skirtcafe.org

I was thinking it would be possible to have more than one cultural convention simultaneously relating to the same thing; the receiver having chosen the one that is inappropriate (i.e.'wrong') in this case.

Misunderstanding is the result of a sign being intended by the producer to convey one message being interpreted by the receiver to mean something different. The sign can be a linguistic sign, i.e. something someone utters or writes, or it can be some other kind of sign, e.g. sporting long hair.

If a man wears a skirt for the sake of comfort, then he doesn't regard the garment as any kind of sign as he is not trying to convey a message in wearing it. A receiver, on the other hand, might implicate something from the sight of the skirt and that could be any number of things, e.g. he is effeminate; he is rebellious; he is individualistic. Or the opposite may be the case.

The picture of Kai Schreiber is a case in point. If someone looks at him and assumes he either is a girl or he wants to be perceived as a girl, that would (apparently) be inaccurate as he is content being a boy and just prefers the garments he is wearing for whatever reasons. If he is genuinely not trans, then he is something of an emblem for Skirtcafe in that he is challenging the cultural norms. How many on here would have happily walked the streets looking as he does?

How many on here would have happily walked the streets looking as he does?

Absolutely would have.

But maybe kids and indeed their families think its more acceptable to be 'trans'. I know one just like him born a boy but changed to a girls name and relocated to live as a girl, only some teachers know. Presumably uses girls changing rooms etc.

Stu wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:54 pmWe are not saying the cultural convention is "erroneous", but simply that we wish to change it in order to give ourselves more freedoms and choices.

Indeed, I'm not sure that cultural conventions even can be "erroneous" -- they simply are what they are, whether we view them as "right" or "wrong". This is the sort of thing that leads to circular arguments along the line of, "Why don't more men wear skirts? // Because most men don't wear skirts."

Conventions can be changed, but that change comes very slowly and cannot be compelled; the changes must be taken to heart by the majority of the population of their own free will. Behaviour can be compelled by law, for instance, but acceptance cannot be compelled because it's an internal manifestation of the mind of every individual. It's the acceptance of change that's key, and some are better at it than others.

Stu wrote: If a man wears a skirt for the sake of comfort, then he doesn't regard the garment as any kind of sign as he is not trying to convey a message in wearing it. A receiver, on the other hand, might implicate something from the sight of the skirt and that could be any number of things, e.g. he is effeminate; he is rebellious; he is individualistic. Or the opposite may be the case.

I concur for sake of academic definition, perhaps, that the man wearing a skirt for comfort, then he is not trying to convey a message in wearing it." -- BUT, for most of us on this site living in places where a man wearing a skirt is not the norm, we must be somewhat cognizant that our wearing a skirt can/will likely be perceived in a number of manners not consistent with our own prime reason(s). Yes, I wear my skirts for comfort; and to provoke thought about conformity, fashion freedom, et al -- but that does not relieve me of knowing that I am in fact, for some, conveying a sign not of my intention.

I'm not sure that any of this is germane to the proceeding contributions other to say I do not think we can isolate ourselves from unintended consequences.