Signifiers

[crfriend]

I wear skirts because they are comfortable and I enjoy wearing them. I don't need a 6 page dissertation of what I am trying to signify.

Indeed, two of my straightforward answers to the matter if queried are, "Why not?" and "Because I like them." I've never received much push-back on the matter, either. There is much to be said for "keeping it simple".

[beachlion]

Part of the problem with men wearing skirts is that many people complicate the issue. And I am sorry STU but this entire blog is an overcomplication of the issue.

I wear skirts because they are comfortable and I enjoy wearing them. I don't need a 6 page dissertation of what I am trying to signify.

Things will work better if we try to keep it simple

That is exactly my opinion as well.

In the Netherlands we have an expression that is about to discuss a subject into its grave. I rather just enjoy the liberty wearing skirts than have my drive to do it dissected under the microscope. I'm glad however somebody might make a living out of analyzing such subjects. In the USA such research will be quite unlikely because the results will not translate into dollars.

[moonshadow]

Part of the problem with men wearing skirts is that many people complicate the issue. And I am sorry STU but this entire blog is an overcomplication of the issue.

I wear skirts because they are comfortable and I enjoy wearing them. I don't need a 6 page dissertation of what I am trying to signify.

Things will work better if we try to keep it simple

And on this day... Oldsalt and MoonShadow were in agreement!

[weeladdie18]

I would agree ...we have spent considerable time exploring the original roots of our personal skirt wearing activities....
However our reasons for enjoying our skirt wearing activities are quite simple......weeladdie

[dillon]

I am curious... how many transgendered people do you come across and how do they dress?

This got me thinking (dangerous, I know), and given that at least around here the normative female attire is trousers of some ilk, I cannot see skirts as a "signifier" of femininity -- even culturally. Skirts, and moreso even dresses, are functionally obsolete around here so there's really no significance to it. Sure, the cultural connection still remains, but it, too, is largely obsolete.

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.

[weeladdie18]

Skirts, and moreso even dresses, are functionally obsolete around here so there's really no significance to it. Sure, the cultural connection still remains, but it, too, is largely obsolete.

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.

I am not sure that one can disregard the Active T V Group in an area unless one subscribes to membership of the Local T.V, Group
for a year and reads their News Letters for a Year....there are probably more T.V.s than Men in Skirts in any location.............
Some T.V. Groups have a regular monthly pub social meeting
The aim of the T.V. is either to appear as a female or eventually have a sex change and become a female.....
This does provide some division in the T.V./T.S group.....
There is possibly a difference between a Drag Queen and a T.V. ....
Gays do tend to live together and eventually marry another same sex human.....Neither partner may choose to wear clothes of the
opposite sex.....

Perhaps the writing is on the wall for The Skirt Café...........weeladdie

[pelmut]

Stu, I am curious... how many transgendered people do you come across and how do they dress?

I know quite a lot and, like everyone on this forum, have probably met even more that I didn't realise were trans.  With the exception of a few who are just beginning to come 'out' and still finding out what works and what doesn't, the majority of transmen dress just like any other man and the majority of transwomen dress just like any other woman.

I prefer long skirts, which are age-appropriate for me; denim ones when I am doing everyday work and lighter flowing ones for dances.  I also have some smart 'business' skirts in plain subdued colours for more formal occasions.  I know a couple of transwomen who like dresses - but the majority seem to prefer jeans.

[pelmut]

...The aim of the T.V. is either to appear as a female or eventually have a sex change and become a female.....

I think you have misunderstood something here.  Transvestite (T.V.) in Latin or Crossdresser (C.D.) in English is the term for someone who wears clothes normally associated with the opposite sex.  As sex is a spectrum and 'normally' depends on the society and their norms at the time of passing judgement, the term is fast becoming archaic and always was suspect.  There could be many reasons for wearing these clothes, including transgender, fashion, trying to break away from inappropriate societal norms, comfort, sexual gratification or theatrical performance - so "T.V." alone does not define any particular type of person.

The person who is born male or female but feels they are feminine or masculine, respectively, is "transgender", and they may or may not wear particular clothes to convey this impression and may or may not aim to have an operation to change their bodily appearance.

This does provide some division in the T.V./T.S group.....

I think the idea that these people are some sort of group is a misleading one, they have been put together in a category by people who don't really understand them.  The same categorisation is misapplied to men in skirts, lumping them all together as trans, gay, drag queens etc, when we know that nothing could be further from the truth.  The appearance from the outside is that this creates a division in our ranks, but it does not - it creates a howl of protest that people with differing reasons for wearing a skirt are being told they are something they are not.

There is possibly a difference between a Drag Queen and a T.V. ....

...a very big one, they are altogether different.

[moonshadow]

As sex is a spectrum and 'normally' depends on the society and their norms at the time of passing judgement, the term is fast becoming archaic and always was suspect.

Wait a minute.... Did you mean to say "gender"? or have the definitions changed again?

My understanding is that sex was what was between your legs, gender is between your ears....

Of course that information was from 2018.....

If its changed again... I give up... I mean, lord have mercy....

[weeladdie18]

Skirts, and moreso even dresses, are functionally obsolete around here so there's really no significance to it. Sure, the cultural connection still remains, but it, too, is largely obsolete.

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.

I am not sure that one can disregard the Active T V Group in an area unless one subscribes to membership of the Local T.V, Group
for a year and reads their News Letters for a Year....there are probably more T.V.s than Men in Skirts in any location.............
Some T.V. Groups have a regular monthly pub social meeting
The aim of the T.V. is either to appear as a female or eventually have a sex change and become a female.....
This does provide some division in the T.V./T.S group.....
There is possibly a difference between a Drag Queen and a T.V. ....
Gays do tend to live together and eventually marry another same sex human.....Neither partner may choose to wear clothes of the
opposite sex.....

Perhaps the writing is on the wall for The Skirt Café...........weeladdie

I am reissuing my post as it was submitted to this thread....If a member wishes to challenge the post I have made , please ensure that
one understands the statement I have made before mis quoting my post..

The local " T.V. Group " is or was a member of a " National T .V. Group" The monthly news letter is relevant to the experiences
of those members who have chosen to live in the life style of the T.V.

The point I am making is that The Men in Skirts have enough problems without getting involved in the world of the T.V. organisations.
I trust we can agree that the Local T V Meeting is visible as a gathering of males who wish to appear at a meeting;
as a gathering of females....
I regret to Inform our Members of the Skirt Café that I have no interest in in appearing as a female

[pelmut]

As sex is a spectrum and 'normally' depends on the society and their norms at the time of passing judgement, the term is fast becoming archaic and always was suspect.

Wait a minute.... Did you mean to say "gender"? or have the definitions changed again?

My understanding is that sex was what was between your legs, gender is between your ears....

Of course that information was from 2018.....

[I can see that some of my wording might have been open to misinterpretation: I meant that the word 'normally' in this case depended on how society interpreted it, I did not mean that sex normally depended on the society.]

Both sex and gender are spectra but there are far more people in between the ends of the gender spectrum than there are in between the ends of the sex spectrum. Estimates vary, but the general consensus is that around 1% of the population is not entirely either XX or XY. Recently it has become much easier and cheaper to look at chromosomes and things are coming to light that nobody suspected: some people have chromosomes that are different in different parts of their body.  As an example, a woman who has given birth to a male child may have XY cells in her kidneys or liver; but this 'chimera' effect occurs in men too, so it isn't always due to migration of fœtal cells.

If its changed again... I give up... I mean, lord have mercy....

It hasn't changed, it is our knowledge of it that has changed. Don't give up, the subject is a fascinating one and we are only just beginning to scratch the surface.

[Ray]

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

[crfriend]

That Orthodox CD/TV groups are distinct from, and have a very different agenda than the "MIS" sphere is well understood and well documented here. In fact, a common statement goes along the line of, "If you are interested in masquerading as the opposite sex, then there are plenty of better resources for you on the Web." In fact, there are lots more.

I even have it from several sources that "Men In Skirts" are as thoroughly looked down upon in the Orthodox CD/TV community as we are by the hard-core Traditional Scottish Kilt community. Thematically, MIS are closer to the Kilt crowd than the CD/TV crowd because we embrace our masculinity instead of trying to deny or bury it. We differ from the Kilt crowd by pitching a wider tent than just The Kilt and all the rules and regulations that go with it. Interestingly, we have guys here that so arrived because they felt that they were not sufficiently rigid to be accepted in the other communities.

I'm going to let the "homophobia" (a PC construct describing a non-existent fear) crack drop in the hopes that it was inspired by a bit too much bourbon because the general behaviour here refutes the accusation. It's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

As far as the general population here goes, I suspect that the distaste at getting labelled as something we're not is, in fact, deeply rooted in the morass of what the far-right neo-cons have done to our cultures -- and this is not just New World centric: it's metastasised and gone global. All of us have our own demons to deal with and we don't needs to have extras handed to us.

[Jim]

I'm going to let the "homophobia" (a PC construct describing a non-existent fear) crack drop in the hopes that it was inspired by a bit too much bourbon because the general behaviour here refutes the accusation. It's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

I think "homophobia" is a valid interpretation of why men are afraid to show affection to each other. It's more often a fear of appearing homosexual, although it could also be a fear of one's own homosexual desires. It doesn't describe those who think it immoral or feel it repulsive, whether one agrees with that stance or not.

[dillon]

I'm going to let the "homophobia" (a PC construct describing a non-existent fear) crack drop in the hopes that it was inspired by a bit too much bourbon because the general behaviour here refutes the accusation. It's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

I think "homophobia" is a valid interpretation of why men are afraid to show affection to each other. It's more often a fear of appearing homosexual, although it could also be a fear of one's own homosexual desires. It doesn't describe those who think it immoral or feel it repulsive, whether one agrees with that stance or not.

The point I intended is that while the distinctions the individuals in this forum make among transgender, transvestism, cross-dressing, genderqueer, etc. clearly mean something to the individual, they are “splitting hairs” in the eyes of those social conservatives who essentially lump us all under the heading “queer.” A male wearing an unbifurcated garment is all that’s required to earn this cubbyhole. What then do we gain by retaining biases which are, for all intensive purposes, a case of “the pot calling the kettle black?”

On a separate note, a not-insignificant member suggested that because I posted an opinion he found onerous or disagreeable, therefore I must have been inebriated. I won’t make a secret of my love of bourbon, but upon that posting, and this one, I was and am “sober as a judge.” The point here is that I should not have had to suffer an angry and offensive remark of that sort. I would NEVER have said something like that about the individual who said it about me, and I resent it deeply. I should not be in a position of having to defend my character because someone got ‘butt-hurt’ by a reasonable, polite, and succinct opinion.