Defintion of "Cross-Dressing"?

It's not really definable, is it?

Noting that this is, for some unfathomable reason, a topic that women discussing attracts many reports and thus deletions are common.

We have had instances of deletions for being too general, and also for being too specific.

This demonstrates that certain topics really do seem to make people angry, I wonder why.

Anyway, Franca, exactly. It's exactly the same issue as we come up against as 'gender'. It's undefinable. We can't have an agreed, verifiable, testable definition of 'gender' nor one of 'cross dressing'. Not a practical one, anyway.

We cannot base legislation and law on things that can't be defined. At least, I don't bloody see how that's not going to create a horrendous mess.

If a man wears lacy knickers/suspender belts/stockings that's definitely cross dressing to me.
I think the performative aspect is important. My OH wears a sarong in summer because he thinks it's comfortable/airy, I don't think he cross dresses.
If he was wearing lacy thongs I'd have a different opinion

The practicality part explains women in trousers and male items. I used to love second hand men’s overcoat because of the inside breast pocket and I was living in a country where you had to carry passport/ID with you at all times.
The only practical items that were traditionally coded female - in the home at least - were pinnies or aprons - I can remember male relatives wearing them when doing the washing up after Christmas dinner or similar rare occasions and the jokes made

[quote Cailleach1]@Whatiswrongwithmyknee ,It's basically men wearing dresses, skirts, high heels and make up. So no, you can't define it without using regressive stereotypes which is why it should not be a matter of law.

Oh dear, I'm not wearing any of those stylised fabrics or potions today. Does that mean that according to this belief system that I'm not a woman today? And moreover, in contrast a man wearing such stylised fabrics and potions is a woman today?[/quote]
I'm afraid so. A man who does not see himself as trans who wears a dress because he likes to is more of a woman than a woman in jeans. If you want to be accepted as a woman false eyelashes and shoes too high to walk in are a good place to start. Sadly, I don't wear any of those but thank god I put a dress on today or I wouldn't know if I was arthur or martha.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee ,It's basically men wearing dresses, skirts, high heels and make up. So no, you can't define it without using regressive stereotypes which is why it should not be a matter of law.

Oh dear, I'm not wearing any of those stylised fabrics or potions today. Does that mean that according to this belief system that I'm not a woman today? And moreover, in contrast a man wearing such stylised fabrics and potions is a woman today?

I think my scepticism in the belief that clothes change you sex or represent any change at all stems from my own experience.

Dear readers, I have even run out of clean clothing and have had to grab some of my OH's. Did it do anything or mean anything other than clean clothing. No. Therefore, I know from my own experience (we can call it evidence) that such claims or professed beliefs are not rooted in fact.

I remain open to the fact (not really, but apparently I have to say this) that others people are completely and utterly transformed at molecular level when they are clothed by certain items. Isn't it odd how highly novel and unsubstantiated claims are not censored?

In some countries and religions, womens clothing is controlled by custom or even by law. But not mens

There are some cases where men are subject to dress according to custom- sikhs for example. Sikh women cover their heads in solidarity, but it’s the men that have to. Much rarer, and usually far less about control, but it does happen.

From the reading I’ve done some cross dressing can be sensory, and that’s why it’s nearly always a male->female thing. Womens clothes tend to have softer fabric, silks, jersey etc- i don’t like the style of womens clothes generally, but hate the feel of jeans and would much rather wear loose soft jersey or cotton trousers. Skirts and dresses I also like because they are loose- dresses don’t have restrictive waists and i like the feel of less fabric against the skin.

So for me while I would probably choose to wear mens clothes for practicality and fit, i do tend to wear womens because I prefer the feel of the fabrics and the less restrictive form.

Lucky for me I’m female so I have the choice. But I could imaging feeling the same if my genitalia were different.

I wonder how other countries have done this? Countries with Self ID I mean.

I have to repeat that putting on my beautiful wool and silk satin tuxedo does not change my sex. Now, that rather belies the tentative claim that clothes represent the alchemic properties which some profess and want to force me to profess, despite me being a gender atheist .

I was looking from a uk perspective

Women have freedom and more flexibility is I think separate from the judgements people might make

It's all shades of grey really but the amount of exclusion a uk male in a dress would Face is far more than a girl in skimpy clothes would face

Lurking crossdressers have gotten offended?

Why was my comment about my beautiful wool and silk satin tuxedo deleted?

I wear this garment without thinking it has alchemy vested in it. Am I now supposed to bear false witness and publicly declare it does change my sex when I place it on my body.

Is reality itself now being compromised and must I lie in order to not have my comments deleted? And they talk about 'think crime' within the old iron curtain' in order to control people and present an alternative reality.

I thought it's an indication that when it comes to clothes women have more freedom

I think that’s untrue in many contexts.

In some countries and religions, womens clothing is controlled by custom or even by law. But not mens.

In western countries, women who are victims of crime are often told it’s their own fault because of what they are wearing. That’s never said of men.

In the Uk, women in traditional sectors have to conform to a dress code that doesn’t apply to men who cross dress or to transwomen. I don’t know any XX bankers who wear fishnet stockings and pink lace mini dresses to work. But XY people who do so get awards.

I thought it's an indication that when it comes to clothes women have more freedom

Women ca wear mens clothes with no comment but the same is rarely true the other way meaning that a man who in public wears say a dress is assumed to be making a statement

I agree that the lack of definition is problematic. I had an issue with this at a sports centre where the manager shouted at me when I told him that as an a-gender person I came under Stonewalls definition of trans.

He got very angry and told me that I couldn’t be trans because I’d not changed gender. He didn’t answer when I asked him how he could tell.

I pointed out that I was wearing mens clothes - trainers, jogger and a fleece and asked him what definition of cross dressing they used in their policy and why it didn’t apply to me.

He helpfully said “ For fucks sake “ and walked away. Much to the amusement of the two female reception staff at the desk behind him and the shock of the other customers standing around watching him.

So clearly I was the wrong type of cross dresser.

I've thought about this too, women in jeans / mens clothing is normal - but really it was normalised during the war years.

Man in womans, skirts, dresses, stereotypical womans things is cross-dressing. But he's straight in the head that he is a man, who likes womans clothing.

Transwomen is a man, who likes stereotypical womans things but has an added identity crisis. And thinks women are different to men beyond body shape, and genitals.

I suggest “wearing the clothes (socially coded as) of the opposite sex because they are of the opposite sex”. Doesn’t have to be sexual necessarily, for example women who dressed to pass as men or in some way signal that male rules should apply to them despite being female. But there has to be a connection to the opposite sex which is significant and without which the purpose of adopting the clothes would not be met.

So, borrowing husband’s kecks because they fit better or are more comfy (or happened to be the nearest clean undies when you got up)== not cross dressing. Borrowing husband’s kecks because you feel secretly powerful in men’s pants, get a naughty thrill from being degraded by male skid marks, are performing in an interpretative dance troupe challenging gender norms, use them as part of your stand up routine, or are taking part in a protest highlighting the irrationality of gendered pants, are all cross dressing

OED:
cross-dress v. [as a back-formation] (intransitive) to dress in clothes of the opposite sex, as a transvestite.

Basically a person who dresses in clothes associated with the opposite sex.
The motivation seems to be irrelevant, is could be to provoke, be attention seeking or be part of a fetish/paraphilia.