Defintion of "Cross-Dressing"?

[NotEnglish]

Question is in the title, really.

What is the definition of cross-dressing?

Is it just wearing clothes that "mainstream culture" would deem as belonging to the opposite sex?
Or does it have to have an element of sexual titillation or "expressing your inner woman/man" or something?

Or to rephrase:
If I wear my husbands underpants (in Germany we call them Boxershorts, I'm not sure if they are called the same in english?) because they are more comfortable than the woman's "boyshorts", or if I buy a pyjama top from the men's collection because it's warmer and has a more covering neckline, do I cross dress?

If my husband wears a sarong-style skirt in the house when the temperature gets really high in summer, is that cross dressing?

Wearing clothes for practical reasons such as fit, wear, protection or comfort is not cross dressing.
I wear mens t-shirts because I have wide shoulders and they fit. The way womens t-shirts are cut means they don't fit me at all. Just wearing a larger size doesnt work. The fabric cuts into my armpits, and rides around when I walk or do anything active. I can't be bothered with constantly adjusting my clothing or being uncomfortable if I'm active.
As far as I'm concerned, ''mens t-shirts'' are just t-shirts. I'm wearing them for comfort, they don't have any intrinsic meaning or value. They aren't signalling masculinity.

Good question, OP.

Maybe someone will be able to explain it. As with so many things, we are lacking good, agreed upon definitions.

People cross dress for many varied reasons and to lots of different extents.
Its not always a sexual thing.

Society allows women to cross dress but often reacts negatively if men do it.
No one would like twice at me if I wore my partners shirt but there would I'm sure be stares and comments should he step out in one of my tops.

If cross dressers are to be able to self id into women's sports, changing rooms etc...... Will we not need a robust definition of cross dressing so that it can written into the law? Otherwise any man can claim to be a cross dresser, be included under the trans umbrella and therefore be included in female sport etc......

Can anyone draft a suggested legal definition of crossdressing without mentioning agp or using regressive gender stereotypes?

It will become ever harder to define. Women’s shoes I notice are now available up to uk size 8 and sometimes 9; I have had fb ads for NB shirts (do the buttons alternate as to which side they are on??), snag tights are evidently for everyone, etc.
Years ago there was a shop in London which sold large size women’s style/fetish/drag shoes but I imagine there is far less need.
Also it really depends on fashions - shift dresses and stretchy material are v accommodating. And I remember fashion for first pregnancy being far easier but for second DC it was far tighter cut so I needed to buy more maternity stuff and much earlier. So it is going to be vv hard as clothing is subjective. And my GC stance says who cares. To some extent I’d see silky lingerie as a bit of a female fetish thing - look and feel suggest they are worn for non practical reasons so can one argue against men wearing similar? And where would Ann Summers be if it weren’t.

@Franca123

If cross dressers are to be able to self id into women's sports, changing rooms etc...... Will we not need a robust definition of cross dressing so that it can written into the law? Otherwise any man can claim to be a cross dresser, be included under the trans umbrella and therefore be included in female sport etc......

And therein lies the problem.. ..

@Franca123

Can anyone draft a suggested legal definition of crossdressing without mentioning agp or using regressive gender stereotypes?

Wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex, for reasons other than practicality.

Wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex, for reasons other than practicality.

I'm not sure thats quite right, for women at any rate - think of female celebs wearing tuxedos. Thats for style rather than practicality but I wouldn't have thought it was 'cross dressing"?

Or maybe it is...Ive looked up a few definitions, which seem quite broad. Which may be fine. The problem is associating cross dressing with being transgender; the wiki page states 'Cross-dressing is not synonymous with being transgender.'

The OED says this about crossdressers:
Copied below:

1950 L. S. London & F. S. Caprio Sexual Deviations i. 20
Moll classified various varieties of transvestism as follows:..(2) homosexual cases, in which cross-dressings constituted part of the contrary state; (3) heterosexual cases, where the sexual impulse is normal and in which cross-dressing constitutes part of a contrary sexual state [etc.].

1971 Daily Tel. 10 Dec. (Colour Suppl.) 21/4 Many transexuals are also transvestites, with cross-dressing an essential part of their all-out desire to assume the opposite role.

1985 Times 21 Jan. 8/6 Androgynous clothing is a challenge to fixed concepts of femininity/masculinity, and once that demarcation line was established in Christian society, cross-dressing became subversive.

Isn't cross-dressing when you're doing it to deliberately try to look like the other sex?

Just wearing clothes because they are comfy and fit better isn't cross dressing, IMO.

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.

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

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 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 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 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.

Phew, my comment has been deleted.
How can I find out why? I've read the talk guidelines but really can't see where my comment violated them

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.

Lurking crossdressers have gotten offended?

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

@Linguini

The OED says this about crossdressers: Copied below:

1950 L. S. London & F. S. Caprio Sexual Deviations i. 20
Moll classified various varieties of transvestism as follows:..(2) homosexual cases, in which cross-dressings constituted part of the contrary state; (3) heterosexual cases, where the sexual impulse is normal and in which cross-dressing constitutes part of a contrary sexual state [etc.].

1971 Daily Tel. 10 Dec. (Colour Suppl.) 21/4 Many transexuals are also transvestites, with cross-dressing an essential part of their all-out desire to assume the opposite role.

1985 Times 21 Jan. 8/6 Androgynous clothing is a challenge to fixed concepts of femininity/masculinity, and once that demarcation line was established in Christian society, cross-dressing became subversive.

So first you would have to write into law demarcated definitions of male vs female clothes. Then define cross dressing as wearing the clothes associated with the sex you were not. But that's difficult if we say there is no such thing as biological sex. How can you deviate from something you don't have. Laws in this area will be a dog's dinner.