Note: This particular post does not pertain to those who use cross dressing as one vehicle in their path to partial or full transition to womanhood.
The reader has already noted that the majority of cross dressers will either wear one article of feminine lingerie, usually panties, or the same amount of undergarments normally worn by a woman when going to their workplace. The exception might be to wear drab when visiting medical offices or to the gym; however a few are not shy allowing their doctors and nurses to view their attire. These underdressers include the entire spectrum of the CD community from airline captains, police sergeants, attorneys, truck drivers, carpenters to every other conceivable type of occupation — estimates range from four to eight million males in the U. S. alone that indulge in this harmless practice.
In the privacy of their homes it is usual for these same underdressers to shed their male garb for female garments. When time permits many, but not all, will add makeup, wigs and whatever is required to change their persona to female. Others are content with limited clothing and nothing else. For those with wives, family members or girlfriends there are often a wide range of limitations or “compromises” imposed depending upon the degree of acceptance and support — a subject already covered. From this large number of underdressers probably more than half seriously contemplated that some day they will have perfected their skills to the point of venturing out into the public arena and subjecting themselves to scrutiny of others — however, thus far, the preponderance of information indicates that more than 50% will never go out fully dressed. We will now examine the “Why not?”.
There are over five million members of just two organizations, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association whose views on pro-life and the LGBT communities that includes the transgendered are well known. Add to those numbers the religious and political persuasions that are equally against any so-called gender deviance and wherever the preponderance of people with this mindset live, work and pray becomes dangerous places — dangerous to life and limb, holding a job or even in the pursuit of sports and hobbies that they and their families enjoy. Sadly, Southern and Midwestern states still retain more than an average share of these misnamed “conservatives”. This writer has read a number of stories related by CDs, who can hardly be called “passable”, of positive experiences in the very heart of such areas but it’s risky at best. Then there are occupations and types of work historically considered “mano”. Examples include the sports of race cars and horse racing that only recently have seen female participants but still remain 99% of the male gender. With female college graduates now outnumbering males inroads have been made in architecture, engineering, aeronautics and the like but, nevertheless, more than 90% of construction crews, builders, and airline pilots are male. Sure, these same men might underdress but coming out en femme in these work places is another matter. Actually, the writer knows an underdressing miner and the owner of a successful engineering company who is not transsexual but runs her business fully dressed without a problem as does a “large animal” veterinarian. In 2014 a transsexual police sergeant in an Arizona town completed her transition publicly with little incident but it would be a real challenge for a hetero CD to report to their station house en femme. Okay, we understand why CDs are reluctant to “out” where they work except perhaps for Halloween if then, and socially there are obstacles to face in narrow-minded communities.
In this same chapter in the Second Edition I misspoke, was misleading when I wrote “the majority will forever remain in the closet for they don’t have the boldness to be seen in public places”. While boldness may be a factor for some, many others consider other factors like motivation and weighing the possible down-side versus the rewards. There are those who really are content expressing their inclinations solely within their homes or with a loved one — will never feel that they have “missed something” by never leaving their threshold. Then there is a group whose desire to dress has been with them since childhood and practice it from time to time without an overwhelming need to do dress more fully. Weighing their negligible “urges” against marital vows, happiness of family, their more than adequate income and an active social life — they are happy without a tinge of regret. Try as one might to persuade them that they really aren’t happy is misguided. Sure, there are a much larger number of CDs living within boundaries, compromises or whatever where the restrictions are not of their doing; the SO definitely is happy but they are decidedly not. We have previously talked about their unhealthy bondage. Now back to other reasons hindering or completely stopping other CDs from going out en femme.