Talk:Cross-dressing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Billy Tipton[edit]

Has anyone thought to put Billy Tipton as an example? JimCollaborator «talk» 16:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

He would be an excellent example - go ahead! -- AlexR 00:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cultural examples of cross-dressing - pictures[edit]

First: I have expanded the section in question with a place to put examples of cross-dressing in theater, and I would welcome a section on literature. I'd add it myself if I weren't so tired at the moment :)

Anyway, to get to the question: Does anyone have acceptably-licensed pictures of performances of M. Butterfly involving Song Liling and Rene Gallimard that could be used for the cultural examples of cross-dressing section? The one picture that currently exists is fine, but I think that it shifts the section too much towards a stereotypical view of cross-dressing. and it would be nice to include pictures of other examples anyway.

I have some pictures in my copy of The Bedford Introduction to Literature, 6th ed., but I don't think reproduction from that book would be legal. -Yipdw 10:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "T-Girls" picture[edit]

I have removed this pic a few times now, and several people have restored it. I would ask those people to notice though that not only one can very much argue whether this picture is an appropriate illustration to this article or at this place -- what is far less debatable is that the pic does not show "cross-dressing" people! It can be very clearly seen in the two women on the left that they had undergone medical procedures to feminise their bodies; meaning they are not just cross-dressing. (I'd also say all four have taken hormones, and there was probably facial surgery involved, too.) This is confirmed by the back of the video [1]. (WARNING! Not work-safe, sexually explicit!) In other words, this picture does not belong into this article, because the women shown are not just cross-dressing. Additionally, I seriously doubt that many people would consider, say, illustrating woman with a porn pic, so I see no reason to illustrate this article with one. -- AlexR 30 June 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Why Is wearing a skirt considered cross dressing?[edit]

before medieval times men wore skirt/dress like clothes ex. Roman soldiers yet it is still ok for a Scotsman to wear a kilt people are so ignorant of this Dudtz 8/19/05 6:05 PM EST

Because today a skirt is a female piece of clothing - while those garments you refer to are not female pieces of clothing, but were male pieces of clothing; hence if a man today wears a skirt, it is cross-dressing, while him wearing a kilt is not. What's so difficult to understand about that? -- AlexR 09:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
As the article says, "The actual determination of cross-dressing is largely socially constructed". Yes, it doesn't make sense that people view it okay to wear a skirt in some circumstances (such as it being knee-length and tartan), but not others. However, there is no implication in this article that cross-dressing is not okay - but rather that what is cross-dressing is merely dictated by social fashions. I would say this is covered by the "Equal Clothing Rights" section, which points out the viewpoint that people shouldn't have to stick to the traditional clothes for their gender in their society. Mdwh 03:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Go to the mall and try to find a men's store selling skirts. That should answer your question.Brettland (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Poor argument. Although it's ten years after your comment, it's no different today. In early fall of 2007, a man went into a national chain women's clothing store in a mall and asked an assistant to measure him for a dress. She measured, showed him some items , encouraged him to try them on in the dressing room and eventually checked out his purchase. It's 2018 today and increasingly less often an issue. Men and women are largely only subject to signage that is a guide, not as a requirement, if they - or somebody else - feels uneasy about ignoring it. The biggest hurdle is in the mind of the person who is "cross-dressing", because individuals are disinclined to take issue with a cross-dresser in such a public place.
So, although it might still be regarded as "cross-dressing", it's less often than it used to be and even ten years ago it was rare that the term would be applied to a person to his face because it was the stuff of behind-the-back gossip. Thyrd (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


Young boys in the 1800s used to wear dresses until they were 5-8 years of age. It was called breeching. This happened not for years but centuries. Many boy babies are even today baptized in a gown. This was not considered crossdressing, but rather comfort. What was acceptable for decades, should not be "labelled". Crossdresser Closet —Preceding MELANIE comment added by (User talk:MELANIE) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dressing busses up as trolleys"?[edit]

(reference: Cross-dressing#Cross-dressing_that_may_or_may_not_be_related_to_transgender, last bullet item)

How is this cross-dressing? Is this some cultural reference that I'm just not understanding? (And, if so, can someone elaborate on why it belongs in this article?) -Yipdw 02:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed. Nobody on #wikipedia got the joke, either. Also, buses don't exactly have a gender, be it same or different from those of trolleys. And that's not dressing, either. -- AlexR 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

General revision and editing[edit]

This article seems to have been rather badly overedited. It struck me as being repetitive and confusing, to the point of being almost incomprehensible. I have attempted to simplify and clarify things a bit. I apologize if I have unwittingly removed any important information while editing the article and encourage future revisions that correct any such errors. My only intent is to make this article easier to read.

I would like to suggest that the subheadings under "Specific types of cross-dressing" be removed. I don't see the benefit of attempting to declare categorically what behavior is related to transgender and what is not, and the category "Cross-dressing that may or may not be related to transgender" is comically vague. If a list of examples is necessary, I think it would be better to simply put them all under "Specific types of cross-dressing" and leave it at that. 128.104.216.12 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "Specific types of cross-dressing" to be in paragraph form. An article like this can never be a definitive guide to all types of cross-dressing, but I think presenting the information in list form makes people think it should be an exhaustive list and encourages them to add examples of more and more specific and less and less common forms of cross-dressing. I have attempted to rewrite this section as a more general look at common forms of cross-dressing. CKarnstein 19:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Female-bodied cross-dressers[edit]

(The following was moved from the article Cross-dressing

Lets get real! Cross-dressing women are common in modern Western societies. Just look at what we wear: Jeans, t-shirts, 'jogging' shoes. Just pick up a catalog like Lane Bryant and see henley, turtleneck, crewneck tee, flannel bigshirt and other 'manly' wear. Get away from the computer and look at us in society. We dress more like you then you expect. (Posted by User:209.102.127.133)

A modern North American or European woman wearing jeans isn't crossdressing because the clothes she is wearing are in compliance with social norms for women in her culture. Similarly, a Scottish man wearing a kilt is not cross-dressing, even though a kilt looks an awful lot like a garment traditionally worn by women in many parts of the world. There's nothing inherent in pants or skirts that makes them seem masculine or feminine, crossdressing can only exist within a social context. CKarnstein 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the question of how many cross-dressers of a particular type there are is rather paradoxical - as soon as there are enough of them, it becomes part of what is considered "normal", and hence no longer cross-dressing. This is partly covered by the sentence "Some people attribute this not to an actually lower number, but to the difficulties involved in identifying cross-dressing behavior when so many women wear traditionally masculine clothing such as trousers." But I can kind of see the point of view of User:209.102.127.133 - the opening sentence "Cross-dressing among women, at least in modern Western societies, seems to be rare." does seem a bit meaningless altogether in my opinion, given how paradoxical the issue is; it is impossible to define how many of a particular gender cross-dress, since what counts as cross-dressing depends on how few of that gender wear such clothes. Mdwh 03:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In the article, we say The behaviour of women in general has historically often received less attention than that of men. I don't know whether this can be defended or not (look at all the fashion magazines) but women in Western society have had a lot more freedom in what they can wear. While men were wearing dark suits and striped ties to work, women could wear a wide array of colors, suits, skirts, dresses, boots, heels, flats, etc. etc. So it's not surprising that when they chose to extend this to pants, there wasn't a huge uproar. Sure, some fancy restaurants and formal businesses prohibited women from wearing pants at first, but that soon passed. Imagine if men had decided to wear skirts to work at the same time. Things are still changing and maybe men will catch up with women in this area. But they're clearly 25 years behind or more. –Shoaler (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There actually was a huge uproar over the introduction of trousers for women ("Bloomers") in the mid-19th century. It took more than a century for them to become generally accepted as women's wear. Through the first half of the 20th century few women dared go out in trousers, although many wore them around the house or when involved in physical labor. Some movie stars like Katherine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich were known for wearing trousers, but this was part of their strong, assertive (dare I say masculine?) Hollywood images and not a reflection of fashions worn by ordinary women. Not just fancy restaurants and formal businesses but many other establishments, including public schools, prohibited girls and women from wearing trousers until the early 1970s. When things finally changed, it was thanks in part to the efforts of the burgeoning Women's Movement. Acceptance of trousers for women was certainly not something that happened quickly or without struggle, but this struggle is yet another example of a piece of women's history that's largely been forgotten. CKarnstein 06:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Crossdressing vs Transvestism[edit]

There is a major difrence between Crossdressing and Transvestism.

Crossdressing is wearing the clothing of the opposite sex whilst not trying to pass as the opposite sex.

Transvestism is the wearing of clothing of the opposite sex and trying to pass as the opposite sex by the use of makeup mannerisms tone of voice ect, most people do not know the difference and assume that anyone wearing the clothing of the opposite sex is a Transvestite and also gay. The majority of crossdressers are not gay, from the people i know (i am a crossdresser and have been for most of my life)i would say that around 95% of crossdressers are hetresexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.160.114 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

> I found a comment somewhere, that there are two types of clothing: Womens clothing, and unisex clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.196.224 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This section is unreferenced and makes some pretty strong claims with a lot of NPOV content.

  • "There are some who believe that "crossdressing" really isn't an appropriate term at all." Who are these people?
  • "In fact, in many locals in the 1930s, the wear of anything other than skirts and dresses by females was outlawed!" Does this mean governments had formal laws against it? Where?
  • "This begs the question - when are men who choose alternative forms of fashion going to be consider men, instead of by some demeaning/derogatory term?" Horribly POV sentence.

--howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There are not cut and clear rules. I'm a straight male who enjoys wearing lingerie. Others might want makeup or full female clothes. Some might be gay and enjoy the female role in sex. For what it is worth, crossdressing in my experience is fairly common, and only the woman involved in accepting it is the problem. It's a kink, and I do believe women in the lives of men who are crossdresers should be informed. Not every woman can accept it. Those who can, will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.150.61 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2007

I agree. I've made a few changes, but the whole section reads like original research. I think it should be deleted with a reference to transvestism. –Shoaler (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this section is rather bad - especially since it is near the top. Perhaps it's better to skip to "Varieties of cross-dressing", and then put "Crossdressing vs Transvestism" later on?
I would say that "There are some who believe that "crossdressing" really isn't an appropriate term at all." refers to those who are later described as simply having "a personal preference for clothing traditionally associated with the opposite sex": crossdressing arguably could imply that the person is intending to wear clothes of specifically the opposite gender, as opposed to simply liking those clothes. However I agree that this phrase is on its own unsupported, and doesn't really add anything that isn't covered by the later sections.
I've now tried to clean it up a bit more:
  • I've changed it to "Transvestism" and "crossdressing" rather than "Transvestite" and "cross-dresser" - if distinctions are made between the two words, labelling *people* may imply that people can only fit into one or the other category, when in fact there may be several reasons someone may crossdress (eg, someone who simply prefers the clothing, but also may sometimes wear them in a sexual roleplaying context - the former does not imply the latter cannot be true). Not to mention that I feel it's usually better to refer to behaviours rather than labelling people.
  • I've tried to water down some of the claims made - I don't think it can be said that these things are always true, just often or sometimes (eg, I disagree that crossdressing is always limited to significantly fewer items of clothing), and again it implies that people can only fall into one category or the other, but not both.
  • I agree with comments made about transvestic fetishism, but I think it's still good to mention it with a link to the article, in order to explain the distinctions (which I think that article does well).
  • Whilst transvestism may include those who identify as the opposite gender, it is important to mention that this doesn't necessarily imply sexual overtones as well. This is simply a case of the same word having several meanings (as described in the transvestism article). Mdwh 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that people have tried to revise the questionable new additions, but I thought it best to remove them altogether. This was clearly the work of someone with an axe to grind. All the real factual information seems to have been covered by other parts of the article already. Otherwise it seemed like a lot of subjective opinions and tedious nitpicking. CKarnstein 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

bully for utena[edit]

I'm going to change the utena thing to reference the movie. Utena does not really cross-dress in the show, she wears the boys' uniform, and not even the pants. So basically she wears a mans jacket and red streach pants, which are not mens clothing. A man wearing a baby-doll shirt may get some comments, but isn't really cross dressing.

In the movie, she actually looks like a boy because she actually wants to look like a boy. She also apparently binds her breasts in the movie.

Fidelio[edit]

The previous version of this article claimed that women did not perform in the theater in Beethoven's time, and that the role of Lenore/Fidelio was played by a man. Both claims are false. The role of Lenore/Fidelio was originated by soprano Anna Milder (see http://opera.stanford.edu/Beethoven/Fidelio/history.html). CKarnstein 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved the Fidelio section from "Theater" to "Opera" and cleaned up the opera section. CKarnstein 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

archives created for old discussion[edit]

As the cross-dressing discussion page was over five times the suggested maximum size, I have created two archives for older discussion topics. The lengthy Joan of Arc debate, which even when isolated is far longer than the suggested maximum, is preserved in the second archive. CKarnstein 05:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous Cross-Dressers[edit]

Does anyone have a reputable reference for the list of famous cross-dressers? I found the inclusion of Pope Paul II curious, and started researching him. The Pope Paul II article on wikipedia doesn't say anything about him being a cross dresser; it states that his nickname is derived from his "propensity to enjoy dressing up in sumptuous ecclesiastical finery". None of the other encyclopedia's I've checked corroborate this either. I propose deleting his name, unless someone finds a good source. Rob 15:37, 26 April 2006

At least slap in a {{fact}} for the moment, and I propose deleting it when nobody answers here or gives a reference in 2 or 3 days. Unfortunately, these lists often gain entries which are less than good-faith. -- AlexR 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article structure[edit]

This article contains a lot of good information, but it is poorly structured. The text is incoherent: there are too many overshort paragraphs, bulleted lists, and the like. The article begins with an explanation of details of usage of the terms cross-dressing and cross-dresser, instead of going to the point. A good encyclopedia article should present general information first and specific information after that. Because of this, I'll put this on the cleanup list.--212.50.147.101 13:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is now 36k bytes, which exceeds the recommended limit of 32k bytes. (See Wikipedia:Article size.) As such, I believe that we should consider splitting some of this article off into one or more new sub-articles.
Personally, I'm just starting on putting together a series of articles on cross-dressing technique (eg Hip and buttock padding) that will all really need to be referenced from a parent article fairly close to this one, probably as a sub-article to this one.
Do we want to create pages such as Cross-dressing history, Cross-dressing technique, etc, or would some other form of naming be more appropriate? --AliceJMarkham 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal[edit]

This article has been targeted extensively by the Joan of Arc vandal on various accounts and unregistered IP addresses. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

This vandal, who has now been identified and community banned, damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversion of Varieties of cross-dressing section to list form[edit]

I have reverted an edit by Sallyrob (talk · contribs), which was a conversion of the Varieties of cross-dressing section to a list form. I don't see this as a productive move and believe that it is contrary to WP:MOS. --AliceJMarkham 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Cross-dressing among women in modern Western societies seems to be rare."[edit]

Rubbish! They do it all the time, every day. They wear trousers or pants in American english, shirts, men's jackets, mens coats, and so on. Even women's boots are derived from men's riding boots of several centuries ago. Many women have short hair too.

I think its a mistake for that section of the article to say that women do not cross dress because, it says, wearing men's clothes by women is not seen as cross dressing. Rather it should say that they very frequently cross dress but it is socially acceptable for women to do so.

I think women still do get something of a minor sexual thrill in wearing mens styles - for example wearing trousers would be felt to be more sexy than wearing long skirts, and wearing thigh-boots would definately be thought of as being more sexy than just average womens shoes.

The article does not say anything about how women wearing men's clothes used to be illegal, about how Great Garbo I think was arrested in the 1920s for wearing a mans suit in public, and before that how a female doctor at the time of the American civil war wore mens clothes - I cannot remember where I read that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.122 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Generally I agree - the question of how common it is meaningless, because as soon as a lot of one gender wear clothes traditionally associated with the other gender, it stops being seen as cross-dressing. Note that the article does try to address this - it says seems, and then states why this isn't necessarily the case. I tried to simplify it a bit and remove some of the references to how common it is - we can't really be trying to judge how common it is or isn't without it being original research (unless we have some references to rely on).
I agree it would be good to have more information on female cross-dressing in the past. And is it really true that female cross-dressing received less attention historically, as the article currently claims? Mdwh 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a distinction to be made between a woman who attempts to disguise herself as a man and a woman who merely wears a man's shirt - which doesn't carry the stigma or necessarily the sexual charge of cross-dressing. While most people would associate a mild transgressive thrill to a woman who wears her lover's shirt the day after she spends a night at his apartment, women also buy men's clothes because they're more affordable or better made than comparable women's wear. I happen to wear men's athletic shoes because I have wider feet and higher arches than most women, which makes me a standard men's size. That choice is all about whether I'll be comfy or miserable after three miles of jogging. Actually passing for a man would be well-nigh impossible because the public at large knows how to spot a woman in man's clothes better than it can spot a man in woman's clothes. From the ankles up my proportions aren't masculine at all. DurovaCharge 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Greedo as cross-dressing example?[edit]

I question the entry of a female actress's portrayal of male alien Greedo from Star Wars as an example of cross-dressing. An alien costume is hardly clothing, and probably a female was used because women are generally smaller than men and Greedo is a small alien. This makes no sense to me.

Why not add Linda Hunt's portrayal of a male character in The Year of Living Dangerously?

--Athena2006 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

70.16.91.154 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Samantha Shaffer== TotW:RM as an example? ==

Should this be added:

There must be loads of games where it's possible for the player to choose to wear an item that was intended for the opposite sex - I don't see anything special about this game? Mdwh 00:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please talk about general acting, and i think it would be more revelant to article if pointed to examples that potray real live rather than external human life forms, as far as im concerned it could even been the alien themselfs.

Usage clarification[edit]

I think the Usage section should state the meaning of the terms "male cross-dresser" and "female cross-dresser". Which one is "male dressed in female clothing", and which one is "female dressed in male clothing"?

Perhaps a better explanation would be Male to Female and Female to Male crossdresser. Crossdresser Closet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.2.105 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, when it says "Nearly every human society throughout history has distinguished between male and female gender", it would be interesting to know what societies do not or did not.

--Debeige 08:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I believe that the societies where the people are naked do not distinguish between male and female clothing. There is a blog about drag queens that belongs in this wikipedia. *The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.205.91 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Famous Examples of Cross-dressing - Loki[edit]

Under the Some Famous Examples of Cross-dressing heading, there is the statement: "Loki transformed himself into a mare (thus crossdressing and making himself look nonhuman) and in that form became the mother of Sleipnir."

Should this statement be cut? Loki seems to be an example of shapeshifting rather than cross-dressing, since no clothing is involved.

Librarianintraining (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossdressing to overcome gender discrimination[edit]

Is the perspective of this article presented in the current article at all? It's about Afghan girls who grow up dressed as boys to escape the strict limitations of living imposed on girls in that country's traditional culture. __meco (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection Wikipedia actually has an article on this phenomenon called bacha posh. __meco (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

While cross-dressing and transvestism are not entirely synonymous, there is so much overlap that they could be merged. There are certainly much larger entries on Wikipedia than a merged page would be. Transvestites cross-dress, and crossdressers engage in transvestism, as both words are defined. Cross-dressing does have a distinct definition among some that separates it out from fetishistic dressing - and sometimes from transgender dressing, but that could be pointed out in the merged entry. The problem would be in getting sources to cite - which is a big problem on the transvestism page. Both transvestism and cross-dressing really need to be fit in with transexual/transgender, as they are related in the sense that there is both overlap and a relationship by degree. Some self-identifying cross-dressers also identify as transgender at least in part, and some eventually consider transitioning, while for others, they identify as heterosexual males with a feminine side, and have no iterest in transitioning to female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkinBoston (talkcontribs) 02:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved line from article to here[edit]

However, referring to a person as a cross-dresser suggests that their cross-dressing behavior is habitual and may be taken to mean that the person identifies as transgender.

I do not personally believe that this line gives any weight. Cultural interpretations of why a person cross-desses or what cross-dressing means to a particular person is questionable. If someone were to support this claim from a social-historian perspective, it might give due weight to the sentence... but as a stand-alone phrase, I do not think it is necessary. Thanks, 65.26.177.239 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

biological concepts[edit]

(Undid revision 501980517 by Jidanni (talk) - rv: sorry, Sexual mimicry is a strictly :biological concept - crossdressing is (er) "social")

Well do add a note somewhere. Jidanni (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be taken to mean that, huh? Why the subjunctive qualifier? Hedging your bet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.116 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that FTM cross-dressing be merged into Cross-dressing. A separate article is unnecessary. A section within the destination article would best serve visitors.

See also: Talk:FTM cross-dressing#Propose merging

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, although there's no content to merge. The article, as it is, is no more than a WP:DICDEF and the title probably falls afoul of WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Pburka (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved – Orangemike as redirected the page here. Well done. :)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay Men & Women Crossdressing[edit]

Shouldn't this article mention gay males and lesbian women who crossdress in public? This is somewhat common now (at least in major cities), especially lesbian/queer women dressed in full men's clothing in public. Why the whitewash? Voss91 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Majority of gays don't crossdress. However gay men that crossdress are usoually unsecured about there sexual orientatin. If you have source though regarding gay crossdressing then include it 31.209.159.209 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Small change in the last paragraph of 'Analyses'.[edit]

I've changed the sentence "Some psychoanalysts today do not regard cross-dressing by itself as a psychological problem, unless it interferes with a person's life.", specifically removing the 'some' from it. I did this because it is a weasel word intended to imply that more psychoanalysts do regard it a psychological problem. In actual fact, all psychoanalysts today do not regard anything a psychological problem unless it interferes with a person's life. This is why neither cross-dressing nor homosexuality are in the DSM anymore. Robrecht (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit you made, Robrecht. Since you referred to the WP:Weasel word guideline, I knew that you were not simply an IP, but rather someone who is familiar with Wikipedia editing. I point out, however, that using "some" to state "some people" and similar is not always WP:Weasel wording. The WP:Weasel wording guideline also makes that clear. Furthermore, it's not accurate to state, "In actual fact, all psychoanalysts today do not regard anything a psychological problem unless it interferes with a person's life." There are a lot of things, such as murder or rape, that psychoanalysts regard as a psychological problem without those things interfering with the life of the person who committed those acts. Then again, I am aware that some aspects of murder, due to different laws, don't come with a psychological problem, and murder or rape negatively affect the lives of people regardless of whether or not they are the result or cause of psychological problems for the perpetrators. Anyway, by "interference," what the experts (psychoanalysts or other researchers) mean, as also noted in the Sexual fetishism article, is "if [the matter in question] causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life." As for homosexuality being removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it was removed from the DSM for more than one reason, but, simply put, it is not a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition to the "Analysis" part[edit]

Based on ancient French literatures, around 12-13th century, cross-dressing for females is quite a trope. For instance, Silence is a successful female knight in "le Roman de Silence," Jon is another outstanding female knight in "Joan of Arc," Denise is a female Saint in "Brother Denise," et cetera. Since cross-dressing back then is considered a sin in the Bible, the situations were mostly turned down at the end of literary pieces for obvious religious purposes. However, time and time again people challenge the doctrine by wearing clothes of the opposite sex. Female cross-dressing normally accompanies with manly behaviors/activities for effective deceit or voluntary passing. Women cut their hair, dress in pants and robes, and hunt in the remote forests. Reasons behind Medieval female cross-dressing can be illustrated in several ways: to achieve better opportunities in life as men get by smoother; to protect one's womanhood as not being subjected to potential rape; to feel strong, take control of one's businesses, and be the dominator. Mikahua (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Mika Hua, 8/31/15

To add this to the article it must all be sourced. BMK (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that a minor section on "cross-dressing in literature" would be helpful. Not only has the topic of cross-dressing been extensively explored in literature, but it might also be helpful to depict attitudes surrounding cross-dressing during the different time periods. It is generally very helpful to be able to see examples of a topic in literature and pop culture for the reader to reference. The history section notes that cross-dressing has appeared abundantly in music, literature, and folklore but only lists Kabuki and Korean shamanism. Mkchang (talkcontribs) 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it must be sourced, which is to say that a reliable source must be quoted analyzing or interpreting the literary works you're thinking of - it should not be you doing the interpretation or analysis, that would violate out policy against original research. However, straight-forward description of the content of literary works can be sourced by the works themselves, if there is absolutely no interpretation or analysis involved. BMK (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Transvestism?[edit]

Are the terms synonymous? If there's a real difference, neither article makes it immediately apparent. Also, Transvestism is a stubby little article compared to this one, with little content. 2600:1015:B128:124C:683C:1444:A411:3A03 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I believe that Cross-dressing should be the merge target, as the term is more widely applicable and more neutral. Pburka (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The See also section[edit]

I would like to add two related links to the See also section. The two links are Cross-gender acting and Womanless wedding. I reached an agreement with an opposing user on my talk page here: User_talk:Bensin#WP:BRD. Does anyone oppose to these two links being added? --Bensin (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd reverted your change because I didn't see any discussion here. Only afterwards did I see that it had been discussed elsewhere. I don't object to the change. Pburka (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pburka: No worries. Thanks for re-inserting. --Bensin (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not holding the discussion here, it just sort of happened where ti was. BMK (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-dressing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-dressing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:LGBT about similarity among several related articles[edit]

A discussion about the similarity and differences among several articles including this one and Transvestism and other related articles (Drag (clothing), Transvestic fetishism, Ball culture, et al.) is taking place at WT:LGBT. Your feedback is welcome. 22:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

New Terminology section[edit]

I think the new #Terminology section fills a need in the article. And as mentioned in the section above, there is some discussion of this at WT:LGBT. But here, I wanted to address one sentence added to the article relating to the term "cross-dressing".

In the this discussion at WT:LGBT, Carbon Caryatid mentioned that a debate arose some time back that ""The term cross-dressing too is somewhat outdated and problematic", and included it as part of a longer edit that created the new section, citing Richards (2008). But how widespread is the view that cross-dressing is outdated and problematic? If it's only the view of a small minority, then per WP:DUE it doesn't belong there. I'm going to remove it for now, to provoke a discussion, but I'm fine with putting it back if it has even minority support to meet the due weight bar. Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as you know, I brought this up in the aforementioned discussion. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Further reading...[edit]

Driven by this[2] recent edit that added a book along with a redlinked author, I thought it a valid opportunity to look at the rest of the list. Many of the links are not actually links, merely a list of works, along with no way of checking the validity or notability. Indeed, one link for "Alice in genderland: a crossdresser comes of age" also blues to the Iuniverse article, which is a vanity publisher and so is unlikely to be a notable work.
There are thousands of literary works on any subject, Cross-dressing included, and a line needs to be drawn to decide upon inclusion or not, otherwise (as I pointed out) the list will simply grow unchecked with any given editors favorite book using the argument of "X exists in the list, so why not Y?"
It may be an arbitrary line, but a line nonetheless. Curved Space (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but if someone thought they were worth adding, maybe asking them would be a starting point. In addition, there's no requirement that authors be linked, but I've reformatted three of them as {{citation}} templates including the one with the redlinked author which is now just plaintext. Notability applies to the topic of an article, not to its content, and certainly not to the Further reading list or its authors. I agree that anything that is self-published or by a vanity press is highly suspect and should not be included. "So why not Y?" is a what-about argumentation, and can and should be ignored; see also WP:Other stuff exists. The question of where to draw the line, in the end, like most things, should be by consensus. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with all you say. However, my justification is being bold in editing, and then to begin a discussion over the validity of such entries - indeed only through discussion can consensus be arrived at. Given the drive-by nature of the addition of the latest link, I suspect it unlikely we'll ever hear from the editor again. Also, I'm not sure of your interpretation of (non) notable content. I would counter that the very topic heading of "Further reading" must imply that there is some intrinsic value of the link over and beyond any other link that could have been used, and a good yardstick of the value would be notability of either the (in this case) book, or author, not the topic? Otherwise what criteria do we agree upon in order to keep the list manageable?
Can I also just ask - you are agreeing with me over Otherstuff, yes?
Finally, so now we're here, I will reiterate my opinion that the Further reading possibly contains either an excessive number of entries, or at least some that are not necessarily the best examples of FR that could be used.
I think my main concern is that entries have been made into this list and in some cases there is no way of checking whether they are either a damn good book, one that promotes understanding, insight and enlightenment - or is it one written by the editors best friend/manager/relative in an afternoon in a bar and printed by giveusyourmoneyforpulp.com in a limited run of 250 copies. In this case, I think a level of notability will help decide this - Article history shows that nobody has looked at the FR section with a view to cleanup, so maybe it's time?
I welcome all opinions. Curved Space (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
There have been no further comments surrounding this, so as I proposed, I'm removing those listed that have no wikilinks (not counting the ISBN numbers). Curved Space (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Analysis section[edit]

The "Analysis" section of this article is quite well-written and forms a good argument, but I'm not sure it's objective enough for WP, and it may border on improper synthesis. Thoughts? Kranix (talk | contribs) 21:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dual-role transvestism[edit]

Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT I've blanked the dual-role transvestism article and redirected it here. It was a languishing, poor quality stub about a diagnosis that was recently removed from the ICD. WanderingWanda (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cross-talking[edit]

Sourcing the definition from English-language dictionaries is problematic. The online dictionaries of Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan, American Heritage, and the Oxford Learner's Dictionary are unanimous in defining cross-dressing in terms of wearing clothing (etc.) "commonly associated with" (or "designed for", etc.) "the opposite sex." This association is communicated through gender roles, a term first used by John Money during his study of intersex people, for many of whom no "opposite sex" can meaningfully be said to exist. We're talking about a number of people, globally, similar to the population of Laos.[1] Nobody would sucessfully argue that Wikipedia articles shouldn't regard the characteristics of Lao people where they differ from the rest of the people of Southeast Asia, so don't even. Cross-dressing also occurs in societies that recognize more than two genders, such as Australia,[2] in which case "opposite" is also ambiguous. And so it gets messy. Definitions say it's based on sex, other sources say it's based on gender and gender roles. "Opposite" lacks meaning either way. Reliable sources rely on reliable sources, lending inertia to errors that are simple to correct in light of new evidence. This is the context for my WP:BOLD edit changing the wording from "commonly associated with the opposite sex" to "not commonly associated with one's gender". This is a paraphrase of the cited reference that means the same thing to those who conflate gender with biological sex, to those who believe there are only two of either, and to those who accept what I've presented in this section. It makes our definition more relevant to cultures worldwide, and it doesn't weigh in on questions of how many there are of anything. I will let you in on my diabolical plan to add the word "perceived" once I've found good refs for it, since people can't always accurately determine sex or gender on sight. Just ask Pat.

References

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/#38175dbd76b9 ("The biology of sex is real, but it’s extremely complicated, and there is sometimes no easy way to draw a line between the biologically male and female. According to the BBC documentary, Me, My Sex and I, “There are about a dozen different conditions that blur the line between male and female. They’re known as disorders of sexual development or DSDs…. Altogether, DSDs occur as frequently as twins or red hair.”) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html ("The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleven even (talkcontribs)

I'm not getting into all that debate. I made this, this and this edit following your edits. Like another editor told you, we should stick to what the sources state. That includes summarizing accurately rather than putting our own spin on things. I noted that cross-dressing is based on the gender binary. And that gender binary is based on sex/assigned sex. "Opposite sex" is correct per the sources. And many or most intersex people are tired of being treated like a third sex in these types of discussions/arguments. They usually identify as male or female and usually look like one or the other. They also speak of how their chromosomes, despite being atypical, align more with one sex or the other. For now, I left "sex" in rather than "opposite sex." Stating "gender" is not best, given how broad gender is these days, with non-binary gender identities...and even including the topic of third gender.
On a side note: Like I also stated: With regard to "items of clothing and other accessories", where do sources state "or" rather than "and"? Putting on an earring and nothing else that is commonly associated with the opposite sex is not cross-dressing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The source cited doesn't use "and" or "or" because it doesn't mention accessories at all. "An earring and nothing else commonly associated with the opposite sex" is commonly associated with males in modern Western cultures, so I would be more likely to argue that a woman wearing a single earring is cross-dressing. Fringe case. Is a man considered to be cross dressing if he paints his nails, carries a sequined purse, and wears a pearl necklace with jeans and a t-shirt? WP:COMMON The "spin" I'm putting on things, in my mind, is accuracy. Dictionary editors say "opposite sex" because one of them said it a long time ago and they haven't changed their minds yet. Biologist say it's not really binary, which makes "opposite" meaningless. Which sources do we follow? Because, as should be WP:NOTED, I did cite sources for my claim that the changes I made and proposed improve the article. We may be required to cite sources for material we include, but we aren't required to include all the material in the sources we cite. WP:WL Personally, I do care about the experience of intersex people in the context of a debate like this. I would respond that "many or most" want to pass because societies stigmatize deviation from the norm, which stigma is supported by inconsiderate use of terms like "opposite sex". But that's not entirely relevant. Intersex is an empirically demonstrable reality, with sources, and that's how I've used it in the argument above. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 19:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This and this are the only things I have to state to your latest reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so nobody else? It looks like it's just you and me so far, @Flyer22 Frozen:. And since you're "not getting into all that debate" and don't seem to want to answer any of my points except to say WP:GUIDELINES, and I believe that WP:IAR was created for a reason, I'm adding "or accessories" on the assumption that there will be very little, if any, controversy on the actual subject matter. I'll let you choose the source ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) and point you to here, where you're just as likely as not to find other uncontroversial uncited assertions to rulemonger about. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 10:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not attempting to spam, they do all mention accessories specifically.
The debate is whether or not the conjunction should be "or" or "and"? Useight (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, after the debate on whether accessories should be included. As far as conjunctions, "and" says you have to do both, which isn't true. Thoughts? ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 17:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
My thought on the matter is that the proper conjunction is "or", or, alternatively "and/or", since it is not required to do both. However, I would not include this detail in the lead per WP:UNDUE. I would put it somewhere else on the page. Useight (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Reverted. All poor sources. They do not pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Don't WP:Ping me to this talk page again. I am obviously watching it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm "not getting into all that debate" because Wikipedia is not a forum and I go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Furthermore, WP:IAR is not a "get of jail free" card to do whatever you want. Otherwise, we wouldn't follow Wikipedia's rules at all. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, none of those 8 are reliable sources. In fact, almost all of them are sales websites. As for IAR, I'll apply IAR to IAR, so we're left with WP:RS and WP:Due. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is incredibly great ludicrosity. Would someone, anyone, please tell me that they disagree with the basic premise that accessories are part of cross dressing? Or is it just the case that it does not matter at all if it's true, and guidelines like WP:COMMON just exist for appearances and can't actually justify an edit if enough editors reply with other guidelines to support the position they prefer? The websites aren't sourced for what they say, but the fact that they exist. Are there commercial websites selling yoyos to dogs? These are here because they have a market. Really, though, whatever. Thank you for exemplifying wikilawyering and clarifying that you regard the WP:GUIDELINES as rules. At least some truth came out. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 06:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't go down the slope of "I just know it's true". If reliable sources aren't saying it, then it's WP:Undue. The sources emphasize the clothing. Accessories alone aren't generally considered cross-dressing, making "or" a problem, and "and" implies they're required, which they're not. Crossroads -talk- 16:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you need to study WP:Wikilawyering. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
And although WP:Policies and guidelines notes that "Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules", our policies and guidelines are still rules. That is why WP:IAR has "rules" in its title and in the lone sentence used to explain what it is...with "rules" linking to WP:Policies and guidelines. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

___

Underdressing[edit]

There is no reason for underdressing to appear under the Sexual fetishes section. Underdressing can be an important part of being able to obtain gender euphoria for closeted transgender people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorRad (talkcontribs) 14:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved to "Clothes" section. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of autogynophila/autoandrophilia from crossdressing footer[edit]

I have attempted to remove autogynophila/autoandrophilia from the crossdressing footer, where it is listed under “sexuality”, as it is not an accepted theory or paraphilia itself, yet the footer author Trekker is resisting this alteration, despite these terms not being included on this page either. Any assistance or support on this alteration would be appreciated.KillingsBjorn (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)