@threalist

Sure they did.. cross-dressing specifically to wear styles of the opposite gender was **also** very common and not a modern invention by any means.

@freemo @threalist

Fashion does change, but the pursuit of beauty probably does not.

Suits look great on gentlemen, but also handsome on women. Likewise, although dresses (in modern times) are generally considered to be women's clothing, they look just as good on men when properly dressed.

I don't think clothing should be tied to gender, if it looks good, then it's pretty/beautiful. If it's not, kindly offer your advice (about dressing techniques, not your opinions about genders and clothes), or just turn your head away, simply don't look.

Also, cats generally don't share the same gender with humans, but human clothes look pretty on them too.

@realcaseyrollins

No not always. The high-heels was not at all common for men to wear until the king decided to wear them (cross-dressing) at which point other men began adopting it as a fashion norm, but only after.

We also have countless famous figures who cross-dressed throughout history.

@freemo

True.

As we do today. However, it's not known that we had people across history identifying as the other sex while cross-dressing. It's not cross-dressing that's unprecedented, but rather identifying as the opposite sex while doing so. Although, there are some fringe historical cases in which this has occurred...

* cue Nero & Sporus reference as a #Succession fan *

@realcaseyrollins

Huh there are tons of historic examples of people who were of one sex identifying as another sex... we have whole stories written about it.. Joan de arc is among the most famous.

@freemo

> Joan de arc

lol wut

@realcaseyrollins

Her entire story is her dressing like a man withe the intention of being identified and treated as a man.

@freemo Hmm I'm not finding any record of her identifying or trying to be treated as a man.

@realcaseyrollins

Wait what, thats literally the whole story around her.. She dressed as a man to get into the military.

@freemo Ah I see. I thought you were saying that she believed herself to be a man, rather than dressed up as a man as part of a disguise.

@realcaseyrollins

Im not sure what "I beleive I am a man" means.. She acted like a man, looked like a man, demanded people refer to her as a man, and people did.

Today man is split between sex (your dna) and gender (how you appear on the outside).. back then sex was related to your genitals mostly and gender was largely the same.. Unless you were talking about penises and vaginas you were talking about gender.

@freemo Do you understand the difference between how you want other people to treat you, and your own conception of yourself? For example, the concept of disguises?

@realcaseyrollins

Sure.. perception of ones self would simply be your perceived gender.. so how you see yourself is basically saying "do you think when you look at yourself you look male or female"... the perception of others is also gender, just what gender they perceive... its all gender.

@freemo lol what? "It's all gender" isn't a response 😂

Self conception is: I am a man/I am a woman

It is possible to want people to perceive you to be something other than your self conception, and that's what I'm getting at here. One can believe themself to be a woman, but want others to treat them as a man.

@realcaseyrollins

The thing you are missing here is woman has 9 separate dictionary definitions.

So when you say "I am a woman" without any context makes no sense.. which definition of woman are we using...

Generally in the vast majority of conversation we mean gender, which is one of hte 9 possible definitions.

So what your asking is, can a person dressed like a woman, and who looks like a woman to someone else lopok at themselves and go "I dont think I am a woman".. or vice versa... yea, whats the point?

I mean, if there was a old lady with a moustache, she just so happened to have the sex of a woman, but she looks rather manly... you look at her and despite the fact that she is in a dress, you think overall she looks more like a man.. do youdeclare this poor old woman is a man and treat her as such until she shows you her vagina, or do you defer to her own self-image and treat her like a woman despite the fact that you have no idea what her genitals look like?

@freemo

> The thing you are missing here is woman has 9 separate dictionary definitions.

So when you say "I am a woman" without any context makes no sense.. which definition of woman are we using...

Generally in the vast majority of conversation we mean gender, which is one of hte 9 possible definitions.

I feel like we're getting into some pedantic territory here...I mean "believe they're a woman" in the sense that a #trans woman believes there's a woman. Whatever definition that is, that's the one I'm using

> you look at her and despite the fact that she is in a dress, you think overall she looks more like a man.. do youdeclare this poor old woman is a man and treat her as such until she shows you her vagina, or do you defer to her own self-image and treat her like a woman despite the fact that you have no idea what her genitals look like?

I mean I don't treat people differently based on their sex tbh, so I wouldn't declare anything

Well, if the person is a woman I might give them a normal hug rather than a "pound hug" since rubbing your forearm against a random woman's boob is generally frowned upon. And if the person is pretty attractive to me, I may stutter awkwardly. But otherwise, yeah I don't treat men and women differently.

@realcaseyrollins

>I feel like we're getting into some pedantic territory here...I mean "believe they're a woman" in the sense that a #trans woman believes there's a woman. Whatever definition that is, that's the one I'm using

Trans people make the same mistake, they arent clear about definitions or technicalities and start a lot of needless drama. Why are we adopting that pattern?

While im not sure many trans people know what definition their using, as I said, it seems that we are mostly using the gender-based definition, which we covered.

> I mean I don't treat people differently based on their sex tbh, so I wouldn't declare anything

Well you refer to them as a he or a she, and in conversations if asked "was that a woman" you would have different answers.

So the question here is if you see an elderly lady that looks like a man who is cross dressing, but you dont actually know what sex they are, and their gender appears to be a male attempting to present the gender of a woman and you ... well do you refer to them as a woman or a man? In other words, are you categorizing the woman and the men around you based on sex (their genitals) or based on how they attempt to present (are they trying to look like a woman or a man).. or are you basing it on how they actually present (you judge them to look more like a man despite them trying to look like a woman so you call them a man)

@freemo

> Well you refer to them as a he or a she, and in conversations if asked “was that a woman” you would have different answers.

This is also true. But beyond that, yeah not much would change.

@realcaseyrollins

Sure I get that. but this is the one point that is such an issue as of late... No one cares if someone is a "real woman" because that is a nonsensical statement... what people care about is if you treat someone like a woman or a man (what bathroom can they use, what pronoun do you use, etc).

@freemo

> No one cares if someone is a "real woman" because that is a nonsensical statement

Hmm? What's your source for this? And I'm a bit surprised that you're saying that "real woman" is a nonsensical statement; a bit redundant, perhaps, since women are women, so I generally don't use that term, but it's not ridiculous in any way to refer to "real women"

@freemo @realcaseyrollins > Im not sure what "I beleive I am a man" means.

brother neither do I, but this is the distinction between historical and contemporary gender role abnormalities.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins Joan of Arc only did that to be able to access an privilege reserved to men, not because of some gender identity conflict.

@louisrcouture

We dont know that, the reality is we have no clue what motivated her to cross dress or her views on identity.

@realcaseyrollins

@realcaseyrollins

Also we need to be clear here these are different issues, both of which are under the spotlight recently..

1) people who dress as the opposite sex but dont identify as the opposite.. these would be called cross dressed (if not entertaining) and a drag queen if they take an entertainment role.

2) Trans people who may or may not dress as the opposite sex but are int he process of adapting their gender to that sex.

This post is intending to focus on cross-dressing, not trans.

@freemo Oh I see, thanks for the clarification; yes, people have done this across time. There was actually an OT commandment telling the Israelites to not cross-dress (Deuteronomy 22:5) so the practice likely has more or less been around forever.

Although, cross-dressing in the #USA as a serious act I think is new; traditionally it was relegated to comedy sketches. I could be wrong tho.

What does "in the process of adapting their gender to that sex" actually mean, given that 95% of people who identify themselves as transgender say they have no intention of changing their genitals, and in any case it is a biological fact that they cannot actually change sex but only mutilate and sterilize themselves?

@1db113ebbf6dca151c2971fc8e61e378d2b2c95b5b029789a996ea47a775d16f @realcaseyrollins

It could mean anything that causes their outward appearence to approach the other gender. If you look more like the opposite sex (intentionally) then you are somewhere along transitioning.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins did she go around calling herself John or something? A strong woman identifying as a woman doing things atypical of her gender is not the same thing as identifying as a male.

@thatguyoverthere

Actually yes, John was the name she used when she was presenting as a man.

@realcaseyrollins

@freemo @realcaseyrollins ok. I still think that there is a stark difference between donning a disguise and pseudonym for a specific purpose (getting into the military) and actually believing that everyone **has** to treat you how you feel regardless of how you present (whether intentional or otherwise). If she had been found out to be using a disguise and fake name, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a huge social uproar to change the policy of the military to accommodate her identity.

@thatguyoverthere

How much of it was a disguise or pseudonym vs them actually identifying is not recorded. Their personal motivations wasnt really recorded as far as I know, in fact much of the details are lost to history.

@realcaseyrollins

@freemo @realcaseyrollins well then trying to draw a comparison to today where we have a lot more information and know more about motives and such is kind of a stretch. Just the fact that she's recorded as a female historically speaks volumes to the fact that at least society was not generally accepting of that kind of behavior at the time, even if it was allowed to slide for her. There have been eunichs throughout history too, but we don't generally consider them women who've had "bottom surgery"

@33ARSH @freemo ah yes, the only real and valid men of history.

@33ARSH

Pay closer attention to my words.. I didnt say heels I said "high-heels" this particular form of heels was very much for fashion unlike shoes with raised heels more generally which had different purposes depending on the circumstances.

@freemo

You wrote "normal fashion," which is to claim it was the norm for men.
It wasn't.

The elites of the day had the $ and the "fashion sense."

So...like 89%, 69%, 45%, 37%, 23%, or less than fucking 5% of the male population in the 17th century wore high heels?

https://www.fastcompany.com/90775177/the-long-history-of-heels-from-a-symbol-of-mens-power-to-womens-burden#:~:text=Heels%20were%20first%20invented%20in,the%20stirrups%2C%E2%80%9D%20says%20Steele.

@thatguyoverthere

ok