Erica raises two points worth exploring here.
First is the notion of a dynamic around all of this.
All of life is dynamic and it is folly to think that our sense of self is some static entity. From birth to death, who we are is under constant revision. None of us is the same person they were ten years ago.
With regards to my gender perception, I can say without question that Who I was at puberty, end of high school, end of college, eight years ago and right now are very different beings. Just over the past eight years, I have had what I see as radical changes in perspective with regards to gender, self and society. There is most definitely a dynamic to this - as with everything else.
I made a post in the TG/TS section (y'all should stop by now and then, we don't bite... much. ) called Becoming... Not Transitioning. It is my take on what those of us who do not 'transition' experience as we become who we were meant to be. I feel the bulk of it is worth repeating here:
I see myself now as not having changed from when I was a confused child trying to make sense of the feeling I was having. I inhabit the same body, I have the same mind - and by and large, I have the same feelings as I did then. The difference is not a change of state, stage, or subject - it is not a development or evolution of form.
What I have done is allowed myself to [I]become/I] that which I always was but resisted. Perhaps, to the world at large, it seems that I have changed - but what have I actually changed about myself? As I said, the thoughts and feelings are all still there - only now, I acknowledge and accept them as an integral part of who I am. I have stopped fighting against myself - resisting that which I am.
It's not unlike the clearing of a dam. Suddenly, there is now a river where there once was none. But the river was always there - held back, suppressed - kept from being what it is. With the dam removed, the water and land merge - they become the river they were meant to be.
While this might sound contradictory to the statement regarding our selves as being dynamic, the difference is that while my sense of self and being have changed and grown, the underlying feelings, the drive - the core of who I was to become, that is what is still there: raw and undeveloped - waiting to realize it's full potential.
I feel that this is the dynamic: the clearing away of the psychological debris which has held us back from becoming who we truly were meant to be.
When a dam is cleared, there is an initial flood like surge before equilibrium is achieved. For the 'non-transsexual', this is a surge of feelings and emotions which the individual may not have ever allowed themselves to fully experience. They become overwhelmed - and the feelings are easily misinterpreted. In an attempt to process all of this, the individual identifies with that which most expeditiously explains it: one finds oneself 'becoming' transsexual. They get caught up in the whole 24/7 girl fantasy and are convinced that this is the only thing that is right for them.
Given time, most find that the feelings subside, equilibrium is achieved and the preoccupation with being transsexual starts to fade. In some cases, however, this may not happen. With the feelings now acknowledged, individual may recognize that these are not strange, but familiar - long repressed feelings. They are feelings which now have a context in which to be interpreted. With the scales now tipped, these individuals now awaken to the realization that they are transsexual - and have been all along.
The second point Erica brings up the notion of a 'textbook' crossdresser.
We can and often do bring up the notion of a 'textbook' transsexual. We can do this because as a medical diagnosis, transsexualism is documented and the symptoms listed out in black and white. There is a 'textbook' transsexual - unfortunately.
The problem with a 'textbook' definition for any of this is that it panders to the lowest common denominator - it cheapens that which is being defined. By painting us all with the same brush, it makes each of us something less than we actually are.
What seems to be forgotten is that crossdressing is an activity - it is something one does: for a variety of different reasons. In this respect, it is not unlike gardening: there are many reasons one gardens - but there is no 'textbook' gardener. And just as 'gardener' is not considered an identity, neither should 'crossdresser' be considered an identity. Both are valid only as shorthand for one who engages in the aforementioned activities.
Nonetheless, most who crossdress do identify as 'crossdressers': equating the action with an identity. Not unlike the constructs 'man' and 'woman', 'crossdresser' is a construct with no concrete definition. And while there is likely much commonality among us as a group, one is likely to find that each of us has a different definition of what it means to be 'a crossdresser'. As such, there can be no 'textbook' crossdresser any more than there can be a 'textbook' man or woman. All are social constructs for which there is no archetype. The only meaning they have is that which we prescribe to them.
Culturally defined and unique to each individual, 'crossdresser' communicates nothing more than the fact that one wears clothing intended for the 'opposite' sex. It in no way speaks to the motivation behind the action. It in no way speaks to who we really are.
Love & Stuff,
Donna