Is transvestism an innate characteristic, i.e. something that a person is simply born with, as opposed to evolving developmentally?
If so, how would transvestism manifest itself in a society that didn’t have gender-specific clothing, makeup, etc.? If, for example, a male is born with a desire (or need) to dress like a female, what would that mean, if “dressing like a female” were no different than “dressing like a male”?
I don’t know that we have ever had a human society that dresses completely unisex. Even so, there are other ways besides clothing to try to pass as the opposite sex.
I have not seen any cross cultural data in regards to transvestism.
As for non-human societies, well, I have no data on those either.
Transvestite:
Definition: [n] someone who adopts the dress or manner or sexual role of the opposite sex
A hermaphrodite is an individual (of any species) that possess male and female gonadal tissue.
A species where gender identity was weak enough to tolerate unisex clothing would have no concept of transvesticism. You can’t have transvestites if there is no difference between male and female attire.
In a species where gender identity was nonexistent, there would be no transsexualism, either. But that species would not be human.
This reminds me, I have a related question.
I’m told there is a difference between gender identity and sexual identity. I think one has to do with which role a person plays socially and the other with how they feel their body should look and act. So does that mean it is possible to be definitely transsexual but not specifically transgendered?
I can imagine a society where there are two sexes but no distinction is made in gender expression; perhaps this is the kind of society the OP was describing.
Those who’ve read enough of my posts to have an idea of my interests know that I have a total crush on Eddie Izzard, who seems to be more famous for what he wears than for what he says and does. You’d probably also have picked up on the fact that I tend to get into a lot of gender and sexuality threads, because I quite simply find the subjects fascinating. So… if anyone would care to enlighten me in general on transvestism (and the OP doesn’t mind my elaborations on his/her thread), I’d appreciate it.
I don’t really understand why it’s generally OK in western society for women to wear what is traditionally men’s clothing (pants, suits, etc.) but it’s regarded as weird for men to wear skirts or other traditionally “feminine” clothing or makeup. My understanding is that these garments are only recently (in terms of human history) categorized the way they are anyway. I know men wore dress-like garments routinely in the past, and as recently as the 18th century men wore makeup regularly. So… what’s the big deal?
The word “transvestism” is sort of in a state of flux right now. On one hand, you have transvestic fetishists, who cross-dress for sexual pleasure; on the other hand, you have a passel of people who, although not necessarily transgendered (i.e. who don’t necessarily have a gender identity different from the one they are assigned), prefer to wear the clothing assigned to the opposite gender.
I guess if you had no assignation of clothes based on gender, there would be no way to be transvestite, in either definition.
As for KellyM’s contention, I’m not sure what you mean by “not to have gender identity.” If you mean that there were men and women but no social roles that were restricted to one or the other (or even different words, names, etc,), then it seems to me that there could still be transsexualism that manifested as a belief that one ought to have the genitals other than those with which one was born, but wouldn’t have any consequence for gender roles since there wouldn’t be any. After all, if transsexuality is related to brain structures, and there were still a physical-sex difference in brain structures, conceivably one could still end up with a brain-genital mismatch. Chu ne?
It’s because women fought to change standard for socially acceptable dress and men did not. In the US this began with the women’s suffrage movement, although it wasn’t until the 1970s and modern feminism that it became truly acceptable for women to wear trousers in professional and formal settings. When my mom was in high school girls were required to wear skirts or dresses to school. That this was no longer the case by the time I came around is because in the interim women had demanded change.
I think that it would be much easier for men now to lay a claim to traditionally feminine clothing than it would have been just a few decades ago, and yet they’ve done very little in that direction. I don’t see a change coming soon in mainstream society. Within a few subcultures it’s already acceptable for men to wear skirts, but in general it seems that men don’t care enough about the issue to do anything.
I have seen suburban white adult men in man skirts on a few casual occasions withing the last ten years here in Chicagoland burbs.
A little clarification here:
I was referring to a hypothetical **human **society in which there are obviously genders, but no distinction between “male” dress, makeup, etc. and “female.”
And I was referring specifically to innate transvestism, i.e. a person is born with the desire/need to wear the clothing/makeup of the “opposite” gender.
How would this desire/need manifest itself in such a society?
I would think, if there were no distinguishing characteristics for clothing by sex, there wouldn’t be transvestism. I’m further assuming that in such a hypothetical society, everyone would wear rather sack-like garments, because frankly boys and girls are just built differently - guys would need a trifle more room in the crotch, women in the bosom, for examples. But now, thinking of societites where clothing is rather sack-like and unisex (I’m thinking of saris and toga-like things I’ve seen worn by people in India and the Middle East) I imagine there’s still probably some features that mark clothing as being female or male - maybe in color choices or accessories?
It would be helpful to know more about transvestism in general, at least for me. If a male person has a need to dress like a female would for whatever reasons, it would be helpful to know what those reasons are. If someone has a “sexual fetish” for cross-dressing, isn’t that just another way of saying they find common ordinary “traditional” sex roles uninspiring? And really, who doesn’t? 
We mostly assume sexual roleplaying to be harmless and personal; what makes it a “fetish” (which sort of seems to imply some innate unhealthiness in the behavior)?
I gues I just don’t get why transvestism would fall outside the pretty broad classification of “normal.”
No. Saying that somebody has a crossdressing fetish has a specific meaning. Exactly how and why somebody ends up with a fetish, and for what, remain subjects of debate.
If you don’t find sex inspiring, well that just makes me sad.
Huh? Harmless would depend on what roles you’re playing. How is pretending to be some one else “personal”?
Because, going by the proper definition, a fetish is unhealthy. The person is unable to experience sexual pleasure without it. If you enjoy wearing a mortarboard and turkey mask and having your partner call you Cecil during sex, it’s just a preference, a personality quirk, no big deal. If you cannot become aroused or achieve orgasm without the hat and mask, then you’ve got a fetish.
Doc, we have the problem that in common usage, “fetish” is now being used for any sexual turn-on.
I know. Note my use of the words “proper definition”. I occasionally urge people to use the word kink instead of fetish.
Sadly, despite all the other good he’s done, Savage himself misuses the word fetish.
I’m aware that language grows and changes. But, if fetish loses its proper meaning then we’ll only be left with paraphilia. It’s just not as much fun to say paraphilia.
I don’t mean to say sex is uninspiring, just that traditional sex roles are limiting for a lot of people. Sex is an intimate expression, and one should be free to explore how they express themselves.
By “personal” I mean the private business of the people involved. There’s all kinds of role-playing. Victoria’s Secret exists for that reason. Granted, some role-playing COULD be harmful, but in this discussion I’m talking about clothing, not whips-and-chains.
THAT was what I was trying to figure out - I didn’t know the distinction between “fetish” and “preference.” But taking that in the broadest sense, there are certain things that some people find sexually pleasurable, that other people find to be turn-offs. If your partner does something that you find to be a turn-off, you’re not going to enjoy it, right? And you’re probably not going to acheive arousal or orgasm in that situation. So why is your (and I’m using “you” in the general sense, not specific) preference “normal” and someone else’s an “unhealthy fetish”?
And frankly, I’m still unclear as to what it is that makes transvestism “not normal.” I’ve been wearing clothing that is traditionally male for most of my life - why am I not considered a transvestite?
Ooh, a post snuck in there. What’s paraphilia? (Looks it up.) Ahh, I see. And you’re wrong, that is LOADS of fun to say.
Interestingly, while looking that up, I found this:
and…
So if it’s not a problem for the person concerned, why would it be a problem for anyone else? Why would it even NEED a name? (Rhetorical stuff for me to ponder - I’m not arguing, just trying to learn.)
Society generally defines what is normal and what is not. From sexual habits to pizza toppings, being like everybody else is normal (whether being like everybody else is good or desirable is an entirely different subject). The style of clothing that would have been normal for the court of Louis the fourteenth, would not be normal if worn on a New York city subway.
As Lamia said, some of the same women who fought for the right to vote decided that it was truly stupid that women be forced to wear such complicated, bulky and heavy clothing. They were arrested, regarded as sick etc. Then came the 60s and 70s. Society changed. So many women were wearing pants, it became normal. If there were enough men who wanted to wear dresses or skirts, that would become normal. Despite the success of the Utilikilt, I don’t see it happening.
Because most people don’t do it. What other reason could there be?
*Because currently accepted standards of dress for women differ drastically from the traditional ones. A century ago, even half a century ago, a woman who always wore trousers instead of skirts/dresses would have been considered pretty odd.
However, simply wearing trousers is no longer enough to make a woman a transvestite, because trousers are no longer considered exclusively or even primarily men’s clothing. Cross-dressing, by definition, requires crossing some sort of social boundary. It’s possible for a woman to be a transvestite, but wearing slacks and blazers from the women’s department doesn’t count.
*People are bothered by the harmless behavior of others all the time. Transvestitism is not unique in this regard. And it needs a name so that people can talk about it…although I think “crossdressing” sounds better as a broad term. “Transvestite” seems too clinical for casual use.
Maybe because I am hyper-interested in the subject, I have noticed that transvestism is one of those things people just don’t talk about. I’ve seen countless threads here on the SDMB about assorted sexual subjects and gender issues, but to the best of my knowledge no one has talked about being a transvestite. I’m not calling for anyone to out themselves, but I am curious as to why no one has. There seems to be an element of shame in this that has been overcome where other sexual identity issues are concerned. To me, transvestism DOES seem to be unique in that regard.
Because of the power differential between men and women. Men dominate, so anyone desiring to emulate their look in hopes of aspiring to their power is understandable and excusable. But to go the other direction… a man born with the privileges of power, imitating powerless women, is despised. A weirdo. Why would anybody choose to lower himself to woman status?
There needs to be a distinction understood between men crossdressers and transgendered M-to-F women. The former are men who, for whatever reason, like to wear women’s clothes, but still identify with the man gender. The latter (myself included), identify as women. For a transwoman to wear women’s clothes is therefore not crossdressing, but simply being conformable with one’s true gender.
KellyM, umop ap!sdn, matt_mcl, you are well informed on these topics. Does it seem to you that the word “transvestite” is now going out of use? I think it would make for clearer distinctions if we dropped this word. “Crossdresser” would remain for masculine-gendered men, while transwomen need to be recognized as women in gender.
For this, the distinction between “sex” and “gender” has to become understood. <sigh> We have a lot of educating the public yet ahead of us. This is new knowledge that’s only recently become understood scientifically and still has to be diffused to the public. Gay rights was just the beginning. Gender is the final frontier.