Gender Identity

[Barleymower]

In a world and culture that seems hell bent on silencing people... I believe the pen is mightier than the sword.

Do you know why we are really free to wear skirts? Because of an expanse of ideas. It is called progress and it only happens when ideas flow freely. In this regard the internet has been instrumental.

This is why authoritarian dictators so often attack freedom of speech first, and as is evident in stories like Orwell's 1984, the best way to control a populace is to control what it says and writes, when we can no longer speak and write our stories freely, then so goes the freedom of the mind.

It is imperative that we tell our stories, it is the most vital ingredient for a free society.

Down with book burners!

I recently became aware of a very old practice dating back at least to the victorian period of pinaforing unruly boys. Could this be source of man's deep-seated fear of the feminine?
Its obviously not the clothes, I'm sure they felt perfectly fine. To be laughed at and ridiculed would have had a profound affect on boys and quickly brought them into line and put them firmly in their place.
Any hope of free speech would be crushed by such such treatment.

[STEVIE]

I recently became aware of a very old practice dating back at least to the victorian period of pinaforing unruly boys. Could this be source of man's deep-seated fear of the feminine?
Its obviously not the clothes, I'm sure they felt perfectly fine. To be laughed at and ridiculed would have had a profound affect on boys and quickly brought them into line and put them firmly in their place.

Hi BM
I never knew about the origins but there is a whole genre of fantasy based around petticoat punishments and enforced feminisation of men and boys.
Methinks some gents may protest too loudly.
Perhaps the real fear is of being judged or feeling guilty for being drawn toward the feminine.
Eases the dissonance to say one was given no choice is my take on it.
Also Victorian boys were kept in dresses from birth to 4 or 5, pinaforing would have the effect of a babying punishment.
Steve.

[Barleymower]

Hi BM
I never knew about the origins but there is a whole genre of fantasy based around petticoat punishments and enforced feminisation of men and boys.
Methinks some gents may protest too loudly.
Perhaps the real fear is of being judged or feeling guilty for being drawn toward the feminine.
Eases the dissonance to say one was given no choice is my take on it.
Also Victorian boys were kept in dresses from birth to 4 or 5, pinaforing would have the effect of a babying punishment.
Steve.

Steve isn't it just clothes? Why wouldn't the gents like it? They are really nice things, the best things.

Like a sick practical joke they were were dressed beautiful clothes and ridiculed for it.

Is what we are up against? Is that the reason why it's ok but very few do it. The perceived ridiculed?

I feel like I need to fully understand the problem and I not there yet. Maybe the two sides can coexist?

[STEVIE]

Steve isn't it just clothes? Why wouldn't the gents like it?

Hi BM,
Yes, of course it is "just" clothes but paradoxically so much more too.
Now of course men and boys naturally enjoy nice bright comfortable and luxurious clothes, history proves that.
However, that changed for reasons which aren't relevant in the here and now.
Men and boys fashions were reassigned to the drab and practical.
The "nice" things became women and girl territory only and we were made to feel very very bad for straying into it.
Did that stop a lot of us, hell no, it just made our lives a bit more complicated and difficult.
That is where the dissonance was created and still is.
Sad to say there is plenty evidence for that in the cafe too.
Not a fan but the upcoming coronation will be a perfect show of the absurdity of clothing and the power we attribute to it.
Try getting in wearing a pair of trainers even if you have an invite and you don't go by the name of Meghan.
Steve.

[Barleymower]

Steve isn't it just clothes? Why wouldn't the gents like it?

Hi BM,
Yes, of course it is "just" clothes but paradoxically so much more too.
Now of course men and boys naturally enjoy nice bright comfortable and luxurious clothes, history proves that.
However, that changed for reasons which aren't relevant in the here and now.
Men and boys fashions were reassigned to the drab and practical.
The "nice" things became women and girl territory only and we were made to feel very very bad for straying into it.
Did that stop a lot of us, hell no, it just made our lives a bit more complicated and difficult.
That is where the dissonance was created and still is.
Sad to say there is plenty evidence for that in the cafe too.
Not a fan but the upcoming coronation will be a perfect show of the absurdity of clothing and the power we attribute to it.
Try getting in wearing a pair of trainers even if you have an invite and you don't go by the name of Meghan.
Steve.

I'm also not in favour of the monarchy and the absurd beauty pageant of ugly people we are all expected to fawn over on the 6th. Not me that's for sure!

With regard to the whole petticoating phenomenon. I remember being forced in a nappy at 7 years old for sucking my thumb. I still feel the sting of humiliation 50 years later.

I would like to pinpoint the major barriers to MIS. At least knowing would make me stronger.

Bringing this post back to the thread: Gender identity, clothes and sexuality are all intertwined at the moment. If only there was a global MIS movement that would fight to separate these essentially unconnected areas?

[crfriend]

Bringing this post back to the thread: Gender identity, clothes and sexuality are all intertwined at the moment. If only there was a global MIS movement that would fight to separate these essentially unconnected areas?

I'd like to see the notions of style choice and gender decoupled as much as the next guy because it would free us all. However, current pop-culture dictates that there IS an innate connection (not showing any evidence, needless to say) between them, and tends to ridicule men who happen to like the finer things in life. It's wrong-headed, of course, and merely reinforces the double-standard that humiliates men when they don't toe the line.

[Coder]

Bringing this post back to the thread: Gender identity, clothes and sexuality are all intertwined at the moment. If only there was a global MIS movement that would fight to separate these essentially unconnected areas?

Good luck trying to convince people of that, but it would be a welcome development.

I tried to elicit some feedback from my dad recently via a situation that I observed, and he was quite dismissive of the thought that a man could wear a dress and not be anything other than a transwoman. That is to say, his gut reaction was clothing = gender. This isn't necessarily bigotry - but it's going to be very hard to dissuade people from this line of thinking.

I think... clothing is a power signifier - an ugly man might dress to the 9's to make up for his poor appearance (when judged by current societal standards). Pretend we were to remove the suit as a masculine symbol, what could he turn to? Plaids and overalls? Ripped jeans?

I think... men & women want to be distinct - if anything, marketing has taught us this. And so, the opposite of distinct is the same... and therefore if you wear what the other side wears... you must be of the other side. This feels like a logical conclusion, with some added emotional baggage, but does not have to be true, and certainly does not seem to be the thought process on this board and in some circles of the internet.

If those points reflect reality how people see clothing - how do you convince people their sincerely held beliefs, beliefs they grew up with since childhood, beliefs that feel like they are common sense, beliefs they feel are "the way God made us" - that they are "wrong" or that "there is another way to look at, approach clothes"?

I have little hope we can globally change people's thinking, but we can influence the people around us. The tricky part is finding a message that works and is universal.

[Barleymower]

Bringing this post back to the thread: Gender identity, clothes and sexuality are all intertwined at the moment. If only there was a global MIS movement that would fight to separate these essentially unconnected areas?

Good luck trying to convince people of that, but it would be a welcome development.

I tried to elicit some feedback from my dad recently via a situation that I observed, and he was quite dismissive of the thought that a man could wear a dress and not be anything other than a transwoman. That is to say, his gut reaction was clothing = gender. This isn't necessarily bigotry - but it's going to be very hard to dissuade people from this line of thinking.

I think... clothing is a power signifier - an ugly man might dress to the 9's to make up for his poor appearance (when judged by current societal standards). Pretend we were to remove the suit as a masculine symbol, what could he turn to? Plaids and overalls? Ripped jeans?

I think... men & women want to be distinct - if anything, marketing has taught us this. And so, the opposite of distinct is the same... and therefore if you wear what the other side wears... you must be of the other side. This feels like a logical conclusion, with some added emotional baggage, but does not have to be true, and certainly does not seem to be the thought process on this board and in some circles of the internet.

If those points reflect reality how people see clothing - how do you convince people their sincerely held beliefs, beliefs they grew up with since childhood, beliefs that feel like they are common sense, beliefs they feel are "the way God made us" - that they are "wrong" or that "there is another way to look at, approach clothes"?

I have little hope we can globally change people's thinking, but we can influence the people around us. The tricky part is finding a message that works and is universal.

"Finding a message that works and is universal". That's it isn't it? and finding a way to open the discussion.

[Coder]

"Finding a message that works and is universal". That's it isn't it? and finding a way to open the discussion.

Right - it's not just the message - people have to be receptive and care a little. With so much strife, poverty, wars in this world.... and our own petty squabbles over hot button topics - where does "expanding fashion options for men" fit in? Probably very low on the hierarchy of needs.

[crfriend]

Right - it's not just the message - people have to be receptive and care a little. With so much strife, poverty, wars in this world.... and our own petty squabbles over hot button topics - where does "expanding fashion options for men" fit in? Probably very low on the hierarchy of needs.

I'd say very low in the hierarchical priority list and also because it's so low it's easy to conflate it with other things that are on the periphery.

Compared to, say, "Where is my next meal coming from?", "Can I meet the rent this month?", or "If I get sick will I go bankrupt and lose everything?", "What should I wear today?" comes in pretty far down the list -- whether it's "gendered clothing" or not. This may be one of the reasons why it's mainly the Europeans that are ahead of the curve here -- they don't normally have those worries front and centre.

[rode_kater]

If those points reflect reality how people see clothing - how do you convince people their sincerely held beliefs, beliefs they grew up with since childhood, beliefs that feel like they are common sense, beliefs they feel are "the way God made us" - that they are "wrong" or that "there is another way to look at, approach clothes"?

I don't think that's a useful approach. They can beleive men wearing skirts is wrong all they like, where I draw the line is when their thoughts start having an impact on my life. As long as they don't get to impose their thoughts on other people's public spaces it's fine. That's what freedom of religion means after all.

A recent article here suggested that the easiest way for Europeans to understand the whole democrats vs republicans divide is to compare it to what we used to have with catholics vs protestants. They did not get along, they each had their own schools, own churches, separated everything. Yet if you actually got down to it they often really wanted the same things and if you left religion out of it they'd get along just fine. We got out of it by everyone just agreeing to stop trying to convert the others, stop throwing rocks at each other, to work together on things they did agree on and not try to drag religion into everything. And now 100 years later the different denominations are working together on all sort of projects because they know they have more in common than differences..

So no, we don't need to tell people their beliefs are wrong, we just need people to accept that different people beleive different things and you can do whatever you like in your own home, in public spaces you just act civil and don't try to impose your beliefs on others. And they won't impose them on you. And yes that mean in the political space you act with restraint.

[Barleymower]

Bringing this post back to the thread: Gender identity, clothes and sexuality are all intertwined at the moment. If only there was a global MIS movement that would fight to separate these essentially unconnected areas?

Good luck trying to convince people of that, but it would be a welcome development.

I tried to elicit some feedback from my dad recently via a situation that I observed, and he was quite dismissive of the thought that a man could wear a dress and not be anything other than a transwoman. That is to say, his gut reaction was clothing = gender. This isn't necessarily bigotry - but it's going to be very hard to dissuade people from this line of thinking.

I think... clothing is a power signifier - an ugly man might dress to the 9's to make up for his poor appearance (when judged by current societal standards). Pretend we were to remove the suit as a masculine symbol, what could he turn to? Plaids and overalls? Ripped jeans?

I think... men & women want to be distinct - if anything, marketing has taught us this. And so, the opposite of distinct is the same... and therefore if you wear what the other side wears... you must be of the other side. This feels like a logical conclusion, with some added emotional baggage, but does not have to be true, and certainly does not seem to be the thought process on this board and in some circles of the internet.

If those points reflect reality how people see clothing - how do you convince people their sincerely held beliefs, beliefs they grew up with since childhood, beliefs that feel like they are common sense, beliefs they feel are "the way God made us" - that they are "wrong" or that "there is another way to look at, approach clothes"?

I have little hope we can globally change people's thinking, but we can influence the people around us. The tricky part is finding a message that works and is universal.

I had to stop writing yesterday to take the family to see grandpa.

Continued..
There's always someone worse off or something more important. In this forum it is important. I know I spend a lot of my day thinking about it. Far too long!

Expanding dress options for men, on the surface is an irrelevance. It is not an irrelevance for me and not un-important to many like me. Why would anyone suffer the social cost of wearing a skirt unless it was important to them?

I think we (men and women) have been driven apart and the skirt could go a long way to bring us back together. As Carl said there is an innate connection so we must be careful when reclaiming skirts that we don't cross the boundary.

[Barleymower]

If those points reflect reality how people see clothing - how do you convince people their sincerely held beliefs, beliefs they grew up with since childhood, beliefs that feel like they are common sense, beliefs they feel are "the way God made us" - that they are "wrong" or that "there is another way to look at, approach clothes"?

I don't think that's a useful approach. They can beleive men wearing skirts is wrong all they like, where I draw the line is when their thoughts start having an impact on my life. As long as they don't get to impose their thoughts on other people's public spaces it's fine. That's what freedom of religion means after all.

A recent article here suggested that the easiest way for Europeans to understand the whole democrats vs republicans divide is to compare it to what we used to have with catholics vs protestants. They did not get along, they each had their own schools, own churches, separated everything. Yet if you actually got down to it they often really wanted the same things and if you left religion out of it they'd get along just fine. We got out of it by everyone just agreeing to stop trying to convert the others, stop throwing rocks at each other, to work together on things they did agree on and not try to drag religion into everything. And now 100 years later the different denominations are working together on all sort of projects because they know they have more in common than differences..

So no, we don't need to tell people their beliefs are wrong, we just need people to accept that different people beleive different things and you can do whatever you like in your own home, in public spaces you just act civil and don't try to impose your beliefs on others. And they won't impose them on you. And yes that mean in the political space you act with restraint.

Are we telling people their beliefs are wrong?

[STEVIE]

Are we telling people their beliefs are wrong?

In a sense BM, I believe that I actually am doing exactly that.
If I am told that it is me in the wrong then yes, I will challenge that to the best of my ability.
Occasionally, that discussion can get quite lively.
On the other hand, by wearing skirts and dresses continually, I know that I am challenging others beliefs on a daily basis.
I have also achieved a measure of success in showing some folks that it really is OK for a guy to wear whatever he pleases.
That said there are diehard attitudes out there which will never change and many come with the "Kennedy" label.
Every day is a school day. In the light of sufficient evidence no belief should ever be completely immutable.
I was made to believe that I was the bad boy for wishing to wear skirts and just had to decide for myself that was just b******t
passed down to me by those who did accept that as a fundamental truth.
Were they wrong, well yes they were. They meant well but did me a great deal of needless harm in the process.
Steve.

[Barleymower]

Are we telling people their beliefs are wrong?

In a sense BM, I believe that I actually am doing exactly that.
If I am told that it is me in the wrong then yes, I will challenge that to the best of my ability.
Occasionally, that discussion can get quite lively.
On the other hand, by wearing skirts and dresses continually, I know that I am challenging others beliefs on a daily basis.
I have also achieved a measure of success in showing some folks that it really is OK for a guy to wear whatever he pleases.
That said there are diehard attitudes out there which will never change and many come with the "Kennedy" label.
Every day is a school day. In the light of sufficient evidence no belief should ever be completely immutable.
I was made to believe that I was the bad boy for wishing to wear skirts and just had to decide for myself that was just b******t
passed down to me by those who did accept that as a fundamental truth.
Were they wrong, well yes they were. They meant well but did me a great deal of needless harm in the process.
Steve.

I don't know how I came to say that. I can only say it was written early this morning. I should have checked it before posting.
In an attempt to wind back what was said. Here are more thoughts on Rode_kater's post:
I don't think there are any lines to be drawn. "They" are entitled to their view. Where that view conflicts with mine I have have every right to challenge it. And challenge it I will. This one of my reasons for wearing skirts: don't tell me what I can't wear!

Re Steve's post:
They meant well? If by that they had their own interests at heart, then yes they meant well.

Bringing this post back to the topic of gender identity. Clothes and gender identity should not be linked. How do we best discuss this. Win hearts and minds?