Was Asked To Build An Adult Tranny Site

[AMM]

This is the third thread I've run into in the past 24 hours on SkirtCafe that has turned into a series of put-downs against one group of people or another; first it was religious people (undifferentiated), then people who sit with their legs apart, and now transvestites (which, in the absence of any more details, I'm going to assume means what I call Orthodox Crossdressers, like Crossdressers.com)

Ziggy is free to not help someone set up a web site, for whatever reasons he chooses. But I don't see why the rest of us need to turn it into a sneering match about the people who the web site was targeted at. Unless there's more going on than what is written in this thread, they aren't doing anything illegal or immoral. And they are human beings, above all else. What does it say about us if we can talk about other people -- any other people -- this way?

Including, in many cases, people who participate in this site?

Why do we have to behave this way at all? If, as some would say, the difference between Heaven and Hell is the kind of people who go there, then I think we're in the process of turning SkirtCafe into Hell. Or at least into one of those sites that only people with anger management issues participate in because all anybody ever does is bash people.

It's particularly ironic given that what we do is considered somewhere between weird and immoral by so many people. We know what it's like to be derided by people who can't be bothered to find out anything about us or why we do what we do. Why would we do the same to other people? We may want to remember Martin Niemöller's poem.

(I'm in a particularly raw mood about this sort of thing. We've just finished the Primary season here in the USA, and the behavior of just about everyone involved has left me with an especially low opinion of my countrymen and -women and, by extension, the human race in general. And it promises to only get worse from now until the elections.)

[crfriend]

[Recent behaviour on this forum has been] particularly ironic given that what we do is considered somewhere between weird and immoral by so many people. We know what it's like to be derided by people who can't be bothered to find out anything about us or why we do what we do. Why would we do the same to other people? We may want to remember Martin Niemöller's poem.

I would like to take the time to thank AMM for posting this observation -- and recommend that we all read, and contemplate, his link.

Something seems afoot, and to be honest about it, I'm getting rather disheartened with all the bashing that's been going on recently. And I'm not saying that from a moderator's perspective, I'm saying it from mine. If all we're going to do is bash on {fill-in-today's-target-here} I don't really see the point of staying on. I see way too much negativity every day; I don't need to seek it out in what's supposed to be a congenial, if not always friendly, Internet forum.

Ziggy elected to invoke his free will, and that's well and good; he was completely within his rights to do so (and passed up the prospect of making some money). Exercising free will is important -- it's what we do every time we step out the door in attire that most folks would find "odd" for a man to be wearing. It begs the question, "when is somebody going to come after us?" I'd like to think that we can set an example that's worthy of emulation, not derision.

[Departed Member]

This is the third thread I've run into in the past 24 hours on SkirtCafe that has turned into a series of put-downs against one group of people or another; first it was religious people (undifferentiated), then people who sit with their legs apart, and now transvestites (which, in the absence of any more details, I'm going to assume means what I call Orthodox Crossdressers, like Crossdressers.com)

I've re-read all the threads you have referred to - carefully. I'm going to say this openly and in 'full view'. In my opinion, it is folk with the likes of your (apparent) sensitivity who actually CAUSE problems on forums. When we stop folk expressing their (often strongly held) personal opinions, then we impinge on democracy. It becomes "Mugabi-ism" - the only opinion allowed MUST be mine. The fact is that some of us here have (often widely) differing viewpoints on a wide cross section of issues, and feel free enough to discuss them openly. The way we sit, and how we, as individuals perceive it is a perfectly valid topic - TO DISCUSS OPENLY . Often (say) Pythos's viewpoint and mine may be diametrically opposed - but we still RESPECT one another's RIGHT to express it. YOU SIR - DO NOT(?).

[ziggy_encaoua]

I'm never going to suggest we or anybody else should orchestrate any kind of ‘tranny hate’ campaign & think its out of order to suggest people here are with mentioning the Martin Niemöller.

Just because I don’t like transvestism particularly doesn’t mean I’d ever suggest restricting anybody’s freedom to be a transvestite or that we should go & organize a lynching party.

Lastly I;m really getting fed up in general with people bringing up Martin Niemöller anytime somebody says they don’t like something. Because there is a whole load of difference between dislike & hatred & I’m offended that you’d compare any of us to Nazis. Plus I know full well the consequences of what the Nazis perpetrated being as I’m Jewish.

I reckon now Bob will lock this thread.

[AMM]

...In my opinion, it is folk with the likes of your (apparent) sensitivity who actually CAUSE problems on forums. When we stop folk expressing their (often strongly held) personal opinions, then we impinge on democracy...

...but we still RESPECT one another's RIGHT to express it. YOU SIR - DO NOT(?).

Merlin --

I expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours.

But, let me ask you: what do you consider acceptable/appropriate speech on this website and what do you consider unacceptable/inappropriate? Are there, in your opinion, ways of expressing things that are unacceptable? If so, what?

Are there unacceptable ways to refer to a transvestite? A gay/lesbian? A religious person? A man in trousers? A man in skirts? A woman in trousers?

Are there unacceptable ways to disagree with someone's opinion on something? To disagree with someone's way of expressing that opinion?

We could, as a community (if Bob goes along) agree that anything goes. But if we don't, then I think it would help us if we took some trouble to come to an agreement as to where the limits are.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Are there unacceptable ways to refer to a transvestite? A gay/lesbian? A religious person? A man in trousers? A man in skirts? A woman in trousers?

There are already dozens of transgender forums on the net

This is not a transgender forum because our philosophy differs

[Departed Member]

Are there, in your opinion, ways of expressing things that are unacceptable? If so, what?

Are there unacceptable ways to refer to a transvestite? A gay/lesbian? A religious person? A man in trousers? A man in skirts? A woman in trousers?

Are there unacceptable ways to disagree with someone's opinion on something? To disagree with someone's way of expressing that opinion?

We could, as a community (if Bob goes along) agree that anything goes. But if we don't, then I think it would help us if we took some trouble to come to an agreement as to where the limits are.

We're purely dealing with 'negatives' here? I'm not really sure what you are asking. I certainly think it impossible to attempt to define 'limits', other than the more obvious ones of bad language, vicious, personal attacks (such as those suffered by Skip on IMFF) and sexual innuendo. The ever increasing gulf of 'trans-atlanticism' makes it nigh impossible, for a start. And not just in, say, individual words (f*nny comes to mind - it means a whole different part of the anatomy once it crosses to the USA), but in common, everyday descriptions. What you (or anyone else, of course, including me!) might find 'unacceptable', others might be accepting of, or just amused by! If anyone chooses a particular 'lifestyle', as sure as eggs are eggs, others will feel the need not necessarily to put down , but merely (as Peter v has often observed) to put in a 'box'. Most of the examples you have chosen to illustrate, are pure 'lifestyle' options - yes, even the religious affectionado! I get majorly p*ssed off when someone here, while claiming not to be, say, a homosexual, leaps into a thread to 'defend' those who choose that particular lifestyle and wails that they are 'offended'! By what right do they do that? Funnily enough, the folk who are liable to be offended are those who the zealot has taken it upon himself to 'protect'. Moving onto the 'transvestite' scenario, I tend to temper the results of my own observations, with those of other folk, more directly acquainted. And I do not differentiate by gender!

Oddly, there are few 'names' that describe the various elements of transvestism. Unlike, say, the dozens applied to the homosexually-inclined. Is there anything fundamentally 'wrong' with terms like 'poofter' (Aus?) or 'shirtlifter' (UK)? Those of our acquaintance find such terms hilarious and have been known to say, "You should hear what the TVs call us!" It all rather depends on your surroundings, I suppose. If I hear anyone refer to a mixed-gender group as "guys", or worse still, a group of women, I am quite liable to hit the roof. I find it the ultimate disrespect. What would I do on this forum? Wince, as I acknowledge that others have come to accept the term. Obviously, it goes the other way, as the visual image of an American wearing their "vest" & "pants", outside their shirt & shorts never failes to provide an element of uncontrolled mirth. As a modern adjective in UK parlance, 'pants' means 'pathetic', 'second-rate' or 'rubbish'.

I'm equally perturbed by the reluctance (here) to properly address issues where there is a 'religious' context, because someone 'leaps in' wailing and gnashing. Discussing religion is "religion v religion" period - NOT the open discussion of parameters which crop up within differing religions. When I was younger, and a much more 'social' animal (well, having kids does restrict one, socially!), my 'chums' would often inveigle me into conversation weith some vicar, minister, priest or whatever, in the hope of 'seeing sparks fly' (knowing of course, my Wiccan beliefs - NOT a religion, by the way!). They always went away disappointed, as "Me+Vicar" would invariably have a fantastic discussion about the semantics of, well, everything and anything, including, I may add, the thorny subject of "Deuterwhatsisname". Maybe just the luck of the draw, but Christian or Catholic, they had no problems with the original meaning, "pretending to be of the other gender". Their views on TVs, however, you would not like, you'd probably be 'offended'? Oh, and as for Kilts - they are MEN's wear - period! No wonder we got on so well!

Well, there's a few more observations/thoughts. I'd like to hope others feel able to express their views, too!

[Peter v]

Its Bob's forum, Bob likes being nanny he removed the link, I doubt any children are that interested in this forum it was merely an excuse Bob used but as I said its Bob's forum & so he can as he likes.

Ziggy, I am not Bob, but I take some offence in that.

Luckily Bob watches the site, not alone, for us, and is careful not to let any issues get too far off track.
I too would not wish to see any links here to any porn.or discrimination etc.
I think it is un-wel chosen to talk in that manner about someone who has does his best for "the site". And I believe that accusing him of doing that for personal reasons unjust, mean and wrong. Bigotry Those are my thoughts.

Also I do not agree with your statement about fetisch. And not only that from you, but from others too, Travestites may have a fetisch, as may you, or anybody for that matter, as it is not bound to travestite activities. That was just a discriminative pronouncement. I am sure that there are many male skirt wearers with a fetisch aboutb that too. We should not judge travestites, but we may discuss respectfully the manners of any specific travestite if he accepts that. That then only for a positive learning experience, not to be discriminative. Travestites are no less respectful people than we are. They are only different to us, as we are different to them, etc.

This site does not support travestites in discussion, except that they are men who also wear skirts.
Also it is not about looking as a person of the other sex, which is the aim of travestites, and does not neccessarily go together with wearing skirts.
But that is no reason to talk degenerative about them.
One thing they have I think in common with us, we with them, is that they, just like us wish to show themselves as they themselves feel, which unfortunately for them is as the other sex than which they were born.

Skirt wearing by men is not only the wearing of other clothes but a way of expressing ourselves, which is somewhat outwardly different to the way most other men dress and express themselves. With that, we should actually be opener of mind, and not think discriminative and certainly not place discriminative remarks / tinted remarks behind.

[Bob]

Thank you, Peter v.

It is true, this site is not about transvestites. It's also not about football (American or British), or bioengineering, or about any of a zillion other subjects. The scope of discussion is well defined. But as Peter v points out so well, just because something is outside the scope of discussion does not make it a target for disrespect. Cross-dressing and going out on the town en femme is legal.

This board is specifically NOT about moralizing. It's not that I do not believe in any kind of morality (I do). Rather, I believe strongly that a sense morality is an individual choice that cannot be forced upon us by others. It is up to each of us to come to our own conclusions about the morality of various practices --- or to decide to not come to conclusions. But those conclusions are our own, and I believe we should take care in not forcing them upon others.

Whatever opinions we have about transvestism (and many of us including myself have very strong opinions in this regard), I believe it is best to avoid moralistic language, but rather to couch our opinions on in terms of "I prefer not to..." or "that is not me..." or something. A blanket condemnation may seem to make us feel better about the way we wear skirts. But it actually just makes us smaller people.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Thank you, Peter v.
to couch our opinions on in terms of "I prefer not to..." or "that is not me..." or something.

I think I did that

Just because I don’t like transvestism particularly doesn’t mean I’d ever suggest restricting anybody’s freedom to be a transvestite or that we should go & organize a lynching party.

A blanket condemnation may seem to make us feel better about the way we wear skirts

The rwason this often occurs is that in my experience we are always compared to transvestires & well we are trying to establish ourselves in our own right

Plus I've encountered many a transvestite who are pretty disparaging about us

But yes your right it makes us no better if we so disparaging in return

[Peter v]

If you want to make a (negative) statement about something, you mention it, thereby knowing that reactions are imminent.
If you don't want to do that, don't mention it. Sometimes the very mentioning of something results in reactions as we are now seeing.
"they agreed with a great deal of what I said that transvestitism is purely a fetish."
"Is" is different than "we think that".
I would think that the mentioning of "they agreed with a great deal of what I said that transvestitism is purely a fetish." was done intentionally, to press a personal opinion, which in my vieuw seems to put travestism in a negative, dubious light.

And WE KNOW THAT, by mentioning such things the "damage"is a;ready done. So only mention such things when really relevant, or needed.

As I don't believe all travestism to be a fetisch, no more than we men all wear skirts only for a fetisch reason.
Even if it is, or not, there is no good reason ( I think to mention it here.) What is not mentioned cannot be reacted upon.

Don't feel at all inhibited, but use words wisely, not in a menacing way, possibly not intended, but the mention was not needed, unfortunate, my opinion.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Transvestitism is purely a fetish & you won't persuade otherwise so don't trying just accept not everybody has the same opinion as you & accept people have every right to express their opinion.

[Peter v]

Ok Ziggy, what you want, men wearing skirts only do that because it is a fetisch. NOT really
PLEASE SAY THAT YOU THINK THAT Transvestitism is purely a fetish.
And do not state that it is. You should know better, and possibly do. Either you get ignored, or honest people like me cannot accept such remarks standing unchallenged, and just have to react to such bigotry remarks. There is a very big difference to one's own opinion and facts. Enciting ( irritated ) reactions is degrative and not appreciated, at least by me.

[knickerless]

I for one have no objection to the use of the word Trannies and welcome any such people here on the forum. They are after all skirt wearers - are they much different from us? - they wear skirts (and other items) because they want to - just as we do. Are we saying none of us get any pleasure from skirt wearing? I know I do and if you don't then I suggest you stop.
I am sorry but I cannot see why religion keeps cropping up. What has that to do with skirt wearing. If you wear a skirt and are religious - so what? do these people post on the religious sites(if they exist) about skirt wearing?

I am also sorry that I can't get my head around the minors and link to a Tranny site. When a few months ago one post on this site went on about carrying a gun for protection - hardly the sort of thing I would want 'children' to read.
I expect this thread will be closed shortly to prevent world war 3 breaking out.

Nick

[crfriend]

[ Mod hat off ]

[...] I cannot see why religion keeps cropping up. What has that to do with skirt wearing.

I think that it's more of an issue when certain evangelical fundamentalist types take swipes at us using passages from their Old Testament texts to express [their] "moral outrage" about our fashion choices. We do not invite this intrusion or abuse; it is heaped upon us, and, sadly, all too often we rise to the offence offered. I think it's far better to simply turn the other cheek than throw down a gauntlet.

I am also sorry that I can't get my head around the minors and link to a Tranny site. When a few months ago one post on this site went on about carrying a gun for protection - hardly the sort of thing I would want 'children' to read.

This may have more to do with the "differences of opinion" on either side of the Atlantic. Most inhabitants of the US of A tend to be real prudes when it comes to things of a sexual nature, and there's a highly vocal faction that believes that "WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN" from such material -- hence the various assaults on freedom of expression and speech such as the CDA ("Communications Decency Act"); "COPPA" is a variant of that, and since SkirtCafe is hosted in the US it makes sense for us to keep our heads down. Bob doesn't need a "visit from the authorities", and I sure know that I don't.

The above having been said, I think the European approach is better; if I had children (and thank goodness I don't) I suspect I'd be quite a bit happier with them seeing the occasional well-portrayed love scene than I would having them continually bombarded with imagery of "ultra-violence". (As an aside, if you want to see a movie that will make your skin crawl, I'd recommend Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.)

I expect this thread will be closed shortly to prevent world war 3 breaking out.

[ Mod hat on ]

It's still reasonably civil, and the haggling seems to be mostly over semantics of putting one's opinions in a context where they're clearly recogniseable as opinions. Note that the thread is being "watched", and if it gets overtly hostile it'll get closed down.

I feel I should make it known here that I do not like shutting threads down; I would like to think that we're all adults here, and can behave as such. I was not brought into this world to play "nanny".