sense mentioned here. In that respect, the journey is like a snowboarder sliding down a mountain. You can start as a F/S and work your way downward toward TV, but once there, you are there - no sliding back up hill. I doubt you'll  meet anyone calling themselves Mr TV (Retired) . Same must be true of a CD, though with the inclusion of a F/S as a category, it adds more ammunition to the CD=TV standpoint.

As far as being a TV is concerned, you've either been there (are there) or you ain't. I pretty much don't care if someone wants to refer to me as a TV, since I have done the whole bit. I see my tastes as being more androgynous perhaps, with a taste for tight clothing beyond even that of younger women. And 'heels with everything'. of course. Did I get that 'tight' bit from watching too much Buck Rogers, or Space 1999?  

[Tacchi Alti]

< To think 'cross-dressing' is the same as 'transvestite' is a misnomer. They aren't. Lazy, uneducated people with no real-life experience might choose to think they are, but they can't be.

 

Well, I'm lazy and ignorant. What I'm saying is that the words mean exactly the same etymologically. If people want to make binary or even decimal differences, that's fine, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument, as I'm too lazy and too ignorant to be bothered.

[FastFreddy2]

1 hour ago, Russ in boots said:

Well, I'm lazy and ignorant. What I'm saying is that the words mean exactly the same etymologically. If people want to make binary or even decimal differences, that's fine, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument, as I'm too lazy and too ignorant to be bothered.

Argument?

How is voicing different views an argument? Or is a debate also an argument?

Please don't assume that viewpoints expressed by two motivated (opinionated) pedants, is a row or argument. At least it isn't from me.

I have been involved in 'dressing up' one way or another since my early teens. I like to feel that puts me in a position of active experience. A man or woman who sees a man wearing heels would say (999 times out of 1000) he's a transvestite. I don't happen to agree. You do. That's fine, but does that mean we must agree you are right? No.

I don't agree the etymologically either. Do a Google search on "red". The last time I did it, there were at least 6 different hues (if not 9) and none of them were directly comparable. Same with CD vs TV. Largely assumed to be the same, (as I have said) and the video's largely support that notion. In my understanding (experience) TV means to cross-over, to completely re-assign gender via clothing, demeanour, and overall look. (Meaning make-up, hair, adornments. This is ALSO true when a women to man cross-over is made and 'fake' beard is added or drawn.)

Conversely, cross-dressing, by implication, involves no gender re-assignment or re-alignment. My viewpoint is that simple. I can't see why anyone would assume they are the same thing. Unless you live in the Americas, where TV has entirely (non-dressing) associations. In Thailand for example, they are known as Lady-boys. Still TV's, men/boys dressed to pass as women/girls. (Often for the purpose of paid-sex.) In this scenario, those wearing female attire would (obviously) prefer to disenfranchise themselves from the TV label, although they fall under it. They use the (in my view - incorrect label) of cross-dressing, despite wanting to pass as females (or males if women by birth gender).  

So cross-dressing has replaced the TV label, because by default, there is no sex industry secondary labelling. (Doesn't mean there isn't one available: it's often known as "sissifying".)

As Puffer rightly says, there are many views, with few agreeing. So much so, it could take a years full-time study to produce a thesis (PhD paper) that still caused disagreement. 

 

A while back I had some debate with No.1 grandson. I suggested to him, if he had a completely unique view on something, would it change anything. The example I gave was: "If everyone says the leaves on trees are green, but you think they are blue, does that make them green or blue?" The answer I gave was that; "while everyone else thinks they are green, they are green, but to you they are blue. You are allowed to see them as blue, as long as you understand everyone else sees them as green."

Not unlike here really. As long as I understand some/many/all don't agree my views, it doesn't matter to anyone. As long as I adjust my labelling to suit others so a reasonable exchange of ideas can occur.

Same true of others. Oddly, (if I remember correctly) you don't like being referred to as a cross-dresser. Understandable if you believe that a CD is a TV, as I don't think wearing make-up and wigs is an interest to you. (Meaning you have no interest in being seen as a woman.) But where does that put you? Do you prefer FreeStyler? Do  you, like Puffer prefer (or see yourself) as a FreeStyler?

I'm happy with the label, though prefer the more definitive F/S dresser. But the bad news is; that it makes you, Puffer, and me, people who see leaves as blue, not green. The other 60M people in this country save perhaps 1-5000, see us as TV's. THAT's why our women folk (and their friends/family) don't encourage men in heels. THOSE people are ignorant to the difference, THOSE people have no need or desire to discover there is a difference. We won't change that, in our (late) lifetimes, we can't hope to ever change that. The important thing for us, is that we know that. 

In my view, the best I could ever hope for, is that people (the general populace) are able to realise there is a difference between gender changing through clothing and overall appearance, to cross-dressing. (Or some other term that clearly infers some middle-ground in wearing gender-assigned clothing.) If I can't convince you that cross-dressing isn't being a TV, I have no hope of that ever. And we have no hope of changing 60M minds either. We are stuck with being labelled transvestites.

 

Here endeth the crusade.

[Puffer]

Oh dear!   And I thought that FF and I were 'debating' ('arguing') these issues perfectly rationally and politely - which I know he agrees is so.

The word 'argument' does not in itself imply belligerence, antagonism or rudeness; it is simply the advancing of views and, if necessary, the rebuttal of others' views.   A debate is an 'argument' - as is the reasoned case put forward in legal proceedings (in court or otherwise) by which one tries to convince an opponent, or judge.   Colloquially, an 'argument' often means a heated disagreement, possibly with physical violence, but that is not the primary meaning.

I should be interested to know from Russ the etymology of both 'transvestite' and 'crossdresser'.   I don't think he means 'etymology', i.e. the derivation of a word and its possibly changing meanings over time.   Clearly, both words have a very different root.  ('Crimson' and 'carmine' are very similar shades of red - identical to many people - but have totally different etymologies.)  Yes, in common perception TV and CD mean more or less the same (or indeed exactly the same) but that is a view born out of ignorance (rather than proven by reasoned 'argument'), as both FF and I have been trying to demonstrate, uphill task though it may be.   To repeat (briefly) in terms of the male gender:  a TV aspires to be a woman in clothing, appearance and behaviour (whilst remaining a genetic male); the CD merely wears (some) female clothing but without trying actively to 'pass'.   A useful and valid distinction, surely, even if a believer may be accused of seeing his leaves as blue ... or maybe as crimson ...? 

[FastFreddy2]

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

  A useful and valid distinction, surely, even if a believer may be accused of seeing his leaves as blue ... or maybe as crimson ...? 

Troublemaker.   

[Tacchi Alti]

Transvestite is from the Latin, meaning precisely crossdresser, so any distinction reasoned from the words themselves is absolute cobblers, to use a suitable expression for this site. ;-) 

[Puffer]

More precisely (but without going into enormous detail), 'transvestism' is a word invented (in Germany) c1910 to mean the practice of dressing and behaving as if of the opposite sex for fetishistic or sexual reasons.   It does indeed come from Latin and has the literal meaning of 'across dressing' (i.e. dressing across the division between the sexes) - or, more simply, 'cross-dressing' (as we would commonly understand that concept).   And from this is derived 'transvestite' - a person who engages in transvestism.

As the literal meaning of transvestism did not, perhaps unfortunately, mention the implicit sexual/fetishistic element, the more precise 'transvestic fetishism' became preferred by some for that reason.   This in turn produced all sorts of confusion and prejudice over the years regarding the correct or acceptable use of transvestism/transvestite etc, particularly when conduct was (in my words) at the more extreme ends of the spectrum, i.e. involving either (a) the additional desire to change sex; or (b) little more than the wearing of some opposite-sex clothing (without the associated behavioural or sexual element).   Those in (a) became more usually identified as being 'transgender' or 'transexual' - terms and concepts with which we are not further concerned in this discussion.   Those in (b), wishing to dissociate themselves from the essentially sexual overtones of transvestism, coined the straightforward English term 'cross-dressing' to describe their milder conduct.   The fact that it has the same English wording as the literal meaning of 'transvestism' is unfortunate and the cause of much of our current confusion, but it has a different derivation and meaning, intentionally so. 

Why 'transvestite' should be considered by some a derogatory term, I do not know (or care).   It has its place if properly used to mean a cross-dresser whose conduct has sexual/fetishistic overtones, as distinct from the 'plain' cross-dresser who merely wears opposite-sex clothing.   And I consider that distinction useful, with or without the even lower-level concept of 'free-styling' (or the more precise 'freestyle-dressing' if preferred).   Let's just remember that 'transvestism' is the original and potentially all-embracing term but which is now considered too extreme for those preferring to engage in activity that less intense and has little or no sexual element. 

[FastFreddy2]

This is how useful duplicate words are.....

Example from my English teacher (long since left this mortal coil) .... "The farmer is sowing seeds in the field. His wife is sewing his shirt in the farmhouse. They are both s_wing." 

 

I've just taken a good look at Wiki and it looks like a fair summary to me, but maybe a little to subtle for some ....  

 

Cross-dressing. This is given to mean the wearing of (typically - but not always) womens clothing by men. It's worn because 'they' (men) like to wear womens clothing. There is no indication as to minimum quantity, nor maximum quantity. They is no mention as to seeking to 'pass' as women. The notion/inference is this 'label' lacks any sexual or fetish attribution. Put succinctly, it's done for (personal) comfort and style. There is no indication that make-up, wigs, smooth skin or any other gender aligned attributes are involved. They may well be, but the accent is on "dressing" as I continue to claim.

A direct quote - "Transvestism" from Wiki:

"Though coined as late as the 1910s, the phenomenon is not new. It was referred to in the Hebrew Bible. The word has undergone several changes of meaning since it was first coined and is still used in a variety of senses. Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory."

As I said ....

The -apparently- medical term transvestite was originally used to describe something a bit further into the 'across' bit, into taking the full look of a woman, intending to "pass". Wigs, make-up, corsets, all part of (my translation) crossing over: The word "trans" in Latin can also mean "on the farther side". "Vestitus" can also mean "garb" or "clad". Using a second translation then, the transvestite is to mean 'clad' (disguised) as the other 'side' (man to woman, woman to man). This would not likely be possible with a completely bald head (men) or with a beard (men). Conversely, wouldn't work with buxom chest (woman) or bright lipstick (woman).

The purpose of this "condition", is strongly associated with sexual or fetishistic needs. In this century, we fully appreciate the needs of those with body dysmorphia, and those who seek sexual gratification from being seen as a woman. (Lady-boys for example.) Historically, men and women with unusual (not-clergy-sanctified) sexual tastes, were seen as being "ill". Hence the creation of the name to describe the medical condition.

 

I'm still happy there's a difference. Wiki (the world's open encyclopedia) tends to agree. at least as I read it. And since I've worn both labels, I feel well placed to make a decision in supporting the summary there.