Crossdressers-Haven.com

(Note: Dear mods, I'm not 100% where this post would fit, so please feel free to meve it wherever you think it belongs)

So, dear everyone, I'd really like to ask your opinion on something; because I'm very seriously considering doing a PhD on the issue:

Do you think couples and families including a crossdresser could be helped by philosophical counselling?

Explanation: (and wikipedia here, pretty good explanation imo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_counseling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Basically, while traditional counselling addresses how you feel and from there how to deal with it, philosophical counselling addresses how you conceptualise things (and btw, it's not in any way "contradictory" to psychological counselling, in many cases it may be a good idea to do both. In many ways, philosophical counselling is rooted in the Socratic method: from your present situation, you start asking questions and examining your assumptions in order to challenge them and thus move towards happiness/peace of mind/"the good life". Basically, the therapist guides you in understanding your life philosophically.

Activities common to philosophical practice include:

(1) the examination of clients' arguments and justifications;
(2) the clarification, analysis, and definition of important terms and concepts;
(3) the exposure and examination of underlying assumptions and logical implications;
(4 ) the exposure of conflicts and inconsistencies;
(5) the exploration of traditional philosophical theories and their significance for client issues; and
(6) all other related activities that have historically been identified as philosophical.

Now, how I'm thinking that might apply to crossdressers' partners and families: I think that the way we take it is not a "given"; it depends a lot on how we conceptualise gender and sexuality in a wider context. For instance (I'll give a personal example): I identify as a politically liberal, non-religious bordering on agnostic feminist and I tend to strongly value self-expression over so-called "normality". When my then-boyfriend (now a very good friend) told me that he likes to wear frilly panties and corsets, I thought "Oh, OK, I don't mind." Then I went to the library and read Judith Butler- and came back with the idea that crossdressing is wonderfully subversive. All of this did not come out the blue. Now, a woman who identifies as, say, a staunch Conservative who values tradition in all aspects of life may have a very different attitude towards it- and that does not come out of the blue either. Where you fall on- shall we say- Virginia Prince's scale of acceptance does not depend purely on your personal preferences- it's intertwined with your identity and your beliefs about men, women and the world.

As far as I can understand, a more "regular" therapist coming from a psychology background would go like: "OK, so your husband crossdresses- tell me how this makes you feel; now tell him how you feel and then let him tell you how he feels, without judging him" The "how you feel" part is a given; it is what it is- and we focus on how to cope with it. (I'm basing this mostly on what I've read, if you've had different experiences please share).

Now philosophical counselling on the other hand would be more like: "OK, so my husband crossdresses and it weirds me out". "Why exactly do you think you are weirded out by that? Try to put your finger on it..." "It's just that it's... I don't know... not normal". "And do you think being 'normal' is a good or desirable thing? Why is that?" (Or: "I feel that he's less of a man when he does this" "Let's start from here then: how would you define "a man"?)

Of course, i'd expect different approaches would benefit different couples/families and in a lot of ways they go hand in hand... but all in all, what do you think about the idea?

You're going to have to forgive me, Letitia. I want to reply to your post, but...

Letitia_Jolie_GG wrote:(Now, how I'm thinking that might apply to crossdressers' partners and families: I think that the way we take it is not a "given"; it depends a lot on how we conceptualise gender and sexuality in a wider context. For instance (I'll give a personal example): I identify as a politically liberal, non-religious bordering on agnostic feminist and I tend to strongly value self-expression over so-called "normality". When my then-boyfriend (now a very good friend) told me that he likes to wear frilly panties and corsets, I thought "Oh, OK, I don't mind." Then I went to the library and read Judith Butler- and came back with the idea that crossdressing is wonderfully subversive.

....Now philosophical counselling on the other hand would be more like: "OK, so my husband crossdresses and it weirds me out". "Why exactly do you think you are weirded out by that? Try to put your finger on it..." "It's just that it's... I don't know... not normal". "And do you think being 'normal' is a good or desirable thing? Why is that?" (Or: "I feel that he's less of a man when he does this" "Let's start from here then: how would you define "a man"?

My feeling is your intellectual relationship with CDing isn't philosophical, it's political. That is it comes from your perspective as a feminist and you want to see the current standard modes of thought about men and women discredited.

I have quite often argued here that CDs are natural allies for feminists because of the way we, potentially, undermine those modes of thought. But, it seems that feminists don't want to know, in general.

They often seem pretty antagonistic to us. It's never been quite clear to me why that is. I'd certainly like to know. It seems to run against logic. Maybe there's a Phd in that.

So you would see the domain of "the philosophical" and "the political" as separated from each other? I wouldn't be so sure- as far as understand it, thinking critically about the principles our world is based on and the assumptions we take for granted it philosophical; acting upon what we find when we question our assumptions and our privilege is political; but in a way the very decision to investigate critically the world from a certain standpoint is political; and philosophy by its nature deals with very political terms, like "ethics" or "justice". "Philosophical counselling" as I see it does not pretend to be "apolitical" or "value-neutral", since it posits as its premise that some concepts such as "gender" and "normality" are to be questioned and explored rather than taken for granted.

Now about feminists- that's a quite interesting discussion; and I actually recently ended-up having a few very similar discussions about feminism and trans women. The thing is that "feminist" is a really really broad term that in this day and age can mean more or less anything.

It's quite shocking that just like some feminists seem to be hostile to crossdressers, some are transphobic too (usually the same-ones). Now why the hell would someone who calls herself a feminist go out of her way to say that she does not cre about the rights and welfare of any given subset of the category of women? I'm trying to approach this from the premise that people usually do what makes sense to them:

My best guess is that it does come down to our definition of what makes one "a woman". The kind of feminism I identify with (I think that's called "gender-liberal") is of the mindset that:
(1)being a woman is defined by identifying as one;
(2) doing feminine things like wearing frilly dresses and makeup represents (or at least can represent) a valid form of self-expression one can take if one so feels inclined but that no-one should be coerced into; so people who identify as women, as men or as anything else should feel free to do it if they're so inclined;
(3) the idea that there are things women do that men should be kept out of or the other way around is degrading to both men and women (by giving men less freedom of choice while reinforcing the patriarchal idea that doing "feminine" things is beneath them).

On the other hand, separatist feminism (which is usually the transphobic and hostile to crossdressers-one) starts from a very different position:
(1) being a woman is defined by being oppressed by the patriarchy; being forced into a female role and seeking liberation. (For instance, the Michigan "Womyn-born-womyn festival" denies access to trans women on the grounds that they were not socialised as female in childhood). I guess in their mind, based on this premise, a trans woman comes across like a privileged White person stating they identify as Black;
(2) doing feminine things like wearing frilly dresses and makeup represents a form of patriarchal oppression, therefore no-one should do it . They are often hostile to crossdressers because in their mindset they are appropriating symbols of an artificial oppressed femininity from a privileged position (a bit like wearing blackface, in a way) and perpetuating the idea that femininity is all being about frilly dresses and makeup and therefore sexing yourself up for the male gaze.
(3) the idea that there are things women do that men should be kept out is necessary for liberating women from patriarchal expression; namely, women need to separate themselves from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the maintenance of male privilege; while not allowing men access to their own. In this case, for them, wearing frilly dresses and makeup is a male-defined activity that they should separate themselves from; and men doing it is a form of disrespectful cultural appropriation.

Now if you ask me, personally, I think separatist feminism is actually very disempowering. It is disempowering to think of all your identity in terms of "what *they* (whomever that is) did to you". There is an author that writes quite a lot about it- Julia Serano; she's a trans woman who previously identified as a MTF crossdresser for a number of years, and she makes the point that the second kind of feminism I was talking about, the one that's transphobic and unfriendly to crossdressers, is a lot, in its implications and practices, surprisingly similar to patriarchal misogyny. Worth a read

Sorry both of you , I nor my wife have any propblem with Carol Ann. My mother did at first have a problem but like a loving mother she except me and put her best forward to help me along the way.

Letitia_Jolie_GG wrote:It's quite shocking that just like some feminists seem to be hostile to crossdressers, some are transphobic too (usually the same-ones). Now why the hell would someone who calls herself a feminist go out of her way to say that she does not cre about the rights and welfare of any given subset of the category of women? I'm trying to approach this from the premise that people usually do what makes sense to them:

My best guess is that it does come down to our definition of what makes one "a woman". The kind of feminism I identify with (I think that's called "gender-liberal") is of the mindset that:
(1)being a woman is defined by identifying as one....

On the other hand, separatist feminism (which is usually the transphobic and hostile to crossdressers-one) starts from a very different position:
(1) being a woman is defined by being oppressed by the patriarchy; being forced into a female role and seeking liberation. (For instance, the Michigan "Womyn-born-womyn festival" denies access to trans women on the grounds that they were not socialised as female in childhood). I guess in their mind, based on this premise, a trans woman comes across like a privileged White person stating they identify as Black;

You might also have women who are born GGs taking for granted their status as female and growing up with that perception. They don't really think about being women, they are women in their own minds. Then they come across CDs or TSs and just feel they are outside of that life-experience of being born and growing up as a woman. They don't really know what to make of them other than they're somehow different and alien to the "us" of women they know about.

So, after that, these women - and I'm talking about women in general, not just feminists - decide that CDs and TSs are just irrelevant to their concerns and don't think about us any more than they have to.

But I also have a feeling that in there somewhere is the question "Why the hell would someone born a man want to be - or be like - a woman?" Because they understand that women have lower status in the world. They don't see that someone like me might see women as admirable and to be emulated.

Letitia wrote:

(1) being a woman is defined by being oppressed by the patriarchy; being forced into a female role and seeking liberation. (For instance, the Michigan "Womyn-born-womyn festival" denies access to trans women on the grounds that they were not socialised as female in childhood). I guess in their mind, based on this premise, a trans woman comes across like a privileged White person stating they identify as Black.

People seem to be offended by the idea that anyone can decide for themselves how they want to be seen or treated. Their argument would go something like this:

1) Your status in society is defined by what you have achieved or earned, as in degrees, job titles, or pay level. You can’t define your own status.

2) Who you are is defined by a consensus of everyone who knows you. You have no real say in this. This includes your choice of what name you want to be called.
My nephew changed his name, and two of my sisters and changed their names. No gender crossing involved, but people were still upset with all three of them--how dare they define how they wanted to be addressed! I remember how angry family members and friends got, and how they would not use the new names. (not everyone, of course, but enough people to know that it struck a nerve of some sort.)

3) All types of clothing that show status,(including uniforms), are only for those who are approved to wear those clothes. You can’t wear clothing that would deceive anyone in any way as to who you are. I can’t wear a fireman’s uniform, or a doctor’s scrubs, or a military uniform unless I actually do that work.

People stretch this rule to cover gender, too, when it applies to men. Being a woman is a ‘status’ that men are not allowed to be. I can’t “choose” to dress as a woman any more than I can “choose” to dress as an army captain, is what society would say. I choose to defy this logic, and that’s where part of people’s anger and upset with CDs comes from.

Feminists themselves have been targets for the same reasons. They insisted on coming up with a non-marital status title: “Ms.” Society reacted very negatively to that. Women began to keep their own names when they got married—that got a lot of resistance. And we all know about the uproar when they begin to wear clothing that had been defined as male. In the early 60s, my sisters were not allowed to wear pants on campus at Ohio State, unless the temperature went below a certain degree in the winter.

But just because feminists have had to suffer for trying to self-identify, it doesn’t automatically mean they accept everyone else’s attempts at doing this. Some women do recognize the common struggle of trans women and natal women, and I’m grateful for those who do. For the ones who don’t, (and this includes some lesbian friends and at least one sister), I can’t condemn them for their anger. They have strong feelings on the matter, and they can’t just ‘will’ themselves to feel better about what they see as unearned status.

That's a wonderfully interesting point

Anita wrote: 1) Your status in society is defined by what you have achieved or earned, as in degrees, job titles, or pay level. You can’t define your own status.

That does fall on a continuum somewhere, doesn't it? I mean, in a very hierarchical and conservative society, your status is defined more or less by things you have no control over: the religion you were raised into, your ethnicity or nationality, your gender as assigned at birth etc. Then there's defining yourself by "what you've earned"- as in degrees, job titles, or pay level.; things you may have more or less access to, but at least theoretically you choose as conscious goals and work towards. The other end of the spectrum would be "defining your own status", in a very postmodernist sort of way- defining yourself by how you feel and what you believe in. People on the- shall we call it "conservative" end of the continuum (the "your status is defined by things you have no control over" end) are probably likely to be offended by the idea that anyone can decide for themselves how they want to be seen or treated.On the other hand, people on the more "liberal" side of the continuum are, I'm guessing, just as likely to be offended by the idea that your identity should be defined by things you never chose.

Anita wrote: 3) All types of clothing that show status,(including uniforms), are only for those who are approved to wear those clothes. You can’t wear clothing that would deceive anyone in any way as to who you are. I can’t wear a fireman’s uniform, or a doctor’s scrubs, or a military uniform unless I actually do that work.

People stretch this rule to cover gender, too, when it applies to men. Being a woman is a ‘status’ that men are not allowed to be. I can’t “choose” to dress as a woman any more than I can “choose” to dress as an army captain, is what society would say. I choose to defy this logic, and that’s where part of people’s anger and upset with CDs comes from.

So I'm guessing that would be those in the "conservative" end of the spectrum. So, wrapping up the discussion a bit, would you say that how we think of the concept of "identity" in general; and of the rules of "whom has the right to identify as whom" has a bearing on how accepting we are willing to be of crossdressers? I'd love your thoughts on this

Letitia wrote:

So, wrapping up the discussion a bit, would you say that how we think of the concept of "identity" in general; and of the rules of "whom has the right to identify as whom" has a bearing on how accepting we are willing to be of crossdressers?

People on the- shall we call it "conservative" end of the continuum (the "your status is defined by things you have no control over" end) are probably likely to be offended by the idea that anyone can decide for themselves how they want to be seen or treated.On the other hand, people on the more "liberal" side of the continuum are, I'm guessing, just as likely to be offended by the idea that your identity should be defined by things you never chose.

I think this is a fair statement of people's positions on the issue, yes. No name-calling, but in general, that is how the political positions stack up.

In my experience as a trans group leader, I see that crossdressing and transition to full-time living as a woman are both considered so extreme that even liberal people are conflicted about it. That is, liberal people may tend to be more accepting of self-definition in general. But they are not always comfortable with this particular form of self ID, and it can cause them great pain when they're put to test on it.

All three of my sisters are staunch liberals. The concept of allowing people to define themselves is important to all of them. But my choosing this version of it sets up conflict. To varying degrees, my sisters can see that they aren't comfortable with it at all. I've seen other liberals go off the tracks on this issue, so my sisters aren't alone.

To bring back the topic--I would think that philosophical and/or political questioning would be a general part of any talk therapy. It was part of mine, the three times that I did see therapists. Of course, I interviewed my therapists beforehand, so I was predisposed to finding people who would support that method.

1) Your status in society is defined by what you have achieved or earned, as in degrees, job titles, or pay level. You can’t define your own status.

I want to clarify this some. I should probably say, "you can earn a certain status, but you can't define or control how other people will react to it." Women earn a certain status, and then see that they aren't paid equally for achieving that status. The first part is clear to everyone--"I'm a CPA." The second part--"I believe that I'm being paid 85% of what my male cubicle partner earns." is not so clear, and is disputed up and down the block. The second part is considered "self-definition," even though the women involved feel like it's clearly an objective fact that can be demonstrated. Somehow, industries have continued to frame the issue as self-definition-- ( "She's just whining and wanting special treatment." ), and the problem still remains.

Letitia_Jolie_GG wrote: Do you think couples and families including a crossdresser could be helped by philosophical counselling?

It could help some, if they are willing to go through a rational exploration of their beliefs.

However, it seems that most rational arguments, with respect to issues like crossdress, transsexualism or even gay marriage, boil down to a reliance on religion for many opposed to those issues.

Can you remove religion from philosophical counselling?

for example, I've seen some debating gay marriage suggest that religion isn't the issue, but instead procreation is the issue. In other words, only men and women may be married because marriage was designed for aiding in procreation. (Some then slip and bring religion back into it by referring to Adam and Eve.)

Of course, they seem to forget that procreation was going on millions of years before marriage became a concept. They seem to forget that men and women can be married without being required to have children. Etc.

That's a very good point (and I did actually think about it a lot). Though I wouldn't say that we should "remove religion from philosophical counselling"; but on the very contrary, it should be addressed if it comes up. The thing is- being faced with a crossdressing partner is, in a way, a destabilising experience: something that makes you question beliefs and assumptions you used to take for granted; which does, indeed, include religious beliefs. So having a crossdressing/trans partner, or a gay child or whatnot can actually make people question their religious beliefs- and potentially philosophical counselling could guide them through the process.

(Concrete example: There's this blogger I follow: she was raised in an American Christian Evangelical fundamentalist ultra-conservative home: with homeschooling, modest clothing, purity rings and stuff. So after a courtship micro-managed and controlled by her father, she married a guy; over their first years of marriage, the husband came out to her: "he" wasn't that sure that "he" was really a "he"... At the same time, she started questioning her religious beliefs- in great part, I'd say, because of that; and because of trying to come to terms with her own bisexuality. If you read their story, you can see that, in a way, as her now-wife transitions from male to female, she too "transitions" in a way from conservative Christian to liberal Agnostic. ).

I guess part of the picture would be to ask people why they hold the beliefs they do: for instance- "why is it so important to you what the Bible has to say about men wearing women's garments?"- understand their justifications and work within their premises.

Then again... I think further exploring is going to be needed of how various forms of religiosity influence, on the one hand, partners' attitudes towards crossdressing and, on the other hand, the kind of support and guidance they can expect to get in their own community. I'd be particularly interested to research how conservative Christian patriarchy plays out onto this: because on the one hand you have an ideology that tells you it's degrading for men to do womanly stuff, and therefore a man who crossdresses must be deeply disturbed and abnormal and should be ashamed; but on the other hand the same ideology tells wives to cheerfully submit to their husbands no matter what and to avoid divorce at all costs- so you get into this situation of "If you don't like it you're not allowed to leave it, but on the other hand you're not allowed to like it either"- which sets you up for a lot of toxicity; which could be potentially resolved by debunking the ideology and its contradictions through Socratic questioning.

Now, moving on to the bigger picture: how I imagine my PhD should be (I'm working on research proposals at the moment)- it won't directly start with the question of philosophical counselling. Basically I want to find out first how various factors (such as religion, moral values, beliefs about gender and sexuality in general- basically your comprehensive world view, as it is shaped by your own identity and the cultural system you were formed in) influence partners' attitudes to crossdressing: and from there discuss in the last chapters whether crossdressers and their partners could improve their relationship by actively addressing their comprehensive world view through philosophical counselling/political questioning.

What do you think? Would that be useful research?

Could be.

And likely to be very unique, thus a good subject for a PhD.

Finding research background may be difficult.

Tell me about it! It's quite interesting though 'cause on the one hand there are so many fields to draw from (ranging from psychology to critical and cultural theory to anthropology to epistemology) but on the other hand there's very little material on the actual subject- and what is there is surprisingly problematic (like either dodgy psychiatry that classifies crossdressing as abnormal or what-have-you, or the very 70's kind of feminist complaining about how crossdressers' wives have to put up with it with no investigation whatsoever of whether they like it or not and on what it depends whether they like it or not). Actually, I think in this particular field activists and support groups are, in many ways, ahead of academia- which is quite regrettable.

Letitia_Jolie_GG wrote:...there's very little material on the actual subject [CDing] - and what is there is surprisingly problematic (like either dodgy psychiatry that classifies crossdressing as abnormal or what-have-you, or the very 70's kind of feminist complaining about how crossdressers' wives have to put up with it with no investigation whatsoever of whether they like it or not and on what it depends whether they like it or not). Actually, I think in this particular field activists and support groups are, in many ways, ahead of academia- which is quite regrettable.

So then, why don't you apply your Socratic technique to these various ways of classifying CDing? Like that would seem a perfect use for it - and of quite distinct value.

Which is easy to say - and may be possible to do. But betcha anything you like that, if you get a coherent deconstruction of psychiatric or feminists' views of CDing, providing their underlying preconceptions, biases etc, the reception from these rather powerful groups will be...Ahhhmmm... less than friendly.

And fear of that sort of reception is probably why you're stuck with dodgy and problematic classifications of CDing at the moment.

Let's just say I am of the firm belief that if an idea pisses many people off, them it's quite likely there is some value to it and this is what keeps me going on.

Anthony Simon wrote: So then, why don't you apply your Socratic technique to these various ways of classifying CDing? Like that would seem a perfect use for it - and of quite distinct value.

That's about the plan, I guess

Anthony Simon wrote: Which is easy to say - and may be possible to do. But betcha anything you like that, if you get a coherent deconstruction of psychiatric or feminists' views of CDing, providing their underlying preconceptions, biases etc, the reception from these rather powerful groups will be...Ahhhmmm... less than friendly.

Now... "feminists" is a pretty broad term. What I want to do would align itself nicely with transfeminsism/gender-liberal and gender-egalitarian feminism; I don't think transphobic/crossdresser-phobic feminists represent by any means a major or particularly strong faction of the movement. As for psychiatric views... since Foucault on they have been challenged plenty, so it's not like I'm making revolution on my own

By the way....

Think you would be willing to take a look at a draft of my PHD research proposal (that I've submitted for feedback to professors as well, as part of a course) andtell me what you think f it? (In the sense of: does it make problematic assumptions? Do you think it would benefit crossdressers and SO's? Do you think you would be willing to participate in it if I asked you to? (No obligation entailed, just in principle). I'd love to hear from everyone here, but especially from SO's.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... 8vlIE4iwzw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; please let me know if the link works

Thank you and virtual cupcakes to everyone (((hugs)))
(Also real cupcakes to anyone in London, UK, willing to meet up and discuss it).