Can We Stop The Squabbling Please!

[sapphire]

It is all determined by who is calling who names.

We go through this in the cat breeding community all the time. If you didn't like the way another breeder was conducting business, then you would call the other person a "backyard breeder". No one could ever define what a "backyard breeder" was since all cat breeders are to one degree or another hobby breeders.

Then if you had a number of cats and someone objected to your methods, you were a hoarder, even if the complainant had the same number of cats.

Then there are the "kitten mills", except that there aren't any of those becuase commercial breeding of cats is not profitable.

So in the discussion of bravehearts/freestylers/crossdressers/transvestities, there are no bravehearts/freestyles/crossdressers/transvestities. Pick a point on that continuum and since the continuum is fluid, the point will not remain static.

Everyone has his or her preferences. Labels just peel off.

[kilthose]

OK, for the sake of argument, can we define -- precisely, please -- what the difference between "braveheart" and "freestyler" is?

These terms were originally introduced somewhere between 1997 and 2002 by "WDP" on Tom's Cafe. WDP is the owner of the kiltmen.com site and forum (Tom helped WDP create the forum on kiltmen.com). Though WDP's posts on Tom's Cafe have long disappeared, his essay on the topic is still available at

http://www.kiltmen.com/freestyle.htm

KH

[ziggy_encaoua]

I think the line between freestyler & transvestite is crossed when an individual pretends to a girl or is not being gender honest

[sapphire]

So who defines gender honesty? What is gender honesty?

[alexthebird]

So who defines gender honesty? What is gender honesty?

BINGO

And just to broaden the argument, what is gender?

[Departed Member]

OK, for the sake of argument, can we define -- precisely, please -- what the difference between "braveheart" and "freestyler" is? This is important, because without a precisely defined boundary this damned wound is going to continue to fester and cause needless grief! Does the "braveheart" end when the kilt is doffed and another skirt -- there, I've gone and said it -- is donned?

Much as I dislike the terms "braveheart" (because of that d*mn nonsensical film!) and "freestyler", there is a mental boundary between introducing a skirt into a man's wardrobe, and simply 'wearing women's clothes'. Yes, I agree that most of the skirts most here wear may have originated 'on the other side of the aisle', but - they are clearly ambiguous as far as 'gender identification' is concerned. As for Kilts, they're just a skirt at the right hand side of the equation, are they not?

Does it happen when a bloke decides to shave his legs?

With respect, this really has nothing to do with the braveheart/freestyler argument - at all! An awful lot of athletes shave, for instance. It makes showering quicker and easier. It's very often a 'comfort thing'. Some RAF pilots shave their legs, 'cos of the effects of wearing immersion suits, etc. over long periods.

Does it happen if one ventures outside the strictly-prescribed "acceptable way" to wear a kilt? Even in the kilt-only world, there must be some boundary as to what's "tasteful" and "acceptable". So, where's the line?

Well, the 'line', as you put it, tends to be at mid-knee! And long may it remain so! Why do I say that? Purely from an aesthetic viewpoint, that's all.

Here's a notion: perhaps the "bravehearts" are a wee bit chicken in their outlook and are insecure about who they are, and how they wish to present themselves to the world. Is that inflammatory enough? Can bravehearts not get over the notion that a kilt is in fact a skirt (Yes, I've gone and said it again) that has been granted "special status"? What's wrong with these guys? The kilt's "special status" is illusory at best, and specious at worst. I think it's getting used as a crutch.

You've truly lost me here, to be frank. This argument lies purely within the "Kilt Klan"'s remit. Even they are inclined to argue over the semantics! I don't subscribe to any Kilt website, because of the amount of bullsh*t and pseudo-"Scottishness" they (sadly) generate.

I first started considering "shoving both legs down one pipe" back in the early 1980s, and at the time the only "answer" was a kilt -- and the entire "kilt regime" seemed as fully stultifying as a tuxedo. Properly worn, it remains so. If I need that much structure and baggage to excuse myself for wearing a skirt it's just not worth it.

I do fully understand (& can freely identify with) what you're saying here! However, I grew up knowing folk who wore Kilts as garments, and only occasionally in the idiom you term, "Properly". They weren't particularly keen on the full 'kit', some even, because they regarded it as the "Anglification' of the outfit!

I'm better than that; I don't need to hide behind an illusion. Does this make me a crossdresser/transvestite (same thing, there, by the way)? I submit, "No". .)

No! I must strongly disagree here! There is a definite 'crossover' between the two factions, and they're both well to the left of the majority, including yourself, of the folk here.

(Oh! That makes me a "freestyler", then! He said a dirty word!) ..... So, if that makes me a "freestyler" (Ooh! He said a dirty word again!), then so be it.

Now, there's the rub! You're taking 'sides', when there shouldn't really be any - as far as this forum is concerned. There's a whole difference between the kind of 'freedom' we're trying, in our individual ways, to achieve, and the "Fashion"(?) freedom expressed by some later participants which appears to be the advocation of wearing 'womens clothes' (including such garments as leggings, which they perceive as women's), and which always fell outside the stated boundaries of the forum.

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but that sounds very much like judgment to me.

Not in the least! When taking minutes at management meetings, I would always write down what was said, not what I thought they wanted to say. They always had the opportunity, if the Boss agreed, to re-configure their statements before the next meeting. Consequently, I observe events in the 'real world', and report what I see, not an opinion I may subsequently derive from those observations. If I choose to offer an opinion (as with the contents of the minutae), then I record it as such!

[Stevie D]

There's a whole difference between the kind of 'freedom' we're trying, in our individual ways, to achieve, and the "Fashion"(?) freedom expressed by some later participants which appears to be the advocation of wearing 'womens clothes' (including such garments as leggings, which they perceive as women's), and which always fell outside the stated boundaries of the forum.

Oh....
But on the header at the top of every page of this forum it says:
'We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices.' (my underlining).
According to my understanding of the English language, this "Fashion"(?) freedom to which you are objecting, actually falls fairly and squarely within the stated boundaries of the forum.

Or is this another case of 'well, Merlin doesn't agree with it, so it must be wrong' ?

[crfriend]

Much as I dislike the terms "braveheart" (because of that d*mn nonsensical film!) and "freestyler", there is a mental boundary between introducing a skirt into a man's wardrobe, and simply 'wearing women's clothes'. Yes, I agree that most of the skirts most here wear may have originated 'on the other side of the aisle', but - they are clearly ambiguous as far as 'gender identification' is concerned. As for Kilts, they're just a skirt at the right hand side of the equation, are they not?

What I was driving at was to get an agreement on what precisely defines the difference between a "braveheart" and a "freestyler" -- i.e. the difference between "us" and "them". This blasted squabble has been simmering for years, and I really feel that it's destructive enough that we need to put it behind us.

I've read WDP's essay on the topic, and it's a pretty good one, but it hasn't seen much revision in the past several years, and I wonder if it isn't a bit "dated". That said, it makes for a very good jumping-off point.

With respect, [leg shaving] really has nothing to do with the braveheart/freestyler argument - at all!

I wasn't intimating that it did -- I offered it as a ridiculous notion of where somebody might try to draw a line. It's ridiculous precisely because lots of guys shave, and do so for a plethora of reasons.

Does it happen if one ventures outside the strictly-prescribed "acceptable way" to wear a kilt? Even in the kilt-only world, there must be some boundary as to what's "tasteful" and "acceptable". So, where's the line?

Well, the 'line', as you put it, tends to be at mid-knee! And long may it remain so! Why do I say that? Purely from an aesthetic viewpoint, that's all.

One of the joys of aesthetics is that it's a purely personal notion. I happen to look positively dowdy in stuff that hits right at my knees so it's a style that I would not naturally gravitate to. That said, the style is carried off splendidly by some folks!

What I was going for was "what's acceptable to wear with a kilt?". We all know about the formal rig; how "slovenly" can one get before the entire outfit looks ratty or trashy?

[...] I don't need to hide behind [the masculine illusion of the kilt]. Does this make me a crossdresser/transvestite (same thing, there, by the way)? I submit, "No". .)

No! I must strongly disagree here! There is a definite 'crossover' between the two factions, and they're both well to the left of the majority, including yourself, of the folk here.

And I'm trying to divine precisely what characteristics define that "crossover point".

(Oh! That makes me a "freestyler", then! He said a dirty word!) ..... So, if that makes me a "freestyler" (Ooh! He said a dirty word again!), then so be it.

Now, there's the rub! You're taking 'sides', when there shouldn't really be any - as far as this forum is concerned. [...]

Actually, no, I wasn't "taking sides". I was trying to drive the point home that we seem to need a better definition of what separates the two camps. Whatever camp I happen to reside in is meaningless in this context.

[...] There's a whole difference between the kind of 'freedom' we're trying, in our individual ways, to achieve, and the "Fashion"(?) freedom expressed by some later participants which appears to be the advocation of wearing 'womens clothes' (including such garments as leggings, which they perceive as women's), and which always fell outside the stated boundaries of the forum.

I've never been fully convinced of the all-up "Fashion Freedom" notion; personally, I am rather more interested in getting skirted garments accepted as a valid alternative to trousers, and doing so in manners that don't look silly or forced.

[Stevie D]

So who defines gender honesty? What is gender honesty?

Good questions, Sapphire. I don't think any of us can answer these questions for someone else. Gender honesty is something that we each have to work out for ourselves, and what is right for one person may well not be right for another person.

You may recall that I have attempted to describe what it means for me in a rather long post I submitted in August 2007.
It's here: http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/viewtop ... 239#p80239

I'll just quote a couple of short sections from my post. I said:

The Men In Skirts movement and Male Fashion Freedom are good developments. Cafe members will know that and there is no need to discuss this further. It has helped me tremendously in finding out where I am in this gender exploration jungle. I'm still not sure - there is no Sat Nav for gender - but I have a better idea that I did a few years ago. For me MIS is still not right. I do not feel myself to be a man, but neither do I feel that I am (or should be) a woman.

So what/where am I? Somewhere in between. I have come to completely reject the traditional bipolar division of gender into male-female. I am androgynous. I am how I feel. Neither male nor female. In my everyday life, I will push the boundaries of what many Café members would be comfortable with: jewellery, subtle make-up, soft flowing fabrics, hosiery, pretty underwear, nice shoes, etc. Other times I am content to slob around in scruffy jeans and a T-shirt. I have had laser treatment to try to reduce my facial hair. But I do not (usually) deliberately try to pass as a woman (what ever that means); I am just 'me'. Gender is what you feel deep within you. It's not about clothing as such, although clothing is an outward expression of how you feel inside.

and I also said:

'Rules for the Cafe', Bob mentions 'gender honesty' - not trying to be something we are not. In other words, as far as the Cafe is concerned, no pretending to be women, no femme names, etc. But I am trying, as hard as I know how, to be honest about my gender. For some, perhaps many of us, gender is not black or white, male or female, masculine or feminine, but it is fluid.

Having re-read my entire posting from August 2007, I still feel it is valid for me, 16 months further on. So if you want to find out what makes me tick, read the whole post .

I believe that gender honesty is there, deep within us; it's how we feel about ourselves. It may take each of us a lot of self-searching until we come up with what is right for us. Some people may need counseling to help them find the answers, and those answers may also change with time (although I'm not sure about that - just me being ultra-cautious).

[Big and Bashful]

I read the essay which Kiltman found, it defines the various flavours of skirtery well. I think the authors viewpoint also aligns well with my feelings on skirtery.

As far as leggings go, Now that I have my first above the knee skirt (Midas cargo denim) and I don't think kilt hose would look right, I appreciate the need to lag my legs against the cold. So to some extent the lagging of the legs goes with the territory of skirting. Having said that, this time of year it's a bit cold for shorts so why not just wear longer skirts? There's room for both approaches here.
When it gets to make-up, nail varnish etc. then I think things are going too far into the freestyler type arena thing. But that's just probably my age and background influencing my feelings. I remember attending Granville College in Sheffield as an apprentice, taking great pleasure in despising the hair-dressing students with their effeminate foppish haircuts and mannerisms. (It was the era of Human League, new romantics etc. (early 80's)). It takes all types!

[AMM]

So who defines gender honesty? What is gender honesty?

It's about honesty. It's about not trying to make people think something about you that isn't true.

People (including me) can talk all they want about how gender is artificial, that there are people that don't fit well into either category, etc., but the plain fact is, we live in a society with pretty clear definitions of "male" and "female," and nearly all the people in that society fit into one or the other pretty well (though never perfectly.) This is not the same as the expectations that our society has of how men and women ought to be; these expectations lead a lot of people to go to a lot of trouble to "prove" that they are Real Women or Real Men, but failing to live up to them doesn't get you reclassified as the other gender.

If you tell people you are one gender, and go to some trouble to present yourself as that gender, people are IMHO justified in assuming that you mean by that what everybody else means by it, more or less. If in fact you most of the time fit rather neatly into the other gender, you are being dishonest.

Based on my occasional readings of crossdressing fora, I would say that most Orthodox M-to-F cross-dressers are being gender dishonest. They live most of their lives as men, in unambiguously male bodies, enjoy the privileges thereof, but sometimes they assume a different name and do everything in their power to make people think they are women. "Passing" is the goal, and they are very proud when they succeed. Yet, as a group, they are no more conscious of what being a woman is really like for most women than any other randomly chosen group of men. What they are really doing is living out a fantasy and deceiving other people into joining them in it. This seems dishonest to me.

Yes, they may say that they truly believe that they have a woman's soul inside. So what? I may say that I have a Rockerfeller's soul inside. Does that mean I should share in the Rockerfeller millions?

I recognize that there are people who don't fit into one gender or another. There are "intersexed" people, who can't be clearly defined as male or female. In such cases, presenting oneself as "male" or "female" to the general public is probably better than giving random strangers more information than they want. I'd probably say something similar about transsexuals.

[Departed Member]

Oh....
But on the header at the top of every page of this forum it says:
'We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices.' (my underlining).
According to my understanding of the English language, this "Fashion"(?) freedom to which you are objecting, actually falls fairly and squarely within the stated boundaries of the forum.

Or is this another case of 'well, Merlin doesn't agree with it, so it must be wrong' ?

Mmnn, I've followed this forum, and its predecessors, for quite a number of years now. Long enough to know that the crux of it is seeking the freedom of 'non-bifurcation'. A quick read through random posts, and it would appear that the majority of correspondents still adhere to that common aim. If we were to diversify into the "Fashion world", then we'd stand the risk of losing all we have gained, rather like during the '70s, when it wasn't that uncommon to see a 'lad in a skirt'! So all I'm trying to establish is whether we, as a forum, might not be better getting 'back to basics', and in doing so, perhaps encourage a goodly number of folk who've left (or at least, stopped contributing) due to their perception (not mine!) of the direction away from the original aims, that the forum appears to have taken. It doesn't take a statistician to realise that member input has fallen dramatically, in proportion to some of the more 'extreme' fashion choices, that a free-for-all seems to have engendered.

As for your personal 'pop' at me, sorry, I don't possess an ego so it was rather wasted! I merely offer observations. I also reserve the right to occasionally offer an opinion, but do so, only rarely. In this case, I feel that the forum's very integrity is being challenged. Other folk might see things differently. Great! Then they have an equal right to express them, too.

[Departed Member]

What I was driving at was to get an agreement on what precisely defines the difference between a "braveheart" and a "freestyler" -- i.e. the difference between "us" and "them". This blasted squabble has been simmering for years, and I really feel that it's destructive enough that we need to put it behind us.

I'm minded to think that this debate is getting un-necessarily drawn into a 'braveheart'/'freestyler' argument, rather than the real issues at stake. We all seem to accept that the ultimate in 'braveheart' terms is a trad Kilt - agreed? The problems, and outright animosity, stem from the 'other' difficult-to-define boundary - that between 'freestyler' and 'crossdresser'.

I wasn't intimating that it [leg shaving] did -- I offered it as a ridiculous notion of where somebody might try to draw a line.

Which no-one seems to have done? I'm not sure it has (or should have) much relevance to this forum, though.

What I was going for was "what's acceptable to wear with a kilt?". We all know about the formal rig; how "slovenly" can one get before the entire outfit looks ratty or trashy?

OK! It's quite a difficult garment to wear, and be slovenly in, to be honest! My personal dislike of the full 'formal rig' tends to reflect on the attitude of some of the wearers, and the forthright views of chums forced to wear such to a wedding, or whatever! The modern offshoots? Possibly, I wouldn't care to conjecture, as I've seen so few 'in the flesh'!

Actually, no, I wasn't "taking sides". I was trying to drive the point home that we seem to need a better definition of what separates the two camps. Whatever camp I happen to reside in is meaningless in this context.

Well, perhaps I should say, "creating boundaries", then? I was trying to emphasise that the conflict is not 'braveheart/freestyler' inspired, but 'freestyler'/'crossdresser'.

I've never been fully convinced of the all-up "Fashion Freedom" notion; personally, I am rather more interested in getting skirted garments accepted as a valid alternative to trousers, and doing so in manners that don't look silly or forced.

Now, here we are in complete agreement, Carl! And that is how we both interpret the aims of this Forum, yes?

[ziggy_encaoua]

What is gender honesty?

Basically a Transvestite is not being gender honest.

[crfriend]

[...] I've followed this forum, and its predecessors, for quite a number of years now. Long enough to know that the crux of it is seeking the freedom of 'non-bifurcation'. A quick read through random posts, and it would appear that the majority of correspondents still adhere to that common aim. If we were to diversify into the "Fashion world", then we'd stand the risk of losing all we have gained, rather like during the '70s, when it wasn't that uncommon to see a 'lad in a skirt'!

Absolutely, the freedom aspect looms large in the foreground, but personally I fail to see why the notions of style should remain at the periphery. Is there anything intrinsically wrong with wanting our choice of garments to look good in addition to being comfortable?

I'm not sure how prevalent skirts or skirted garments on men were in the 1970s (even having lived through them). Was this primarily a European/British Isles thing? It certainly didn't seem to hold any sway in the Northeat US where I grew up -- which is sad; the Northeast is one of the more liberal regions of the country.

So all I'm trying to establish is whether we, as a forum, might not be better getting 'back to basics', and in doing so, perhaps encourage a goodly number of folk who've left (or at least, stopped contributing) due to their perception (not mine!) of the direction away from the original aims, that the forum appears to have taken. It doesn't take a statistician to realise that member input has fallen dramatically, in proportion to some of the more 'extreme' fashion choices, that a free-for-all seems to have engendered.

Speaking from a purely personal perspective, I believe that the notions of comfort, the freedom to wear what one wants to or would like to, and the desire to have such garments look good (unlike most runway creations, I might add) are not at all incompatible. Rather, I believe the notion that a "skirtsman" who does not care how his outfit looks is more of a detriment than the chap who puts some thought in putting an ensemble together. Bob has put a thrust or two into this notion as well using the idea of, "What are we trying to say with what we wear?".