CD/TV/TS Labeling
by
Michele Angelique
There seems to be some controversy in the
transgender community as to the usage and
meaning of labels such as CD/TV/TS. I'm unsure
how this labeling is beneficial, but I've seen
many instances where it divides people and puts
the community at odds with itself.
While clothing and make-up do not make a woman,
some men cross-dress as an outward expression of
that which they admire most. What I truly
appreciate are those men who strive to do credit
to the feminine gender because they love women,
whether manifested as occasional cross-dressing
or by varying stages of gender transformation.
A
number of TS women have opined that
cross-dressers don’t deserve to be called “she”
because CDs are not on hormones or altering
their physical body to become female. I disagree
with this view because it is incredibly
challenging to come out of the closet, even if
simply in cross-dressing form. I would venture
that it is not often a decision made lightly,
and to do so a person must have fairly strong
desire to manifest femininity.
It is difficult to judge or distinguish
immediately the degree of desire or intention,
simply by the chosen label. I won’t jump to a
conclusion based on a label, and will give
anyone the benefit of the doubt until proven
otherwise. Therefore I will not accept
generalizations such as “cross-dressers are
sexist men disguised as women so they can act
like whores”, because many CDs are men whose
life situation will not enable them to truly
become a woman, but they still feel the urge to
manifest their femininity to the degree that is
possible for them. Or some CDs just enjoy their
duality, and want to maintain the ability to
switch back and forth.
The way I see it is this... transsexuals
understand how hard they've had to work to be
accepted as a "she", yet it is transsexuals
themselves who seem to begrudge cross-dressers
the same privilege... many crossdressers may in
fact be early-stage transsexuals, or simply men
caught in life circumstances that allow them to
only dream of being a "she". It shouldn't be so
difficult for anyone to celebrate femininity.
This is not an exclusive club.
If he wants to be a she, even if only part-time
or even closeted, and is doing credit to the
female gender, then my view is that "he"
deserves to be addressed as "she" while doing
so. I want to encourage all respectful efforts
from men to manifest yin, in whatever form is
most comfortable to them. The degree doesn't
matter, it's the purity of intention that counts
most to me.
 
Jenna Taylor said...
Once again, I'm left asking the magical
question "Lord, who is this beautiful
creature You have created, and why
must You torment me by placing her on
the other side of this continent?"
Michele, I may be the lucky one here.
In all my years of being
transgendered, I have not come across
anyone begrudging me the right to call
myself 'she'. Now this may be an
effect from my need to "get out more
often"! Yet I feel well traveled, in
the emotional and spiritual sense.
I
know a couple of Transsexuals. I
hesitate to use that word because I'm
not a supporter of "classification" of
individuals. Yet it is necessary in
order to make this point. Of the few I
know, only one is a close friend. None
of which have held me in contempt for
the fact that I may be called she, or
her. So in that respect, I am lucky.
Going out on a limb, I will speculate
that TS women might find it difficult
to call a CD or TV 'she' or 'her'
because of their own struggle to
'earn' that right. Legally and
socially it is a large challenge. I
wish not to infringe upon their
sufferance.
For
me, I am content in being called, Sir,
Ma'am, Miss, Mister, him, her, he, or
she. Just don't call me late for
dinner! I know who I am. It's the rest
of the world that's messed up!
|
Karen Reeves said...
I abhor the CD vs TS divide. Is our
small community going to squabble in
our life boat ? We shall upend the
boat and all aboard will perish !
As a
24/7 TS I remember my beginnings well.
We all should never forget our roots.
When
I am out with my friends who are part
time, and may be in boy mode, I STILL
address them by their girl name (no
strangers being within ear shot).
Their girl name is who they are in
their SOUL, MIND, and HEART !
I so
very much enjoy being out with my
"less than 24/7" girlfriends. They
keep me grounded in reality. They try
so very hard and they TRIUMPH because
they are BEAUTIFUL ! ! !
We
are ALL simply transgendered, period.
Only the amount of time varies.
With
Love & Respect To One & All |
Alexis Rene said...
Wow so many awesome points here I
don't even know where to start....
First Michele, whatever "label" you
identify yourself with is nothing
short of amazing! Such a magical
vibrant soul behind those keys being
pushed ever so eloquently. Your words
just carry so much weight I can just
stand in awe for the moment!
Lets
see, labels on their very own are a
lot of grey area. There isn't a
defining black or white that colors
people appropriately. Never has been
and unless something major happens I
am not seeing this changing.
Case
in point, I today met a genetic girl
who was a lineman. Or a line girl. She
works on power lines, wears a tool
belt and drives a big 1 ton truck and
hangs with the boys just nicely. She
also has silky flowing long blonde
hair and typically petite body and
features. I will guess her at 5'8
140ish lbs and mid 30's.
2
weeks ago I saw a boy working in a
salon who you would think worked as a
Mechanic. Typically tough structured
6'0 180 lb early 20's genetic male.
Granted he was a touch better groomed
but nobody you would "usually label"
as "that boy works in a salon?" Or a
person you would single out if ya saw
him on the street. He was just a man
the same as the girl previously stated
was and is all woman.
Are
they to be "labeled" transgendered
inside? In any form of the term? I
haven't a clue as I never went to that
depth behind their eyes.
I personally think "gender roles" are becoming a thing of the past....Thus the labeling will fall off as well. This is an arguable point obviously. But within that, the black and white will continue to blend together. |
|
Jenna Taylor said...
I believe most of the problem here
stems from the definitions we use. As
most of us in the transgendered
community understand, there are
several labels used to classify a
transgendered individual. CD and TV
are usually interchanged. Someone's CD
is another person's TV.
For
the purpose of discussion, let's use
TV to describe those transgendered
individuals who dress as a sexual
fetish (transvestic fetish) and CD to
describe those who dress to represent
a side or part, if not a whole of
their inner self.
We
can all agree that TVs (again fetish
orientated individuals) find some
sexual gratification in their
dressing. Not all exhibit overt sexual
aggression upon others. Yet it does
happen, more so than non fetish
dressers. Not a knock on those TVs,
especially those that do not exhibit
the sexual aggression.
We
can also agree that CDs dress to
express inner self images, spiritual
releases or stress reduction( notably
escapism). Not all are little Miss
Goodie-Goodie Two Shoes either. So
there are no stones being thrown here!
Transsexuals (TS) are different that
CDs and TVs. Yet they are
transgendered to a degree, the don't
by their own admission have
psychological concern, just a
physiological concern. When the fetus
is in development, a common held
research belief is a genetic "washing"
of hormones. This is where the brain
develops say female, as it should and
the body conversely develops
masculine. Or vice -versa as the case
may be. In this sense, they are less
in common with CDs or TVs . For
example, if you are a male CD or TV
dressing a a woman, this is not from a
need to right a wrong. Its for a
temporary relief or joy as the case
may be. I empathize with TSs because
of the pain and expense they must go
through to "right their wrong".
This
does not mean, "bashing" CDs or TVs as
the case may be is acceptable. Some
empathy should be used from the "other
side". The result of your wise words
and those of others, hopefully will be
understanding, compassion and most
importantly respect to ALL
transgendered individuals. |
Devi said...
It is natural that there would be some
level of disagreement within the
community; each person's motives are
unique. The problem arises when things
get 'religious', where one party
claims to be the 'true' kind because
they are 'more' feminine. Compared to
TSs, physiologically I cannot deny
that. However I also accept that
certain actions and intentions
mentioned by the person are damaging.
For
me its an expression of a part of my
personality to dress. Sure it can be
sexual, but I can also dress for
hours, even days, and then go back to
drab without feeling the need to get
aroused. To me its fulfilling, and
I've known that since I was very
young. My own emphasis is on dressing
like a 'normal woman' would, which
generally means dressing tastefully
for a given situation. I'm not into
the slutty look, partly because its a
putoff and partly because I don't
think I can carry it off well.
The
'dressing for sex' issue isn't IMHO a
CD/TV/TG specific issue. How does a GG
react when she sees one of her own
with oversized implants, botox
treatments and the rest ? Does that
situation not bring similar thoughts
that the woman in question is
demeaning the rest of you and sexually
objectifying you ? In that sense don't
GGs too deal with the problem of some
of their most visible members being
the most misrepresentative ones -
Pamela Anderson vs the girls next door
?
That
a few highly public members
misrepresent an entire community is
not a t-girl concern alone. It occurs
to others - GGs, homosexuals, even the
male community with, say, the Marlboro
man image. But that's no reason to
split the community because ultimately
we're all stronger as one. |
Annette Brunette said...
Regarding the divide between TS's and
CDs...while I understand why some TS's
look down on CDs because they dress
like "sluts" I find that attitude to
be a bit curious. I've heard of some
CDs who only want to go out with
"passable girls" (whatever that
means). And I've also heard stories of
TS girls (both post and pre op) who
were rejected by women's groups
because they were not born with two XX
chromosomes. Type caste-ing can cut it
both ways and I'm sure that those same
TS women who don't look at CD's as
"real" women would feel the same sense
of outrage being rejected by women's
groups for lack of the right birth
genes. In some areas of the USA,
marriages between transsexuals are not
even legally recognized.
I've
also had occasion to meet some
intersexual folks who felt the same
sense of discomfort within the TG
community because they were being
placed in these ridiculous boxes. And
I know of a bigendered person who got
implants only to be told that the
"proper" way to go about
"transitioning" was to go on hormones
first. The fact that she had no
intention of transitioning and wanted
to embrace both her male and female
body attributes fell on deaf ears.
Boxes and stereotypes are unhelpful at
best and harmful at worst. We should
resist this straight-jacketed thinking. |
Click here to send us your comments on
this topic.
|
