skirtcafe.org

This is a good story about a boy's journey into "gender creativity", it shows how difficult it can be when in public wearing clothes not commonly associated with men.

I do hope this boy perseveres with this.

http://gendercreativelife.blogspot.co.u ... -wear.html

Hmmm...I am a bit confused by this article, but I suspect we are back to the old issue of dresses = feminine. Charlie clearly likes to wear things which are specifically related to female characters with his princess costumes. If I want to wear a skirt, I am not being "gender creative". I am being 100% male.

We need to sort out our thinking on this.

Nice story, thanks for sharing.

It is a very good read and I too hope the boy continues. At least he has understanding and open minded parents who recognise freedom of expression applies to all.

I can relate to the repeated appearance of staff then returning to their base for a group chat and looking back pretending not to look. It happened to me on my first outing. At his age it is diificult to absorb due to experience, both myself and my wife were made to feel very self concious but we continued but we had age and experience to help us. These days I smile and give a wave in their direction. To date by their then reaction they feel very self concious themselves. Them 0, man in a skirt 1. I also quite often engineer a situation so I can go and talk to them but not social chit chat or the subject they find amusing. The purpose being to let them know I am simply not different, and only have something on that is different to the majority of other men. I must admit I take far more care over my skirts and tops than I do with male society labelled clothing.

This boy certainly has the potential to suceed to be the real him. I just hope the wider society with its labels, stereotypes and hypocracy does not destroy his individuality.

The article leaves me with another observation. If this boys preference for a dress, could as well be a skirt and top, is classified as being gender creative then all women who adopt male style clothing are also being gender creative.

TheSkirtedMan wrote: The article leaves me with another observation. If this boys preference for a dress, could as well be a skirt and top, is classified as being gender creative then all women who adopt male style clothing are also being gender creative.

Exactly!

Stu wrote:Hmmm...I am a bit confused by this article, but I suspect we are back to the old issue of dresses = feminine. Charlie clearly likes to wear things which are specifically related to female characters with his princess costumes. If I want to wear a skirt, I am not being "gender creative". I am being 100% male.

We need to sort out our thinking on this.

Stu - I don't think we need to think too hard. Here are some basic categories. The boundaries between the categories are blurry and can shift about for individuals over time, but I think that most folk on here know roughly into which category they fall and are comfortable.

1. Skirt/dress wearing men:
'100% male'; wear the skirts/dresses for comfort, looks and because they 'can'. (Many of the members of this forum)
.
.
2. Gender creative/fluid people:
Happy to blur gender lines with clothing, makeup etc, don't necessarily identify as male or female, masculine or feminine, but somewhere in between, where that 'somewhere' can shift about a bit. (Some members of this forum)
.
.
3. Transgender people:
Cross dressers and other transgender people who (for whatever reason) want to take on a female and feminine persona by means of clothing, makeup, body padding, etc., some of the time but who don't wish to live in the opposite gender full time. (Even fewer members of this forum)
.
.
4. Transsexual people:
People who experience gender dysphoria to the degree that it is distressing to live in the gender in which they were assigned at birth, and actively live or seek to live in the opposite gender full time, nearly always using medical assistance: hormones, surgery, etc. I know that's a big simplification but please don't nit-pick, I think you all know what I mean. (Rare members of this forum, now mostly inactive here, or have left).

There - that wasn't too hard was it?

Edited to add:
Although this forum caters mainly for category 1, and some of 2 (judging by recent membership and contributions), I would sincerely hope that we would be kind and civil to anyone else who happened to drop by. I don't think there is much danger of this becoming a mainstream cross dressers' forum by this time. We are too well established for that.

Hi Stevie! Nice to hear from you!

I wasn't so much directing this towards our group - we are, of course, a broad church and welcome everyone regardless of how they identify or perceive their gender. My concern was the message we hope is being sent to the public should be your Category 1, and it should be simple, loud and clear. Categories 2, 3 and 4 are of course 100% welcome here - it's great to have them and to hear from them, but I see a danger in conflating their particular interests with our primary objective. The problem we have is that, as I see it, Category 1 appears to be at odds with the others in terms of logical aims, or it could appear that way to the public. Look at it this way:

Skirt/dress wearing men: '100% male'; wear the skirts/dresses for comfort, looks and because they 'can'.

When we say this, we are de-gendering skirts and dresses as was done with trousers many decades ago. We are saying these are in no way signifiers of gender and we are reclaiming them as masculine garments for all members of the male sex.

If we then say:


Happy to blur gender lines with clothing, makeup etc, don't necessarily identify as male or female, masculine or feminine, but somewhere in between, where that 'somewhere' can shift about a bit.

That is absolutely fine, too, but now you are re-introducing the very thing we have just said we wanted to get rid of - i.e. gender. You are linking gender blurring with skirts and dresses and the message that sends is that these garments are not just for women, but also for males who wish to blur their gender. We have enough difficulty as it is trying to persuade cis-gendered men to consider wearing skirts and if you then link them with gender blurring, they will see them as a renunciation of their masculinity in favour of androgyny and they'll reject them. We will then be back at square 1.

This is the very mistake they are making in schools. Yup, they are saying boys can now wear skirts BECAUSE they seek to accommodate those who are transgender (etc). There is nothing wrong with that, but why actually make that link in the first place? Any boy who is not transgendered will now pick up the message loud and clear that skirts are not only for girls now: they are also for transgender students. Consequently, if you happen to be a boy and not transgendered, they are absolutely not for you! So don't go looking for any schoolboys in school skirts because you won't see any - and don't expect Asda, Tesco and M&S to market school skirts as unisex because ... they are for girls (and trans boys who want to dress like girls). ALL they had to say was that all garments are available for all students, regardless of their sex/gender - and leave it at that.

If we achieve your Category 1 - then we are 90% on our way to achieving the other three. We will have demolished the wall and can wear what the heck we like without having to think 'gender'. We have to be strategic.

Stu wrote:Hi Stevie! Nice to hear from you!

Thanks! I check in here most days even if I don't post very much.

I wasn't so much directing this towards our group - we are, of course, a broad church and welcome everyone regardless of how they identify or perceive their gender. My concern was the message we hope is being sent to the public should be your Category 1, and it should be simple, loud and clear. Categories 2, 3 and 4 are of course 100% welcome here - it's great to have them and to hear from them, but I see a danger in conflating their particular interests with our primary objective. The problem we have is that, as I see it, Category 1 appears to be at odds with the others in terms of logical aims, or it could appear that way to the public. Look at it this way:

Skirt/dress wearing men: '100% male'; wear the skirts/dresses for comfort, looks and because they 'can'.

When we say this, we are de-gendering skirts and dresses as was done with trousers many decades ago. We are saying these are in no way signifiers of gender and we are reclaiming them as masculine garments for all members of the male sex.

Yes, I agree with you.

If we then say:
Happy to blur gender lines with clothing, makeup etc, don't necessarily identify as male or female, masculine or feminine, but somewhere in between, where that 'somewhere' can shift about a bit.

That is absolutely fine, too, but now you are re-introducing the very thing we have just said we wanted to get rid of - i.e. gender. You are linking gender blurring with skirts and dresses and the message that sends is that these garments are not just for women, but also for males who wish to blur their gender. We have enough difficulty as it is trying to persuade cis-gendered men to consider wearing skirts and if you then link them with gender blurring, they will see them as a renunciation of their masculinity in favour of androgyny and they'll reject them. We will then be back at square 1.

Category 1 works very well for us on this forum and for those of a similar viewpoint.
However, even if some people might wish it were otherwise, the fact remains that in the real world Categories 2, 3 and 4 exist too, and probably always have done, throughout human history, in one form or another. Different societies and cultures have different degrees of recognition/acceptance/celebration/condemnation (choose your terms accordingly). I don't want to get rid of gender; I rejoice in our differences. I just wish our modern western society was more accommodating and willing to tolerate people who are different.

On the other hand, I do believe things are improving, patchily perhaps, but in recent years, I think gender differences have become more familiar to the great general public, and with a few hate-ridden exceptions, are mostly accepted.

.
.
.
If we achieve your Category 1 - then we are 90% on our way to achieving the other three. We will have demolished the wall and can wear what the heck we like without having to think 'gender'.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'achieving the other three'. They exist already and as mentioned above, have varying degrees of acceptance and integration depending on where and in what sort of society you live.

As for gender differences, they will always exist and the great majority of people don't need to think about it very much; they are in equilibrium with their gender and it doesn't cause them uncertainty or distress. But as we know, not everyone is like that and society needs to accept that and not find it a problem.

We have to be strategic.

Perhaps - especially if it matters to you that you are seen as falling squarely in Category 1 and, heaven forbid, no other. But unless you want to constantly wear a T-shirt proclaiming 'I'm a Category 1, 100% male', then it will be necessary to accept that onlookers may not realise that and therefore you need to be prepared for some questions.

What would be wrong for us on this forum, (i.e mostly the Category 1 folks) would be to distance ourselves so much in word and deed from the other Categories 2 - 4, so that it would appear that we are denying (a) their existence and (b) their validity.

Postscript:
Thinking back to the early days of this forum, there were, sadly, very heated exchanges between the kilt (and kilt-only; wouldn't-be-seen-dead-in-a-skirt) wearing 'Bravehearts' and the much more liberal and creative 'Freestylers'. Some people on both sides left for good. These days the forum seems a far happier and integrated environment where there is a place for everyone. I hope it continues...

Speaking as an individual contributor, I fall completely into "Category 1" above. I am full-on male, and whatever I happen to clothe myself in is a sartorial choice and nothing else. Yes, I shave my legs, mainly because I can't grow a decent pelt and unshaven it looks like the moths have been at me; it's easier to shave than attempting to implant things...

The other categories certainly exist, both in reality and also in imagination -- the imagination likely being brought on by the entirely-too-tight constraints of "manhood" as promulgated by society and the forces that steer it.

I still have happy memories of shutting up an entire bevy of extremely "liberal" women at my elder aunt's 70th birthday party when I showed up in an ankle-length blue taffeta skirt. The assembled masses were all atwitter about a "coming out" and I dashed that following a few questions with a flat statement of, "This is a fashion choice. There is no subtext." Faces fell visibly. Fortunately the party carried on and everyone had a good time.

The main thing I worry about with all the trans-* stuff is that it'll detract from the occasional bloke who just wants to say, "Screw this!" to trousers. I think I finally managed to drive that point home to my sailing pal a couple of days ago when after an entirely altogether-too-wet jaunt across Nantucket Sound to Woods Hole I swapped out trousers (which I'd been wearing because it was cold) and mentioned, "You have no idea how good it is to get out of those dratted trousers!"

So, yes, "Category 1" here. This is a choice -- and it has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality, gender, or anything else other than style and comfort. I'd be really happy if the mass media could embrace the concept, although I can almost guarantee it won't because it wouldn't sell copy.

Excellent article, if only for the reason that it shows that not all of us in North Carolina are backwoods, bible-thumping, idiotic hicks. There are enough sensitive people in NC to make a difference. At least we can rid ourselves of that fawning sycophant of a Governor who lacks the balls to stand up to the lunatic fringe of his own party. Sadly, the legislature has gerrymandered themselves into safe districts. But with a change of Governor, we can stop any more suck-up legislation from passing.

Gentlemen, I'm afraid I have to express a portion of my true self that in the public world often isn't as immediately appreciated as my skirted self. Except, of course, in the sense of, "Thank God somebody else said that and I don't have to tell the Emperor he forgot to get dressed this morning."

As I take a hard look at Category 1 I see it disappear like the will 'o' the wisp it is. In the past, I have been a crossdresser and am quite explicit with most people who ask that no I'm not one of those folks much less in a transsexual transition, I'm just exercising my freedom of choice and acting as a fashion pioneer. I occasionally put out the notion that I am pioneering fusion fashion; fusing masculine and feminine fashions.

But the inescapable reality is that if I weren't in Category 2, I wouldn't have any interest, desire or even willingness to wear a skirt or dress. In short, I feel Category 1 is a myth. We've already embraced the fact that fashion shouldn't be seen as binary because neither is gender, in the emotional/ psychological sense. Sex isn't even binary, there are some androgynous people out there and we've all seen women with noticeable facial hair, etc. Like most things, gender is on a spectrum and the human population shows a bimodal distribution of gender. That is, the largest concentration of men are predominantly masculine and the largest concentration of women are predominantly female. But a 100% masculine person would kill the person making the suggestion before they would put on a skirt or dress.

Clearly, none of us are like THAT. I'm saying that those of you who are trying to claim residence in Category 1 that you are gentlemen who doth protest too much and that you're really members of Category 2. The only question remaining is, are you on the fringe of that category, smack in the middle or tending toward Category 3?

To me, the biggest importance of the question is that it might helps others understand themselves and make an informed choice as to how far they want to explore the further reaches of the range.

In conclusion, I would say that the young fellow described in his mother's blog is very much one of us. Inasmuch as he befriended that child confined to a wheelchair that his classmates found repugnant I say he's a sterling example of our breed that we should not only embrace but celebrate as an example of why one SHOULD challenge the stereotypes of the gender commonly associated with one's sex.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:I'm saying that those of you who are trying to claim residence in Category 1 that you are gentlemen who doth protest too much and that you're really members of Category 2. The only question remaining is, are you on the fringe of that category, smack in the middle or tending toward Category 3?

Respectfully, I take umbrage with that assertion. Note that gentility and empathy are not incompatible with being fully male, they are only described as being so by common perception which seems to portray men as being utterly subservient to their genitalia and "bad behaviour" brought on by "testosterone poisoning". The notion that men can be sensitive and caring even got lampooned with the moniker "sensitive new-age guy" ("new-age" here to be pronounced so it rhymes with "sewage").

Men can be kind, caring, loving fathers; they can be ardent and loyal friends; tend to be "rocks" when the going gets tough; and generally function as much of the "glue" that holds things together. Men aren't flighty. Sure, we get scared from time to time, but fear is an important emotion that helps keep us alive. Men love; they appreciate nice things; compose wonderful music; produce beautiful art. Are all those traits solely "feminine"? I posit not.

What's passed off in modern society as "100% male" is a very, very, bad parody of what it means to be a man, and it does no one any favours -- men, most of all, get screwed by it. Royally screwed. There's vastly more to being a man than swilling beer, chain smoking, incessant swearing, and physical violence as the sole tool for resolving problems. Unfortunately, thanks to radical "feminism" and societal pressures resulting there-from, all options involving tact, deftness, and subtlety have largely been removed from the "allowable" options for men, and society -- and men, especially -- suffer accordingly, and needlessly.

ETA: One big bone of contention I have with the "category" list above is that there is no slot which allows men to identify as men and not as "something else". Meaning no disrespect whatsoever to Stevie D on the matter, not calling out men who identify as male was a glaring omission. There's also the notion that it works the other way 'round as well; I know at least one genetic woman who happily self-identifies as male, although nobody bats an eyelash about it.

HERE is an associated article written by Charlie's mom.
READ the entire article. It also shows that 'Mom'
is against the current government of S.C. and
thinks the Governor is a piece of garbage(to use
kind words here).

This will put a new perspective on Charlies parents
and how they've handled their 3 non-typical kids.

Uncle Al

An interesting discussion. I honestly find myself conflicted between Dave and Carl's response. It seems as though (and pardon me if I've misinterpreted this) Dave seems to hold the view that those of us who don skirts and dresses, particularly moving beyond the standard "men's kilt" are indeed engaging our feminine side to some degree. Whereas Carl takes the position that skirts and dresses need not be considered feminine at all, thus men should be able to wear them without any feminine connotation.

As I have come to learn a lot about transgender issues over the last several months (thanks to the bathroom issue in the news), I have learned a lot about my place in society, and as per my discussion in another thread with members like pelmut I have frankly learned some facts about the transgender community that I really didn't realize before. In fact, in once case I learned I was outright wrong on one of my assumptions.

Then there are members like Caultron who seem to push the notion to not worry about labels and just be yourself, and Jeff who just seems to have a blast doing what he does.

Can everyone be right? When we are asked to define ourselves can there really be any wrong answers?

I can't and I won't take of the task of explaining why other people do what they do, I'm still learning why I do what I do, and as the saying goes, how can I define someone else when I can't even define myself?

All that being said though, speaking for myself I have come to learn that I'm fluid, or neutral, and it really has nothing to do with skirts or dresses, or rather the skirts might be one of the results of the neutral, but the neutral is not the result of the skirts. As I have pointed out in other threads, I have embodied what are considered feminine characteristics since childhood. I understand that these characteristics are somewhat arbitrary in the evolution of human society, however it is what it is. We are deeply ingrained with the notion that men do certain things and women do others. For me it goes a little further, I tend to enjoy the company of certain women over certain men. Generally I don't like people who fall too far on either end of the gender spectrum. I tend to get along with masculine women and feminine men. Extremely girly girls or manly men I find somewhat annoying.

My crash course in "genderology" has really helped me to untie some knots that have plagued me for a long time. However with all that being said, I'm not so feminine that I actually want to be a woman. No, I simply want to be me. Thus I fall into category 1 and 2. However upon a discussion I had in another thread in which I was proven wrong, and after reviewing the modern definition of what it means to be transgender, I learned that category 2 falls under category 3. So to some extent that applies to me as well.

With that in mind, I can also understand Carl's resistance to being classified in category 2, as with many on this site. Because once you leave the confines of 1, you pretty much fall straight into 3. And if it is indeed just about style, fashion, fun, etc and with no feminine subtext, then I can also understand certain members on this site rebuking the idea that they are indeed "transgender". For me to make such an assumption on other member's here requires I have an intimate knowledge of their heart and soul. That I do not. So won't take up that debate.

Now I can honestly say that I have read actual crossdresser/transgender forums (no I don't post in them and I'll explain why later) and seen their post on places like facebook. I can tell you HONESTLY, that there are some differences in how we conduct ourselves here at the cafe vs how they are. Generally the rhetoric here at the cafe is that of gentlemanly discussion. We're not just "men in skirts", we proper, polite, thoughtful, kind, respectful men in skirts. VERY seldom does a mod have to shut a thread down for getting out of control. Virtues that are the pinnacle of manhood. As for the other sites I can tell that I wouldn't fit in there as their member's tend to want to "be" women, and seem to try too hard at it. For them it goes further simply skirts and dresses, or even underwear for that matter. For them it's the whole deal. They have completely rejected any form of the male persona. To the point of embracing another feminine characteristic that I avoid at all cost.... irrationality. Yes they are "women"... mood swings and all. Personally I find it very annoying, and the end result is severe moderation of said forums to the point where I find the contents nothing more than femme talk of what looks best, hair dyes, makeup, and other dribble. Nothing particularly interesting. Those crossdressers/transgender women have gone beyond any type of fluid or neutral labels. They are now the "girly girls" that I can't stand to be around.

And like most other women, get all bent out of shape is the "wrong type of man" (ugly men) find them attractive. I want no part of that lot. I'm happy to stay here and post my thoughts at the cafe where despite our "feminine tendencies", we are still... men in skirts. If this site just turned into another estrogen charged crossdressing/transgender site I'd probably loose interest pretty fast.

moonshadow wrote:Now I can honestly say that I have read actual crossdresser/transgender forums (no I don't post in them and I'll explain why later) and seen their post on places like facebook. I can tell you HONESTLY, that there are some differences in how we conduct ourselves here at the cafe vs how they are. Generally the rhetoric here at the cafe is that of gentlemanly discussion. We're not just "men in skirts", we proper, polite, thoughtful, kind, respectful men in skirts. VERY seldom does a mod have to shut a thread down for getting out of control.

Some of the international sites like:
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/for ... xual-Forum
and
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/for ... ssdressing
have very strict rules about what is acceptable and will allow no latitude; their contributors come from a wide range of cultural backgrounds and the moderators have no hesitation in stamping hard on anything, however small, that approaches their tolerance limits. The English transgender site http://www.angelsforum.co.uk/phpforum/, on the other hand, is much less strict and relies on the ladylike behaviour of its participants, much as this one relies on gentlemanly behaviour.