本文探究了十八和十九世紀英國的觀察家和法律權威是如何理解及規範女性和男性的變裝行為。本文發現觀察家和法律權威對於女人和男人變裝的動機有著不同的假設，這使得他們採取截然不同的方式來對待女性和男性變裝者。具體來說，在這段時期，女人在性別角色上的倒錯並未被視為其在性行為上亦會逾越性別界線的證據；與之相反，男人穿上女裝的行為則被與男性同性性行為連結在一起。女性變裝者因而少受規範，男性變裝者則受到嚴格地監控與處置。這使得男性變裝者比女性變裝者更積極於發展標準化說辭來辯護其行為。本文主張，性別角色倒錯並不一定會被定義為具有顛覆性的行為；僅有在性別角色倒錯被與性慾倒錯掛鉤在一起時，變裝行為才會被視為具有威脅性。

This essay explores how the practices of female and malecross-dressing were respectively understood and regulated byobservers and legal authorities in eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuryBritain.It finds that different assumptions of women‟s and men‟smotivations for cross-dressing led to disparate treatment of femaleand male cross-dressers. Specifically, during this period, women‟sinversion of gender role was not considered as indicative of theirtransgressions of sexual behavior, whereas men‟s adoption of femaleclothing was linked with male same-sex sexual desire. Consequently,female cross-dressers were usually left unregulated, while malecross-dressers were severely monitored and punished. Cross- dressing men were thus more enthusiastic than cross-dressingwomen in developing standard statements to justify their behaviour.This essay concludes by arguing that the inversion of gender rolewas not always regarded as a subversive practice. Cross-dressingwould be viewed as threatening, only when the connection betweengender inversion and sexual transgression was clearly established.