Signifiers

[dillon]

I gave up trying to follow any correctness in jargon long ago. So to me, “gay” means homosexual while I use “queer” as a catch-all for any sexual or gender associated matter traditionally scorned by society. I use “homophobia” too as a catch-all for the traditional social bigotry and disdain for all things “queer.” My usage may not be currently correct but I don’t much care.

[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

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.

[crfriend]

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

I immediately thought of the Beaumont Society as well but stayed out of the fray so as to get verification.

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.

I think what we're getting into here is a "re-branding" and the emergence of the "Trans-* Movement" which didn't exist a decade ago. Recall that whilst we may be reasonably constant as individuals, the ground beneath us is moving, and sometimes it's moving in directions we don't particularly agree with.

Usurpation of language is a very well understood tactic, and George Orwell warned us about that quite eloquently a few years ago. We ignored the warning.

I'm getting more of the opinion that the entire trans-* notion came about because of the shifts in what's considered "masculine" and what's considered "feminine" and the hard shove of both of those into traditionally "masculine" territory which left men with virtually no room to manoeuvre and no way to express outrage at what was happening -- so they naturally looked for an "out", and in the modern world, trans-* looked like the best avenue. (Recall that traditionally "masculine" behaviours displayed by girls was always tolerated and more recently elevated, but the converse was never true and increased in restrictive nature in the past 30 years.) Given that, it's a natural that the Beaumont Society would re-brand itself into a realm that's marketable in the modern world.

Primarily, the goal of the Skirt Cafe is to "de-gender" the skirt so the garment can be enjoyed by men and women alike in the same way that jeans are "enjoyed" by both. Full stop. Conflating the issues of style, fashion, and options with sexuality only steepens the hill to be climbed -- especially in the eye of the uninformed beholder. Bluntly put, "I wear skirts because I like them." should be a valid and canonical answer for a man when queried on the matter. If the onlooker was initially confused, then the answer should solve it.

Perhaps this is my 19th Century mind struggling fruitlessly in a 21st Century world, in which case the reader can take said thoughts as the ravings of a sentimental and senile mind.

[moonshadow]

I'm getting more of the opinion that the entire trans-* notion came about because of the shifts in what's considered "masculine" and what's considered "feminine" and the hard shove of both of those into traditionally "masculine" territory which left men with virtually no room to manoeuvre and no way to express outrage at what was happening -- so they naturally looked for an "out", and in the modern world, trans-* looked like the best avenue.

That may be the case, but I'll be damned...

I may be "pissing in the wind" as far a society goes by my insistence that I am simply a man who likes things commonly associated with femininity. But thankfully the older I get, the less I care what the world thinks of me.

Primarily, the goal of the Skirt Cafe is to "de-gender" the skirt so the garment can be enjoyed by men and women alike in the same way that jeans are "enjoyed" by both. Full stop. Conflating the issues of style, fashion, and options with sexuality only steepens the hill to be climbed -- especially in the eye of the uninformed beholder. Bluntly put, "I wear skirts because I like them." should be a valid and canonical answer for a man when queried on the matter. If the onlooker was initially confused, then the answer should solve it.

Agreed. I know SkirtCafe welcomes and does have active trans members, but there really is a difference between what we consider "transgender people" and what the people here represent. This is not prejudice, bigotry or homophobia. Men wearing skirts and experimenting with matters commonly associated with traditional "femininity" while still identifying as men is one of the core roles of this site. To put it more simply, skirt cafe expands the role of what it means to be a man. To transition us to a transgender site would stunt this endeavor.

Again, not prejudice, but this just isn't the modern transgender site. It's like posting about a Chevy in a Ford forum. Not that I'm an authority on it, but quite frankly if we started having discussions about HRT, breast implants, removing the adams apple, "passing", using female bathrooms, etc etc.. I'd probably take my leave, because that's just not me.

I'm proud to be a male/man who wears what he wants... to hell with the world's expectations! It's just clothes man... nothing more... nothing less...

[moonshadow]

Men wearing skirts and experimenting with matters commonly associated with traditional "femininity" while still identifying as men is one of the core roles of this site.

Upon re-reading this, it seems like (on the surface) to conflict with my overall position on the matter.

Understand that I in no way believe femininity is the exclusive domain of females, no more than I believe masculinity is the exclusive domain of males. They are simply characteristics of people and to some extent other ideals (religiously speaking).

A human with a penis can have a feminine personality just as a human with a vagina can have a masculine one. Does this make them transgender? If it does then everyone is transgender because I've never met a single person who was 100% on either end of the spectrum.

I can wear the most masculine of clothes, trousers, flannel shirts, etc, and yet cry at sappy movies... would that make me transgender?

My step-grandfather (rest his soul) used to like to tend flowers... would be be considered transgender?

My sister likes to hunt, drink, shoot guns, and of course, she wears the garb that goes with that lifestyle.. is she transgender?

Of course the trans community will say "if I/him/her think we are".

Ohhkay... Man... we're grasping at thin air here, and that's why I believe the trans-movement will be short lived. Hopefully it will come to a point where it will no longer matter, people will no longer be expected to act a certain way based on what's between their legs. Biologically speaking, there will be males and females, past that it just won't matter.

[Fred in Skirts]

I may be "pissing in the wind" as far a society goes by my insistence that I am simply a man who likes things commonly associated with femininity. But thankfully the older I get, the less I care what the world thinks of me.

I agree with this 100%. I wear skirts, dresses etc because I like them and find them much more comfortable. NOT because I am some construct of the LGBSUTRAJ etc group.

Primarily, the goal of the Skirt Cafe is to "de-gender" the skirt so the garment can be enjoyed by men and women alike in the same way that jeans are "enjoyed" by both. Full stop.

The reason I am a member of this site!

Conflating the issues of style, fashion, and options with sexuality only steepens the hill to be climbed -- especially in the eye of the uninformed beholder. Bluntly put, "I wear skirts because I like them." should be a valid and canonical answer for a man when queried on the matter. If the onlooker was initially confused, then the answer should solve it.

But in todays world it probably won't.

I'm proud to be a male/man who wears what he wants... to hell with the world's expectations! It's just clothes man... nothing more... nothing less...

AMEN!!

Fred

[weeladdie18]

Moon ,It does seem from this thread that the majority of Men in Skirts are quite happy with their lot and do not wish
to move to the other camp...Over the past couple of centuries the female of the species has demanded more equal rights
with the male...On the other hand the female has been forced into a situation where she has had to carry out tasks
more historically carried out by the male , in order to survive and in order for her Nation to survive.

The male has been given the opportunity to express the more feminine side of his nature.....It is my opinion that it is
easier to go forward with a lifestyle which works for a male , than to think retrospectively or try to rock the boat
and find a different way forward.

I have a male birth certificate and I look like a male..How I choose to dress to remain in the Male camp
is clearly defined by the fact that I am happy to generally agree with the opinions of those who survive in the box
marked Men in Skirts..............weeladdie

[Grok]

"I wear skirts because I like them." should be a valid and canonical answer for a man when queried on the matter. If the onlooker was initially confused, then the answer should solve it.

On the other hand, the cognitive dissonance seems to be too great for some individuals. They seem as confused after you talk to them as they were before. They didn't get it, and they still don't get it.

[skirtyscot]

Sorry dillion but I have to agree with Skirtyscot. There is a distinction between being acceptive of and participating in. Many of us on the café realize that we are a little different from the rest. and our actions can possibly be associated with the "Q" part of the descriptive terms.

But there are multitudes of blogs for individuals who are the main stay of that group. The café doesn't have to be one of them. Tacit acceptance of these conditions can be the an attribute of the café with out having discussion of and on the subject predominate our posts.

As an individual you have a natural right of association. Collectively, however, ‘we’ might do well to reflect less on how we see ourselves and more on how society views and treats everyone who, even if only by appearance, deviate from accepted norms of sexuality or gender. I’m just suggesting we deinstitutionalize the old biases of this group because in the grand scheme of things they are specious and, frankly, absurd. It reminds me a lot of the scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” (perhaps an apropos Easter theme here) where the intellectual radicals sat and debated the Judean People’s Front vs The People’s Front of Judea, mocking the counter-productivity of Balkanization.

Dillon, if you think that our aims and interests are close enough to those of transvestites or transgender people, I invite you to sign up to a couple of their forums and try to steer the discussion round to the subject of males who consider themselves to be men choosing to wear skirts without trying to look like women. At best you'd be pointed in the direction of SC. Or you'd be ignored and the threads you started would be very very short. More likely everyone would tell you that you were really transgender and you need to admit it to yourself and invest in some oestrogen tablets. Or you'd be blocked for transphobia. Whatever, you would be in no doubt that the regulars did not see themselves as being in the same boat as us here.

[Grok]

Members could be described as a special breed of maverick. So far as I know, SC is the only forum for this breed.

[Uncle Al]

With all due respect, Al, I'd appreciate it if you'd let Carl reply, himself, to my concerns about his remarks
toward me. I think this, too, is reasonable. If the same had been said of you, what would you expect?

Perhaps you don't see a reason to care, but it was not your character that was demeaned.

With all due respect dillon, I wasn't responding to anyone's remarks.
I was stating that this whole thread is getting tedious. After reading
several other remarks, IMHO, this is potentially heading to a flame war.

Here we all respect each other and their opinions. But several members are
trying to get others to see things "their way" instead of letting each person
have their own opinion or view on this matter. The posts show this to a "T".

Personally, I will not be placed in any 'labeled box'. I'm in my own 'box' called ME.
My direction is to help get MIS/MIK accepted by EVERYONE. I will not be accused of
being Trans-anything. The only 'Trans' thing is that I grew to realize that a skirt,
kilt or whatever, is just a piece of cloth used to keep a person modest & presentable
to the general public. Therefore I 'Trans-formed' my mind & thought processes.
That's about as 'Trans' as I want to be

YMMV

Uncle Al

[pelmut]

Here we all respect each other and their opinions. But several members are
trying to get others to see things "their way" instead of letting each person
have their own opinion or view on this matter.

There are two separate aspects to this:

1)  A group of people trying to make sense of a subject can have different views - and by expressing them in a mutually-understood language can increase their understanding of the subject.  That is beneficial; it is one of the things this group is set up to do.

2)   A group of people can start labelling individuals within the group based on their own particular prejudices or even an incomplete knowledge of what those labels mean.  That is where an individual expressing their own opinion can do real harm and it can lead to an escalating response from the wronged party.

[weeladdie18]

Here we all respect each other and their opinions. But several members are
trying to get others to see things "their way" instead of letting each person
have their own opinion or view on this matter.

There are two separate aspects to this:

1)  A group of people trying to make sense of a subject can have different views - and by expressing them in a mutually-understood language can increase their understanding of the subject.  That is beneficial; it is one of the things this group is set up to do.

2)   A group of people can start labelling individuals within the group based on their own particular prejudices or even an incomplete knowledge of what those labels mean.  That is where an individual expressing their own opinion can do real harm and it can lead to an escalating response from the wronged party.

I would agree with your comment 2) on the grounds that a group of people within a group can start to disagree
with an individual by being predudiced ...and also having an incomplete knowledge of the matter currently under discussion.
If you follow the discussion in question , you will discover that the said individuals will cease to discuss the matter rationally with you,
but will talk about you behind your back.
There is a saying in England;... "They shout about things they know nothing about "..........weeladdie

[weeladdie18]

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 ?

[crfriend]

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".