Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CLee1z t1_j2rkiph wrote

The men's clothes were probably more comfortable, so that's what she wore. Why label her as a crossdresser? I don't think she was making a statement, but today's society will put her in a sexual category anyway. Ridiculous

16

jbowling25 t1_j2rtzhh wrote

Wearing the opposite genders clothes is literally crossdressing and it isnt inherently sexual

20

CLee1z t1_j2rvw9m wrote

It's a modern term that is designed to put people into categories and create more division, and some go along with it. Putting that label on her is not necessary, and it further separates people, and I feel I should point this out more often.

−18

jbowling25 t1_j2rwh7p wrote

Its not a modern term and people have been cross dressing for 100s of years has nothing to do with labeling them or division. She cross dressed by wearing mens clothing its as simple as that. Your not pointing out anything and your incorrect

9

CLee1z t1_j2rxc6l wrote

Nobody used that term. It's a new form of name calling, and I'm correct, it's to create division and further separate people from each other. If you called Calamity Jane that name she would punch you in the jaw. It's name calling and labeling. It's division

−21

jbowling25 t1_j2rxoiw wrote

Man your dense. Its not name calling its literally the thing she was doing holy shit man. How does that create division.

11

CLee1z t1_j2rytu6 wrote

No, I'm deep. I won't explain it to you. Stay shallow and just go along if you want. I will continue to point out the obvious.

−13

jbowling25 t1_j2rzi68 wrote

Youre about as deep as a puddle

13

CLee1z t1_j2sdh4l wrote

I wish Calamity Jane was here. She would understand what they're trying to do to the human psyche, then she would punch them all in the jaw for trying to make her change her pronouns

0

jbowling25 t1_j2slaby wrote

What does cross dressing have to do with pronouns?

6

CLee1z t1_j2vh149 wrote

Wow, and you called me dense. Wow.

0