Signifiers

[Uncle Al]

I'm sorry folks but all of the rhetoric on this topic is getting redundant &
boring. Who Cares

This thread reminds me of the phrase "Rhett Butler".

Just my $.02 worth

Uncle Al

[dillon]

With all due respect, Al, I'd appreciate it if you'd let Carl reply, himself, to my concerns about his remarks toward me. I think this, too, is reasonable. If the same had been said of you, what would you expect?

Perhaps you don't see a reason to care, but it was not your character that was demeaned.

[moonshadow]

I joined this site many years ago, and agreed at that time with the theme, i.e. that I didn’t want to associate my skirt wearing with LGBTQ issues, ostensibly cross dressing and transvestism. After years to reflect upon the pace of social change and the morality of this segregation, I now think it’s time for SC to proceed with entry into the current century. Our position on TG and TV is anachronistic. TV is an idea that is essentially extinct, aside from “drag shows.” So I am happy to stand with “queers” of all stripes, which, despite our best pretensions, is what we all are when held in the naked light of American social conservatism. We gain nothing from clinging to our own special brand of homophobia.

Forgive me for skipping over quite a few chunks of thread, I have been wanting to share some thoughts on this post, yet have been waiting to fire up the dinosaur (my old desktop) so I can have a proper keyboard for my more in depth thoughts. I also have no intention of meddling in the correspondence between dillon and Carl, my intended post was hatched in my mind prior to the other exchange being published.

To me, and I believe to a lot of other people, gender is a very complex subject, indeed, one that has led to some heated discussions even here on the Cafe. I'm not sure I can agree with Pelmut that sex is a spectrum. I am aware of certain rare circumstances where some people have both sets of genitalia. But even if he is correct, I will say, "good luck getting the world to go along with that". Many are having a hard enough time trying to wrap their mind around a male woman or a female man, when we start to claim that someone with a penis is a biological female (as in sex)... eeehhh.... I'm not sure I can go along with that. 2+2 always equals 4, though I will admit, we may not know why 2+2 equals 4. Of course that is a question for philosophers to grapple with. But I digress (more on that later).

Getting back to gender. I have no issue applying the tag of "queer" to myself, using the old definition of the word. Under those terms, I am, very much queer. And since my liberation brings joy to my soul, this also makes me very gay (again, using the traditional definition).

I choose not to label myself transgender because personally (and this is just my opinion), I'm not convinced it's all not just a bunch of arbitrary bunk. I mean no offense by this, but I'm just being straight forward and honest. I mean, look at it this way, what amount of femininity makes a male a trans-woman or vice versa? Where do we draw the line? An example: At what weight is a person considered "fat"? I know lots of heavy set people who like to think they're skinny. What about beauty? Some people are beautiful and yet they think their ugly, some think their beautiful, and yet they really don't have much going on. Who gets to decide beauty? Isn't it a matter of opinion and taste? And what is the source of opinion anyway?

Well the brain of course!

Gender, opinions, and the like, all seem to come from the same source. I can fancy myself a handsome man, but ultimate society will decide whether I'm handsome or not. So I generally don't make such judgements on myself because they are only rooted in arbitrary notions of the mind, and the mind can change on a whim. I prefer to build my life on solid mental ground. I am a man, handsome or not, I'll still be a man. Nobody can take that away from me because that's how my anatomy is, and I've got papers to prove it.

This is why I don't want to call myself transgender, because frankly the entire concept of transgenderism in my humble opinion is simply on too shaky ground for me to build a life on. Couple that with the fact that 98% of the culture I'm surrounded by WILL NOT accept it, and worse, endeavor to make my life a living hell just for trying.

It is just so much easier to simply call myself what I am, a man who likes to wear feminine clothes. It's simple and above all.. it's honest. NOBODY can deny this fact, because it's rooted on solid ground. I am, after all, a male, I do, after all wear feminine clothes. Conservatives and bigots may disagree with the choice, but they can not debate the facts of the matter, mainly that I am a male who likes to wear feminine clothes. Now I can call myself a woman all day, and I can spend the rest of my life struggling and arguing with people because they will rightfully point out many compelling points to prove that I am indeed not a woman, and then I can lapse into a deep depression because I'm trying to be something I'm really not and beckoning the world to go along with and getting all bent out of shape when they look at me like I'm crazy.

Life's too short for that noise man! Now if others want to call themselves transgender, that's their business. I have no issue with the trans-movement. I could care less if the whole gender world is turned on its head. But as for me? No thank you.

Now spiritually I don't believe I (or anyone else for that matter) have gender, or sex for that matter. (sex is after all a biological and worldly condition). It's my personal belief that the soul is without gender, I believe that's why people like us can dabble in all matters feminine (if we're brave enough to stand up to the world), and likewise women can do the same with matters masculine. This paragraph is, of course strictly my opinion and a matter of personal spiritual belief. I am not claiming this to be fact OR truth, just what I believe. Nobody else has to agree.

My sex is male (so sayeth my legal documents)
My gender is up for the world to argue over (I could care less)
My body is the property of the U.S. government (so sayeth the 14th amendment)
My soul is free. (so sayeth my creator)

[dillon]

I appreciate your opinion, Moon, and would never suggest that you were drunk when you posted it. Hope to see you soon. BTW, we have Air BnB properties in downtown Wilmington when you get the urge to go to the beach!

[moonshadow]

I appreciate your opinion, Moon, and would never suggest that you were drunk when you posted it. Hope to see you soon. BTW, we have Air BnB properties in downtown Wilmington when you get the urge to go to the beach!

Thanks dillon! I want to reiterate that I'm not going "anti-trans". Trans people will always be welcome at my table, and I will respect them and their life choices, because it is, after all their life they must lead. It's simply not my place to live their life for them.

And I hope my comment in the last thread won't be taken as though I feel I'm better than trans-people. On the contrary, I may be on a different path, but that doesn't elevate me in any way, it just means I'm on a different path.

We're all just trying to find our way, I'd be happy to hold anyone's hand on the journey. God knows we need friends on this voyage... not foes.

[dillon]

That's just what I've been saying, except with more brevity, I guess. We gain nothing from distancing our particular proclivity from the rest of the issues that affect many decent humans. Sadly, the whole premise of SC was built upon that segregation. I just feel like it's time to reexamine our basis, perhaps now with a deeper moral inclination.

[skirtyscot]

Fair enough, dillon, but where do you see the homophobia? In saying we are a different class of people to transvestites or transgender people, we are not disparaging them in any way. And I don't want to be lumped in with them, though I am aware of the possibility that some people will do just that. We can and should continue to make the distinction, rather than accepting a place in the current trendy catch-all LGBTQWTF bucket.

[weeladdie18]

Well said Alistair , I do not wish to appear as a female....Long live Men in Skirts.

[weeladdie18]

Weeladdie - is it really a local “TV group” or is that a label you have ascribed to them? What does the group actually call itself? I’m betting it’s not “TV”...

Interested in your response.

Ray

The Beaumont Society...I suggest you check the Society to see the current publicity....
I am going back to the dark ages when Men In Skirts wore M.U.G.s. ....Male Unbiforcated Garments.............Weeladdie

[oldsalt1]

Sorry dillion but I have to agree with Skirtyscot. There is a distinction between being acceptive of and participating in. Many of us on the café realize that we are a little different from the rest. and our actions can possibly be associated with the "Q" part of the descriptive terms.

But there are multitudes of blogs for individuals who are the main stay of that group. The café doesn't have to be one of them. Tacit acceptance of these conditions can be the an attribute of the café with out having discussion of and on the subject predominate our posts.

[crfriend]

With all due respect, Al, I'd appreciate it if you'd let Carl reply, himself, to my concerns about his remarks toward me. I think this, too, is reasonable. If the same had been said of you, what would you expect?

If I offended, Dillon, please accept my apologies; even I have bad days from time to time, and I've recently been going through several weeks of them. I did not intend it as a personal affront.

My point in this is that all the classification does is heap additional weight onto what can already be an unpleasant situation -- weight that is not necessary to carry, nor welcome. I know that I get lumped into that bin by the far right, it's just that I don't need it affixed to my sleeve to attract the attentions of the moderates (which, I suspect, outweigh the far right in biomass by several times, but who tend to stay quiet on matters) -- and I certainly don't need it affixed to me by others. The simpler we can keep the situation the better.

[dillon]

With all due respect, Al, I'd appreciate it if you'd let Carl reply, himself, to my concerns about his remarks toward me. I think this, too, is reasonable. If the same had been said of you, what would you expect?

If I offended, Dillon, please accept my apologies; even I have bad days from time to time, and I've recently been going through several weeks of them. I did not intend it as a personal affront.

It always annoys me when an apology begins with “If I offended,” especially when the fact of offense has been established. It disowns the offense as if doubt remains, as if self-absolution, rather than regret, was the purpose of the “apology.” Further, it seems clear that a personal affront was the intent when it was suggested that the source of my opinion could only be alcohol. How was that anything but personal?

But I grant you the rationalization of the “bad day,” and seek to move on. I hope the stress and strain of life improves for you, Carl, because when men reach our age (recognizing that you’re not old by my own age and POV) we know that we’re on a downhill ride with inadequate brakes. We all deserve a time of life to get some burdens off our shoulders because new ones always await.

[moonshadow]

I know that I get lumped into that bin [LGBTQ] by the far right,

Ironically, while they might lump you in the "G" bin (as in homosexual), they will adamantly insist that you are NOT a woman (transgender). They do this because they believe that you believe that you are, and this will greatly offend you, which is their aim.

Interestingly, had this been 30 or more years ago (before transgender was really a thing), they would have insisted that you were a woman, despite your insistence to the contrary. Why? Because once again, they are trying to offend you.

Bigots are always about trying to offend people different from themselves, and the cards they pull change with the times.

There are a few in the far left that insist we fall into the "T" bin, but not many. Many of the rest (of the left) may initially assume that we are "T", but once we correct them, they normally accept it happily.

So really, now that I think about it, at least amongst my interaction with people, I think that most people can easily wrap their mind around the notion that we are just men wearing feminine clothes, or simply, men wearing skirts. I know when I talk to people, they almost seem relieved that I'm not claiming to be a woman. [0] On the other hand, I think most people still accept a transgender person's right to decide their own life path, they just don't understand much of the movement. There are lots of loose strings associated with transgenderism, and a lot of frankly "fluid" terminologies that make it all but impossible to keep up with. Most rational people just say "oh, uh... oookaaay, whatever floats yer boat man.. er uh. ma'am..." and move on. I don't quite follow along with that conclusion to the letter, but I can certainly understand the sentiment and confusion. I share in it often.

[0] This comes from both sides, right and left. I would imagine because as for the right, I'm affirming my practice outside of the "LGBT" group and ironically they seem to respect that, the left because quite frankly, I'd make an ugly woman [1] and I think they know I'd just do damage to "the cause" [of transgenderism].

[1] This was first told to me by my own mother. I judged the comment to be mean, crass, and uncalled for, yet I can not argue her conclusion.

[crfriend]

But I grant you the rationalization of the “bad day,” and seek to move on.

Thank you.

I hope the stress and strain of life improves for you, Carl, because when men reach our age (recognizing that you’re not old by my own age and POV) we know that we’re on a downhill ride with inadequate brakes. We all deserve a time of life to get some burdens off our shoulders because new ones always await.

This is actually weighing very heavily on me at the moment as I live now in a world where everything is more important than everything else, and there is no longer any structure, and I also know that I will need to work for the rest of my living days -- in an ever more increasingly toxic environment. Brakes? What brakes?

I like Moon's invocations of the old -- and proper -- meanings of "queer" and "gay". One of the big problems I have now is that the ground beneath me has shifted, and has shifted in ways I neither comprehend nor find remotely attractive. Language is not our own any longer, even who we are allowed to be as men is no longer under our control and what's acceptable has taken a powerful shove into the realm of parody. In a very real sense, men have been side-lined and marginalised to the point of meaninglessness, sometimes to the point of being dehumanised.

So, by the proper definition of "queer", me, being naturally a half-bubble out of plumb, I fit, but I don't fit the modern definition even remotely -- in fact it's become a bit of a problem insofar as that I am insufficiently homosexual to be drawn to the "modern 'woman'". This does not matter for the sake of biology as I (1) am likely beyond breeding age, and any woman age-compatible with me is as well, and, (2) would not contemplate for one instant bringing a child into the world, for such could be considered a criminal act of abuse given the trajectory of "society". However, emotional companionship would be a nice thing and support-systems are a necessary component of a stable life, the best of which are intimate and bidirectional.

[dillon]

Sorry dillion but I have to agree with Skirtyscot. There is a distinction between being acceptive of and participating in. Many of us on the café realize that we are a little different from the rest. and our actions can possibly be associated with the "Q" part of the descriptive terms.

But there are multitudes of blogs for individuals who are the main stay of that group. The café doesn't have to be one of them. Tacit acceptance of these conditions can be the an attribute of the café with out having discussion of and on the subject predominate our posts.

I’m not suggesting that any individual personally embrace anything he finds distasteful. I’m just pointing out the fact that the label distinctions we make for our own mental comfort mean little outside our personal need for self-image that protects us from our own fears. To the greater world, the “unenlightened” as we may regard them, we are barely even a discernible variation on the theme of “queer.” We’re just fleas on the same dog, basically.

As an individual you have a natural right of association. Collectively, however, ‘we’ might do well to reflect less on how we see ourselves and more on how society views and treats everyone who, even if only by appearance, deviate from accepted norms of sexuality or gender. I’m just suggesting we deinstitutionalize the old biases of this group because in the grand scheme of things they are specious and, frankly, absurd. It reminds me a lot of the scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” (perhaps an apropos Easter theme here) where the intellectual radicals sat and debated the Judean People’s Front vs The People’s Front of Judea, mocking the counter-productivity of Balkanization.

The tacit acceptance exists, I hope, and these fora will remain primarily clothing-oriented. Yet we still have an unkind theme as a legacy, like a segregationist restrictive covenant in a deed, virtually unenforceable but an unattractive reminder of the fears and loathings of yesteryear.