Cross dressing in government advert

Martina · Post by **Martina** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:51 am

I wonder if there is a developing underlying acceptance in society that many men cross dress. I have noticed frequent references to crossdressing in the media recently especially in comedy shows. There is even an Irish government advert campaign on national radio to remind people to buy a TV licence. In one advert a female asks her male colleague if she can borrow his stapler. He tells her to take it from a drawer in his desk and there she finds a pair of ladies size 11 shoes

and the voiceover says “there is something else you shouldn’t forget”. All the other adverts in the campaign are about normal domestic issues. So does this imply that some people regard closet crossdressing as been borderline normal?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:09 am

I think its a possibility.

I have always believed there are many more men that crossdress than the general public realise. We may be the high point as many here go out in public as do I but I also know of many who never leave their homes and even never told anyone in their family.

I hope the crawl to normalcy continues

Post by **DonnaT** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:41 am

One would like to think so, but probably not.

Seems a good number of comedy writers and/or advert writers are gay, and to get away from the gay jokes, have incorporated CD jokes.

I can laugh at a good joke, yet there are others who are offended by the same joke. I reckon there are similar responses by Non-CDs.

Also, some will continue to find CDing quite disgusting. The increased frequency of CDing on TV won't change a lot of minds. Even if it becomes normalized instead of a punch line.

But all in all, even without the adverts and such, I think society in general isn't too bothered by CDers now-a-days.

Paula G · Post by **Paula G** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:59 pm

It certainly seem sthat there are a lot more of us than I ever thought, I have heard figures from 1% to 10% mentioned, has there been any authoritative research? With so many of us firmly deep in the closet how can we tell just how many of us there are?

Joan · Post by **Joan** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:08 pm

I have certainly noticed that a lot of adverts on television include Cd activity.

As regards what percentage of the population we are, I have no empirical evidence but I have read somewhere that 10% of males have worn an item of womens clothing at some point in their life.

I think that those of who need to CD as much as is possible even 24/7 when that is fits in with our domestic circumstances are a lot rarer. I think well below 1%.

Joan

Anthony Simon · Post by **Anthony Simon** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:41 pm

I think the percentage who crossdress is going to be pretty low. I mean I know how conflicted I have been about crossdressing - because of the idea that any (really any) deviation from "masculinity" into "female territory" implied by wearing the clothes amounts to not "being a man". I think that conception is pretty much standard amongst most men (Like is implied in that Gilmore book I like to quote).

The other thing is how uneasy many men seem to be when, as shop assistants, they have to serve me when I'm buying women's clothes (this is not true of all, but, in my limited experience, the greater part). Like they feel I'm attacking their sense of what a man is. I think there is an issue there that might be amenable to society-wide change - and it does seem possible to me that quite a few men harbour crossdressing desires, while at the same time being too conflcted to act upon them. Like I've said before, the issue does seem to me to boil down, in a significant part, to how society values women - and how it, on some level, construes being "womanly" as weakening one as a man. Because women are conceived of as "weak" as compared to "strong" men (as implied in Queen Elizabeth I's famous speech).

Martina · Post by **Martina** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:31 pm

I was watching a movie just now and in it a woman had her dress ripped off revealing a full basque, very frilly panties and stockings and I am envious of her and filled with an urge to go to my room and dress up just like her. What goes through the minds of other men, crosdressers or not, who were watching the same movie. I would guess that a lot more than 10% would wonder what it is like to wear those clothes and would do so given the chance.

Davita · Post by **Davita** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:16 pm

The US Federal gov't has policies and my understanding is that large companies like IBM and others have policies for transsexuals. I cannot image their policies don't account for some of the other TGs.

With that said, I still tread lightly where I work. Some managers know and some won't be told. Today one of my boss's peers, while they were together, asked if I had shaved my legs because I had mentioned it last week that I needed to. So asked when/if she had shaved hers. We three had a nice chuckle over it. BTW, we did shave for the week. I did Monday and the "other" boss did Tuesday.

Carolynn · Post by **Carolynn** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:34 am

These ratios are supposed to be current as of 2006/2007:

Part time, intense Cd'ers= 1:50 males
Those with strong TG feelings (in the sense of strong gender dysphoria)= 1:200
Those with intense TS feelings (but non transitioning): 1:500
TG transitioners (w/o SRS, non-op) = 1:1000
TS post op (with SRS) = 1:2500

The currently (as of 2006) accepted incidence of post op M2F TS in the total US populations is 1:11,000: of post op F2M post op is 1:30,000.
( source: http://www.zoe.brain@anu.edu.au )

I am at a loss as to how they have estimated the number of CDers, as there are many who practice their cding only behind closed doors, and I am not naive enough to think they are all on the net. I would say there is a lot of fudge factor in those numbers. Also it all depends on what terminology one uses. There are those who consider TG and CD as the same thing, and there are those who consider TG and TS as the same thing, and this miscommunication over time has resulted in questionable statistics.

It has been suggested that these numbers are from a study by the HRC for the insurance industry, and replicated for automakers!

The same questions arise with the population estimates for those with strong TS feelings. Most are well in denial and do not respond to questionaires, and are often not under care.

TG transitioners in this sense apply to Transgenderists or non-op TS who live as women but do not intend surgery. Again, I do not know the source of their numbers, nor anything about the accuracy.

On more firm ground with the TS transitioners, as most are patients of record of therapists and doctors, and the medical folks are more likely to respond to general surveys that do not betray patient confidentiality.

According to Dr. Brassard (SRS surgeon in Montreal Canada) this past November, the numbers for post op TS and the proportion of post op M2F vs. F2M are about right in terms of surgeries performed by him and his colleagues in Canada.

Absaroka · Post by **Absaroka** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:11 am

Carolynn I'm not understanding how post op SRS is 1:2500 in one category and then 1:11,000 MTF and 1:30,000 FTM a couple of lines down.

Also my understanding is that the numbers of FTM is increasing to be closer to that of MTF. This seems to have something to do with improved surgical techniques. (easier to build a hole than a pole, as it's sometimes crudely put)

You're right about this of course being subject to definitions, except in the rather empirical SRS numbers. For example how is "intense" crossdressing defined? But the number I seem to read often is 1:100 men liking to crossdress, almost always clandestinely. These numbers come from stuff like the Kinsey and Janus reports, and should be considered conservative estimates I think. 1:50 is just one more guy in that group of 100. It sort of shows how difficult it is to make sense of statistics taken from a sample of 1000 or so when you divide these ratios into the US population of more than 300,000,000 (about half of whom are male), especially if the more accurate number was really 3:200. To me it's fascinating that here is something so many men do and it's managed to be kept such a secret that noone really knows.

Averaging MTF and FTM gives us 1:20,000. Dividing that into a population of 300,000,000 gives us a number of 15,000. THis seems low, but it should at that point be remembered that of that 300,000,000 there are a great many people who are perhaps too young to contemplate SRS, which pushes the proportion of post ops up signifigantly in the adolescent/adult population. Also it does not address those for whom SRS is not an option due to money, beliefs, other illness or any of many other possible reasons.

Ain't statistics confusing?

Anecdotaly, I do know that anytime I've ever discussed this with a woman who's had a number of male sexual partners that she's always said that she's had at least one boyfriend who liked to wear her panties. But of course it's not a conversation I've had that often. An interesting statement in and of itself.

Still even if these numbers were all off by an entire order of magnitude, they do a great job of illustrating what to so many people is virtually invisible. Thanks again for all the research you bring here.

Carolynn · Post by **Carolynn** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:07 pm

The first set of stats had as a population = respondents to a survey by the HRC under contract to the insurance industry, with a fudge factor. Read people who were members of or supporters of the HRC extrapolated from figures by people like psychologist Peggy Cohen-Kettinis several years ago..

The other, larger numbers came from a different set of stats where estimates were made by using HRC figures and adding a fudge factor (as I said I do not know how they got it, probably a WAG) where they expected that only a fraction of people would or could respond. I erred in my use of the "US poplulation"

. It should have been "all US citizens who had ever had surgery anywhere since 1996 or would have it in the near future" vs. the US population which was less than the 2010 population estimates, which would be a different number and from a much different population. I still do not trust the numbers. I suspect they were a tad high then, though might be nearer now. This was a group again wanting to show the "might" or lack of it of a minority population.

As for the proportion of F2Ms vs. M2Fs, that is actually based on numbers of people applying for and completing surgery, not the number of folks that might be F2M. As I said, surgeons, most recently Dr. Brassard, indicated the proportion was about right in his surgery in Canada, where the surgeries are paid for by the govt. health care program. I had direct contact with Dr. Bowers (Oct. 2007) and Dr. Brassard (Nov. 2010) on the question, and email contact with the office of Dr. Zukowski in Chicago (July 2009).

Also recall the statistics of the first set from the HRC; I said they were "current" as of 2006-2007. There are apparently many cders who are very closeted or may use cding as a prelude to sex or a substitute in real sex with a partner. But they do not find their way onto the web as respondents on a forum, of if they do, are more lurker than participant. They also do not go out. Judging from my later interviews, I think the numbers really haven't changed too much.

Transgenderists (non-ops) living in role are hard to separate from preops who are living in role but can't swing the money for the surgery, so this group I think is actually larger for that reason.

For TS, there are a lot of obstacles to having surgery in the US, ranging from inability to hold jobs during transition and loss of income, to interpersonal relations within families. It does happen, since there are ways so that a few folks can get their surgeries, often at the cost of significant parts of their lives, their livelihood, and their property.

I think if we could sample the population using only transitioning in terms of top surgery and hysterectomy as the criteria for F2Ms, followed by name and birth certificate change, then we would get a more narrow gap in the proportions of F2Ms vs. M2Fs. Most F2Ms do not waste the money for inadequate results from the "pole" construction.

And remember these are statistics. As such they consists of "Lies, damn Lies, and government reports" unless they agree with ones preconceptions.

When I was at Dr. Brassards, he had 12 M2Fs and 2 F2Ms in two weeks. They guys were there for reconstructive surgery, not mastectomy and hysterectomy. Those were prior surgeries. Few he said find the "pole" reconstruction to be useful or adequate. Both these guys were there for reconstruction and had surrendered skin grafts from the arms and legs for the process a week down the road after they had healed some from the initial surgery. One was in his mid 20s, the other in his late 30s, so pretty young, and both had been on T for more than 8 years, 20 years for the elder of the two.

I spoke with one 43 years old F2M friend just yesterday afternoon after we team taught three classes, and he said the expenditure (over $100 grand for inadequate results) was just too much, so he had put that aside because he was a man without it. If he had all the money he needed for the surgery and to take care of the two kids, one grandkid and wife, then he MIGHT consider it. And at 43 and both kids near leaving the nest, he has time. Others at other times have said the same general thing, though their familial circumstances were different. Clitoral release, that gets "erect" to about 4 inches and gives great sensation is enough for most. Others have a "scrotal sac" constructed with labia material and silicone implants to provide a more normal appearance, but the uretha remains in a more female location. That is one improvement they would like to have so they could stand at the urinal instead of using a stall.

Carolynn

Absaroka · Post by **Absaroka** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:48 pm

Thanks Carolynn. That clarifies it, sort of......extrapolating results from those who were willing to participate in a survey to the general population is always an uncertain venture.

I've read this in other areas and often wonder if there is a failure to communicate. REI makes a gadget that allows a woman to pee standing up without pulling down her pants. It's used in winter mountaineering, where it's attractions should be obvious. I have a friend who tried it and told me about it, although we didn't get into how much she liked it.

Apparently a lot of women and women on their way to manhood also just don't understand that a fair number of men have at least a semi bashful kidney and would prefer to use a stall rather than a urinal. Maybe FTM need the equivalent of what we have here in the dear GG forum- a dear GM thing.