Signifiers

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:50 pm

Thank you carl. Perhaps transgender should be at the end of the Beaumont list and not in the prime position.
However ,I am not in that camp , so it is not my concern.....
You were correct, Beaumont are giving transgender a high profile .
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby Ray » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:14 am

weeladdie18 wrote:
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


WL - I did. There is absolutely no mention of the word transvestite. Transgender, trans - yes, but not transvestite/TV.

This leaves me somewhat puzzled. Your suggestion seems to reinforce my point and undermine yours. Thus, I’d posit that your reference to ‘TV group” is somewhat archaic and not really in keeping with modern society. Again, I’d welcome your thoughts on my supposition.


Ray...
The Beaumont Society claims that it has been at the forefront of...transgender,...transvestite ,...transsexual ...and cross dressing.... support
since 1966
Am I justified in believing that you are attempting to mislead The Men in Skirts at The Skirt Café ?


No, you are not justified in so believing. You have misinterpreted my posts. Let me clarify.

1. You have used archaic (and no longer acceptable) terms to describe transgender people. You pointed me to the Beaumont Society to prove your point. Instead, you proved mine (that the term “TV” is no longer used). The Beaumont Society no longer uses such terms. Its purpose is different to that of Skirtcafé, but that’s not the point we are debating.

2. I have no motive for misleading any at Skirtcafé. Mislead them in what way? I’m not trans personally in that I’m gender authentic in my presentation and self-belief. My beliefs sit squarely within the Skirtcafé community, and that community is for the most part very different indeed to groups on (or more deeply into) the Trans spectrum. I am led - inspired - by those here, and I hope it continues in its present form until the day it’s no longer needed.

I’m not exactly sure how you are interpreting my words, but it appears not to be in a way that is rational.

I hope that my post clears up any misunderstanding you have.

Ray
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:48 pm

crfriend wrote:
weeladdie18 wrote:The Beaumont Society claims that it has been at the forefront of...transgender,...transvestite ,...transsexual ...and cross dressing.... support since 1966

The term "transgender" did not exist in the popular lexicon in 1966 and "transsexual" was just starting to show up with the advances in surgical technique (although I may be off by a year or two). Transvestism and cross-dressing (which are precisely the same thing with the former being a tarted-up Latin translation of the latter) had already been around for decades. "Transgender" didn't exist as a common term until well into the 2000s. Hence my comment on "re-branding".


Ray...crfriend posted a reply regarding the current information available from The Beaumont Society....

I regret to inform you, young man, that you misread my post.....please explain yourself.............weeladdie
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby crfriend » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:32 pm

weeladdie18 wrote:I regret to inform you, young man, that you misread my post.....please explain yourself.............weeladdie

[Mod hat on]

I am going to say this once more, and only once more before I start engaging overt power: "Do not publicly attack individuals, nor "call them out" on perceived misunderstandings. This is unseemly behaviour and really should be beneath us. If there's a beef to be personally had, take it to Private Messaging.


[Mod hat off]

Seriously, most of us here have English (of assorted varieties) as our primary language, and I'd like to think that most of acquit ourselves reasonably well with it.

We can argue ideas and concepts freely and passionately; this is not true for personalties nor individuals. Respect, please, gentlemen.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10467
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:59 am

Ray wrote:
weeladdie18 wrote:
Ray wrote: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


WL - I did. There is absolutely no mention of the word transvestite. Transgender, trans - yes, but not transvestite/TV.

This leaves me somewhat puzzled. Your suggestion seems to reinforce my point and undermine yours. Thus, I’d posit that your reference to ‘TV group” is somewhat archaic and not really in keeping with modern society. Again, I’d welcome your thoughts on my supposition.


On their webb information , The Beaumont Society offer " Transvestite " ...Support ....I regret to inform you that you have misread
the information available from the Beaumont Society
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:20 am

WL - I did. There is absolutely no mention of the word transvestite. Transgender, trans - yes, but not transvestite/TV.

This leaves me somewhat puzzled. Your suggestion seems to reinforce my point and undermine yours. Thus, I’d posit that your reference to ‘TV group” is somewhat archaic and not really in keeping with modern society. Again, I’d welcome your thoughts on my supposition.[/quote]

Ray...
The Beaumont Society claims that it has been at the forefront of...transgender,...transvestite ,...transsexual ...and cross dressing.... support
since 1966
Am I justified in believing that you are attempting to mislead The Men in Skirts at The Skirt Café ?[/quote]

No, you are not justified in so believing. You have misinterpreted my posts. Let me clarify.

1. You have used archaic (and no longer acceptable) terms to describe transgender people. You pointed me to the Beaumont Society to prove your point. Instead, you proved mine (that the term “TV” is no longer used). The Beaumont Society no longer uses such terms. Its purpose is different to that of Skirtcafé, but that’s not the point we are debating.

2. I have no motive for misleading any at Skirtcafé. Mislead them in what way? I’m not trans personally in that I’m gender authentic in my presentation and self-belief. My beliefs sit squarely within the Skirtcafé community, and that community is for the most part very different indeed to groups on (or more deeply into) the Trans spectrum. I am led - inspired - by those here, and I hope it continues in its present form until the day it’s no longer needed.

I’m not exactly sure how you are interpreting my words, but it appears not to be in a way that is rational.

I hope that my post clears up any misunderstanding you have.

Ray[/quote]

Ray, I am not quite sure why you are drawing The Transexual People into a discussion on this website...I am confirming that
The Beamont Society still offers support to Transvestites...I find the attitude you have adopted, is in my opinion deliberately offensive
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby Ray » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:23 am

Having read through as much of the website as possible, I now see that there are about three or four references to “transvestite” as a range of descriptors. On that point therefore, I stand corrected.

However, two points:

1. The phrases “transgender” or “trans” are pretty much the sole umbrella terms used throughout the website.

2. Wikipedia states that “Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory”. This accords with my experience and understanding. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism

That has been my point all along. It is advisable not to use the term now as it has pejorative overtones. I cannot tell you not to use the term, but I can advise you not to use it.

I think this debate has run its course, don’t you think?
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:28 am

WL - I did. There is absolutely no mention of the word transvestite. Transgender, trans - yes, but not transvestite/TV.

This leaves me somewhat puzzled. Your suggestion seems to reinforce my point and undermine yours. Thus, I’d posit that your reference to ‘TV group” is somewhat archaic and not really in keeping with modern society. Again, I’d welcome your thoughts on my supposition.[/quote]

Ray...
The Beaumont Society claims that it has been at the forefront of...transgender,...transvestite ,...transsexual ...and cross dressing.... support
since 1966
Am I justified in believing that you are attempting to mislead The Men in Skirts at The Skirt Café ?[/quote]

No, you are not justified in so believing. You have misinterpreted my posts. Let me clarify.

1. You have used archaic (and no longer acceptable) terms to describe transgender people. You pointed me to the Beaumont Society to prove your point. Instead, you proved mine (that the term “TV” is no longer used). The Beaumont Society no longer uses such terms. Its purpose is different to that of Skirtcafé, but that’s not the point we are debating.

2. I have no motive for misleading any at Skirtcafé. Mislead them in what way? I’m not trans personally in that I’m gender authentic in my presentation and self-belief. My beliefs sit squarely within the Skirtcafé community, and that community is for the most part very different indeed to groups on (or more deeply into) the Trans spectrum. I am led - inspired - by those here, and I hope it continues in its present form until the day it’s no longer needed.

I’m not exactly sure how you are interpreting my words, but it appears not to be in a way that is rational.

I hope that my post clears up any misunderstanding you have.

Ray[/quote]

Ray, I am not quite sure why you are drawing The Transexual People into a discussion on this website...I am confirming that
The Beamont Society still offers support to Transvestites...I find the attitude you have adopted, is in my opinion deliberately offensive
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby Ray » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:54 am

WL - I’m not quite sure why you think I am drawing “The Transexual People” into a discussion on this website, given that I have not used that term anywhere on my posts, nor have I discussed the issue which is clearly not germane to this forum and its goals (as ably cited by Carl and Moon et al). I’d be grateful if you could clarify or justify your comment in the light of the above information.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:04 am

Ray , Thank you for your references to The Beaumont Society .All noted and accepted.
May I wish you a happy summer's skirting , now that the weather has improved.
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby weeladdie18 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:22 am

Ray wrote:WL - I’m not quite sure why you think I am drawing “The Transexual People” into a discussion on this website, given that I have not used that term anywhere on my posts, nor have I discussed the issue which is clearly not germane to this forum and its goals (as ably cited by Carl and Moon et al). I’d be grateful if you could clarify or justify your comment in the light of the above information.


I do apologise and withdraw any such comment , as " The Trans Sexual People " are not relevant to the cause of the Skirt Café.
I have only met the Transvestites who wish to wear female clothes and wish to appear as females....
This was many years ago, and their deportment is not relevant to our cause.
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Signifiers

Postby Ray » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:36 am

WL - that’s a very gracious response. Thank you.

In the same spirit - have a great spring skirting/Kilting season.

Ray
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Signifiers

Postby Grok » Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:36 pm

I don't quite grasp what the point of this thread is. :?:
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1799
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: Signifiers

Postby moonshadow » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:18 pm

Grok wrote:I don't quite grasp what the point of this thread is. :?:


Well good... I'm not alone! :lol:

I admit to staying subscribed just to watch the arguement but admit to being completely lost over the topic! :wink:
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Signifiers

Postby SkirtsDad » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:59 pm

moonshadow wrote:
Grok wrote:I don't quite grasp what the point of this thread is. :?:


Well good... I'm not alone! :lol:

I admit to staying subscribed just to watch the arguement but admit to being completely lost over the topic! :wink:


It appeared to start off as a legitimate, albeit contentious, discussion about the merits of men in skirts distancing themselves from the transgender movement because of M2F people's use of a skirt as a signifier, possible signifier or other means to express femininity thereby diminishishing the likelyhood of men in skirts becoming a possible fashion choice of the every day, however sexualy orientated, man.

A counter position was raised suggesting that we are as much on LGBTQ as and of the others and, by implication, should accept and not try to segregate. The waters were muddied somewhat by a newer member who went on to highlight how little he apparently knows about the subject, or many other subjects for that matter, and proclaiming that the aim of a transvestite is "to have a sex change" and that gays "eventually marry another same sex human". As usual, despite not having being asked, the same member reinforced their apparent disinterest in appearing as female several times, suggesting that (especially in the light of no photographic evidence) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" ;-)

Amongst the reams of spat I did find some interesting viewpoints. Having attended my local Pride a couple of years ago, I do tend to agree with dillon that we are part of LGBTQ. I think it is too easy to be judgemental about LGBTQ people and see them collectively in a certain light, when, just as all of us here, they are all individuals that sit in different places on a spectrum. I do not see any value in protesting about not being seen as female. Others will decide how they see us. On a quick note: I have not noticed that my trangender friends, than number quite a few, rely on a skirt to express their identity.

If we are to make headway then, without a groundswell movement to support us, as the LGBTQ community has for instance, perserverance in public skirt wearing is perhaps our only hope.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Skirts and Kilts for Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests