Perhaps we need a TV room?

[Emerald Witch]

Perhaps you should join a tranny forum if you want to discuss tranny things

Hmm... I think this may have suddenly opened my eyes to something I missed before.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't ) but could it be that you define transvestites as being a particular type of man who has some sort of perversion? I mean, rather than MY definition of transvestites being just any old guy who enjoys occasionally wearing anything normally associated as being "female" clothing.

By my definition, a man could wear trousers and denim shirts, have a strong build, scruffy beard, and be in every way masculine... but at home, perhaps just for a couple of hours, for his own benefit, he perhaps enjoys wearing a fluffy pink negligee before bedtime. Nobody knows about it. Nobody needs to know about it. But that one simple act means (by MY definition) that he is, in fact, TV.

It does NOT mean he is a pervert. It does NOT mean he is weird or that he wants to be a woman, or appear womanly, or that he wants a sex-change operation. It doesn't mean he isn't happy in his sexuality, or that he can't have a happy marriage or be a good father. It's just a private choice, for no reason other than that he enjoys it.

Now, another man, just as manly, makes a similar choice -- the choice to occasionally wear makeup and skirts in public. Not to fool anyone (his features are far too masculine for that) but just to feel nice and because he wants to. By my definition, because makeup and skirts are normally associated with women, this is also considered crossing clothing/gender lines, and therefore would also fall under the old definition of transvestite behavior. (TRANS=crossing/ vest=clothing)

It is NOT some strange parody of women. It is not a ghetto lifestyle. It is not anything to disparage. Yet this word is tripping you up somthing awful. Ziggy, I don't mean to make you angry, but can you tell me where your personal hatred of this word comes from? Why do you harbor such severe bigotry against this word? I honestly don't understand, since to me it is purely a descriptive term and not a derogatory one. Maybe if I could understand where your anger was coming from it would be easier for me to discuss this with you rationally.

I don't think we are necessarily on different sides here. I would hate to see a mere misunderstanding of terms, and a volatile emotional reaction to something poorly defined be a stumbling block between intelligent adults.

[Skirt Chaser]

Emerald, One of Ziggy's concerns, and Iain described it well, is the deterioration a forum can have when the transvestite exhibitionists overwhelm the posts by the sweet, normal, stable transvestites who are there to discuss rather than graphically describe what they get up to in their costumes. Ziggy doesn't want to lose the character of this place, particularly when there are forums for transvestites already and I agree.

Given the attention search engines can bring from a search for transvestite I can understand the alarm if the Cafe has a sudden surge of people finding their way here without an interest in the "men in skirts as men" concept. While your view on transvestite isn't dependent on sexual pleasure that does seem to be a component of the commonly used definition. Cross dresser does not have the same connotation and sounds closer to what you are describing.

At the same time I'd like to emphasize to Ziggy that men in skirts are in the same public perception boat as transvestites. The fight to have their harmless tastes be accepted is similar. Everyone should be treated respectfully and when that is universally given everybody benefits.

And we could encourage people to use punctuation as well, as it's free and saves a lot of effort to the readers.

After all a forum belongs to its members and they are pretty special members!

Amen on the punctuation point, Iain!

One thing I would like to point out though is that I don't want to be considered a special member, that is part of why I didn't make a point of mentioning that I am female often. I want my thoughts judged on merits rather than as the female viewpoint. Having Emerald here has made that easier in my mind now since I am not alone. My know-it-all pronouncements no longer represent "what all the women here think" and that is a good change.

To me the guys are the purpose of the site, I'm here in an equal but different role of support. At least in my mind, the men who wear skirts are the special ones.

Quiet Mouse

[iain]

Yeah, for sure -- but look at the way you handle this situation. In so many male/male verbal conflicts on here, the situation escalates until one person either ends up leaving the site or bars the other person's posts from being visible to them.

But you guys try to get at the root of the reaction, which makes much more sense and is more constructive, but isn't an intuitive approach to a male who is defending a weak point in himself. On a global scale you get invasions and diplomats being booted out; on a forum you get members with grudges simmering beneath the surface.

So it IS very special -- seems so to me, anyway!

[ziggy_encaoua]

I don't know why you hate transvestites Ziggy - but your repeated posts on the topic are getting tedious. You have made your point now.

Yes & I'll make it again & again & again because I've the right to express my opinion, its called free speech I suggest you get your head around the concept.

[iain]

Well, since it's not only your forum, people on it are also entitled to know why you hold a certain opinion. On your own website you can say whatever you want, but this website is shared by many other people who are entitled to make comments on your opinions and ask you what the reasons are for them.

For example, if a person says they hate everyone from Uzbekistan, it would be helpful to know why. Maybe the CIA kidnapped them and "rendered" them to the Uzbeks for torture. But having explained that, I think everyone would sympathise with their point of view much more than if they just came out and spat bile against the Uzbeks.

Every opinion has a cause somewhere. If you're presenting any opinion, the question is, why the sore spot -- what have TVs ever done to you?

[ziggy_encaoua]

MY definition of transvestites being just any old guy who enjoys occasionally wearing anything normally associated as being "female" clothing.
.

So a guy who wears a kilt is a tranny?

I'm certainly not a tranny.

[iain]

You're being silly -- there are good reasons for and for not including a TV-specific area on this site. One of the good reasons against it is the result of opening up a site catering now to a small minority, to, instead, a much larger and more desperate group. That group, the TV's at large, are often underground and badly in need of some kind of validation.

One difference between them and the average reader of this site is, for example, that guys on this site don't want to be mistaken for a TV. They also don't want to become a minority in a site which becomes known for a large TV following but only a small MIS following.

So while there might be valid reasons not to go that way, unreasoning hatred isn't one of them.

[beverlonian]

Ziggy, a kilt is male clothing, not female. Females do not wear kilts.

I personally believe the trannies probably have other forums, this forum is titled "Skirts and Kilts for Men" and should remain so. I left this forum (when it was Tom's Cafe) previously when the tutu and orange diva brigade took over and only returned when it became a Man's forum once again. Introducing transvestites (who I have nothing against) will drive me and others away again.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Ziggy, a kilt is male clothing, not female. Females do not wear kilts.

Point is your average ignorant chav think your weird unless your not wearing designer jeans or a shell suit so idf they see a guy in a kilt they're a weirdo.

[beverlonian]

Ziggy, a kilt is male clothing, not female. Females do not wear kilts.

Point is your average ignorant chav think your weird unless your not wearing designer jeans or a shell suit so idf they see a guy in a kilt they're a weirdo.

Sorry Ziggy, this has not been my experience nor many others who take the plunge and have reported on this forum and X-Marks that wearing a kilt out is really a non-event. Perceived angst from others evaporates except very rarely. In fact, reactions are usually positive; only this afternoon the gardener tending our local churchyard commented 'It's good day for the kilt!', to which I naturally responded 'Every day is a good day for the kilt'. Kilts are about as common in East Yorkshire as they are in your neck of the woods.

[SkirtedViking]

if a guy in a skirt,heels,tailored jacket etc who doesn't pretend to be a woman and often has a beard(that's me) is a tranny then all the women who wear trousers,men's type t-shirts,shoes etc. should be considered trannies if society should be equal.Am a masculine enough not to be mistaken for a woman and i do not want to,i just want the same freedom as women have to wear items that used to be only for the opposite sex.This is equality,women do not wear only women's trousers that there are nowadays,not only women's shoes,t-shirts.Whatever they wear it is ok because they act as women,do not change their voice and so on.Heels were man's item in france,makeup,skirts in egypt and so on.What I say is that we must be men whatever we wear and not someone else.There were female transvestites once but the last ones disappeared since 2nd war war leaving only a small part of transgendered females that wish to be male biologically.But for the most part women wear former only men's apparel while acting and behaving as women.That is what i do,act as a man whatever i wear,fighting for the cause.yes though i am not transvestite i am called such,also gay etc,but i do not hate those homosexuals who made it public that a man in a skirt,heels and etc. is always gay,I bear the cross of my battle for fashion freedom.Here it is not necessary to have a place for trannies,their places are probably more numerous in i-net than ours,so let's keep the original idea.If we want to be considered as normal men and convince society,a transvestite 's room is not the path in my opinion.

[alexthebird]

Once upon a time I considered myself transgendered. It wasn't so much a dissatisfaction with my body or my clothes, but more a sense of rejection of the nearly universally accepted role of men in society. I think, act, behave and empathize in a way that is closer to the women I know than the men. I got heavily involved in the TG world and learned some tremendous and liberating things from people like Kate Bornstein and Leslie Feinberg. Eventually, I began to recognize that I could (and should) act (and dress) in a way that reflected who I was, and that meant making choices in everything without regard to preconceived notions of gender.

This is actually a lot scarier than being TG, because the gender rules are still present in that world even as people cross them. For some of us, we are deliberately trying to explore what it is like without rules.

Maybe, instead of talking about whether trannies are perverts or fun-loving, this energy could be used to explore wider questions of gender attitudes.

Just a thought.

[Emerald Witch]

MY definition of transvestites being just any old guy who enjoys occasionally wearing anything normally associated as being "female" clothing.

So a guy who wears a kilt is a tranny?

Definately not. A kilt is not a garment for women, it is a garment for men. It is widely recognized as appropriate male clothing, and I don't think anyone really confuses a kilt for an ordinary female-type skirt. The details and accessories are different, and it has a long tradition supporting it.

I think the comfort of the garment may lead many men to question why an unbifurcated garment may not be appropriate in more common wear, however, and that may lead them to want to change the fashion of the day, or at least of their own personal life. Thus the popularity of a board like this. Skirts are a reasonable choice for many men, it seems, for reasons having nothing to do with feminine identification.

All I'm saying is that along this route there are some men (perhaps not many, but a few) who find that allowing themselves the freedom to wear a skirt perhaps also speaks to a need within themselves to open to a more feminine side. What I seem to be hearing from you is that you don't want to allow them the freedom to explore that side in your presence. You want them immediately to vacate this board and all their friends here and be banished to someplace like the Atrium, where all "trannies" hang out.

Now, I don't know a lot about the Atrium. I've only visited there once. Honestly, I didn't want to spend much time there because they struck me as rather strange, and not very sexy. I'd much rather hang around men who look and act mostly like men, with just a dash of the feminine (as in skirts, maybe a bit of makeup, heels, etc.) to keep things interesting. That's just my personal taste.

I just would like to see a bit of tolerance. I don't want this board to turn into the sort of place where everyone talks about wierd stuff and turns perverted and nobody can have a dignified conversation anymore. I just would like a gentleman who has a few questions about his feminine side to be able to discuss it openly without being called names or fearing that he'll be hated by his former friends.

I would like to be able to invite my female friends who also appreciate men in skirts to come here and admire you all, and know that if they also whistle at a man in heels and lipstick that other strictly-kilt-wearing men aren't going to shower catcalls on her for her taste.

I just want to know this is a safe board for everyone with good manners.

[Emerald Witch]

I'm fine with TV-issue threads and I'm glad Emerald and Quiet take an open minded view.

The only possible point I can see against catering specifically to the TV element is that in two previous forums, one on MIS and one unrelated to it, they opened up to TVs and within literally three months both places were in need of heavy censorship. Some of the stuff being posted was alarming and truly near the knuckle.

Both forums were run by women, and in both cases there was clearly a hell of a lot of concern on the part of those managers -- and both closed down very shortly afterwards, without notice, mainly because they were unable to maintain any kind of control. I miss those forums!

I resented that they had been made into places where I couldn't feel comfortable -- some of the posters were obviously crackpots, and really obsessed with sexual issues. But once the forums slipped into really dodgy areas, that was it, there was no bringing back the people who had fled and the forums were just left as burnt out shells.

Can we perhaps avoid that by not having one specific area which will be loaded with sexual issues, thus obliging every poster to conform to the same standards as are in place now?

Iain, your points are well taken. I agree that the last thing I would want would be for this board to lose it's dignity, which is one of the main reasons I'm attracted to be here in the first place.

Even when I first suggested this thread, I had my own reservations about the feasability of keeping things well-monitored, keeping folks respectful, seeing that people don't run amok. I certainly am not up for the job, and it isn't nice of me to volunteer anyone else to take on more work.

I just so yearn for the freedom to talk a bit more openly than we have been able to so far! I absolutely THIRST for the knowledge that everyone will be respected, no matter what their position, and will be given the dignity of being able to speak their truth without having to fear being called some nasty name. As long as we approach these things with intelligence and some care, I don't see why it has to be so impossible.

[iain]

Classy stuff.

Let's have what I thought it was to begin with, a room discussing television!