When taking a look at the Victorian era, it’s plain to see – when compared to today’s modern viewpoints – that a conservative outlook was fairly commonplace. Dress code and gender norms were quite rigid, and not abiding by those societal standards could very well place an individual under public harassment, or even in a court of law. Women during this time faced many more restrictions than men, and with these rules came an even stricter code when it came to gender norms. This Victorian-London article on women’s sexuality shows the ways in which women refused to adhere to these norms through their sexuality and the alternative ways that they dressed.

During this period in time, queer sexualities were considered taboo and unnatural – people were often ostracized, humiliated and even murdered for not adhering to the heteronormative. Women in lesbian relationships would often need to disguise themselves as men, so as to not be subject to a cruel public.
In the 1834 case of the “man-woman,” Mary Chapman – who’d been under the alias “Bill Chapman” – was a cross-dresser who’d been in a relationship with a woman named Isabella Watson for several years. “Bill” had been arrested for being a “common cheat” and causing a disturbance, and no one knew what to make of Chapman’s unconventional attire. During Chapman’s time of arrest, a dialogue was recorded:
“Prisoner [Mary]. “Isabella has lived wish me as my companion for many years.”
    Mr .Bennett. “Why do you dress as a man?”
    Prisoner. “I own I am disguised, and it was owing to the cruelty of a father-in-law that I first dressed in this manner. I never did harm to any person. I have been all over the kingdom, and never was in prison in my life before.”

Due to being rejected simply because of her sexuality,  Mary Chapman had to disguise herself as a man so as to not be chastised by Isabella’s father. It’s also worth noting that Isabella refers to Mary as ‘he’ even when Mary had revealed her birth name to the police. Could Mary “Bill” Chapman have also been a transgender man?

Aside from gender and sexuality reasons, many women had also cross-dressed simply so that they’d have the same opportunities as men. In an 1867 Southwark Trial, Arthur Munby records a particular case in which a barman turned out to be a woman, incognito.
“No one suspected her, indeed; she confessed her sex to avoid the prison bath. She was a ship’s steward two years, before she was a barman: and before that again, she was errand boy, & afterwards light porter, at a cheesemonger’s in the New Road. When I arrived, the cheesemonger was charging her with not repaying him some of her receipts as his porter . . . And thus poor Thomas, who only said ‘Nothing Sir’ in a low tone when asked if she had ought to say, was committed for trial…”

This case is similar to a recorded 1875 case in which a Liverpool woman, “disguised her sex, dressing in male attire, and earning a living as a cabdriver” for nine years.

These cases show us the lengths women had to go to in order to make a living – or simply live – in a society that rejected and restricted them from living as equally as the privileged.

Source: http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm (Women – Sexuality – Cross-dressing)