Page 3 of 4

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:11 pm
by crfriend
moonshadow wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:40 pmCarl's video he posted several years ago "You are a fluke of the universe" really nails it home.
Dammit, that was supposed to be a comedy piece. Who could have known that it would become truth in what passes to be the modern world.

Truth be told, it's a bit "dated" now, but was spot on when it was recorded -- and nobody really foresaw what would happen going forward.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:11 pm
by jamie001
When I wear a mid length skirt with sheer black pantyhose and 3 inch high heels, I am sure that some people will think that I am a tranny, and by the current definition of the word, they may be correct. Actually I am not a tranny, I am just a feminine male that is exactly like the opposite of a woman in a suit and tie or a tux. The only difference is that no one bats an eye when a woman is dressed in male garb.Arnold Schwarznegger would say that I am a girly man LOL.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:20 pm
by Barleymower
crfriend wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:11 pm
moonshadow wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:40 pmCarl's video he posted several years ago "You are a fluke of the universe" really nails it home.
Dammit, that was supposed to be a comedy piece. Who could have known that it would become truth in what passes to be the modern world.

Truth be told, it's a bit "dated" now, but was spot on when it was recorded -- and nobody really foresaw what would happen going forward.
Can you repost the link?

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:00 am
by crfriend
Barleymower wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:20 pmCan you repost the link?
Sure! Always happy to pass along history and humour from the deep past.

Deteriorata. It's a shame that it's no longer really funny unless you recall times from long ago; because now, much of it is mantra.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:44 am
by JohnH
jamie001 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:11 pm When I wear a mid length skirt with sheer black pantyhose and 3 inch high heels, I am sure that some people will think that I am a tranny, and by the current definition of the word, they may be correct. Actually I am not a tranny, I am just a feminine male that is exactly like the opposite of a woman in a suit and tie or a tux. The only difference is that no one bats an eye when a woman is dressed in male garb.Arnold Schwarznegger would say that I am a girly man LOL.
Yes, I also have a feminine appearance along with.my figure with a bust. But the illusion of my being a woman is shattered when I talk. I can do an imitation of George Zimmer, formerly of Men's Wearhouse, "You're going to like the way you look. I guarantee it."

John

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:57 am
by Modoc
I don't think anything about my appearance suggests that I want to be or even look like a woman. I am fully aware that people see what they want to see so what I think of how I look is all that matters. It took a while to get here I must admit. It might be that all my life prepared me for not being concerned about others opinions of my appearance. Many people don't have that luxury, and there are potentially negative consequences for being different, which I know from experience as well. But like I read in another thread here, it's up to us who can to show, by doing, that skirt/dress wearing is as viable wardrobe option for men as it is for women. In these past few weeks, I have had the most positive comments on skirts and dresses that I've worn ever from both males and females.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:13 am
by Grok
I looked at a web site that discussed the gender-ing of clothing. Skirts/dresses are strongly associated with femininity. Trousers, on the other hand-as a general type of garment-have become gender neutral.

Took about a century for that. Before that, over the decades, it became permissible for women to wear a few designs that were specifically intended for them.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:17 am
by Grok
There is an example, of sorts, going the other way. Kilting is permissible for men, but men don't really have cultural permission to wear other types of open ended garments.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:32 am
by JohnH
In my opinion the reluctance of men to wear to wear open ended garments resides mostly in their heads. I can count the.pushback incidence I have encountered with one finger. And I wear dresses the great majority of the time, including church, shopping, and doctor appointments.

John

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:45 pm
by familyman34
For those members of this community who are interested in the ways that clothes can be adapted/designed across the male-female spectrum, I have found a set of four articles that explore the subject from an explicit "non-gendering" perspective:
https://www.seamwork.com/articles/degen ... -is-gender
https://www.seamwork.com/articles/degen ... ed-fashion
https://www.seamwork.com/articles/when- ... comes-home
https://www.seamwork.com/articles/degen ... e-gendered

I might have posted these links instead in the Board index < Fashions < Sewing section, but the topic seems more alive here at the moment.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:10 pm
by Myopic Bookworm
familyman34 wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:45 pm For those members of this community who are interested in the ways that clothes can be adapted/designed across the male-female spectrum, I have found a set of four articles that explore the subject from an explicit "non-gendering" perspective:
Thanks: that's really interesting.

I am generally incompetent when it comes to making things, but I am tempting myself to dig out my late mother-in-law's sewing machine...

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:43 pm
by Uncle Al
I've 'fast-read' these articles which, by all intents and purposes, still show more support for women than for men :|
That it's OK for women to dress in men's styles yet the reverse has not been supported by anyone, including the author.
These articles are still based on "Gender" or "Sex" of the person.

:soapbox:
Yes, I'm "Old School".
All titles have a gendered purpose, describing the person in what they do or who they are.
This is a necessary construct of language, no matter what language you speak.

Two examples:
A tailor is a male who creates(makes) clothing for people.
A seamstress is a female who creates(makes) clothing for people.
These are descriptive titles of people who make the clothes we wear.

A widow is a person who lost her mate due death.
A widower is a person who lost his mate due death.
These are descriptive titles of people who are survivors of the death of their partners.

I'm a widower, plain and simple. I detest being called a widow.

I don't agree with the "woke" agenda being force-fed on American society. It is another
way to destroy our way of life, and tries to change or remove the history of our humanity.

Enough, I'll put away my :soapbox: and go back and :hide: under my rock :|

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:46 pm
by crfriend
Uncle Al wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:43 pmA widow is a person who lost her mate due death.
A widower is a person who lost his mate due death.
These are descriptive titles of people who are survivors of the death of their partners.

I'm a widower, plain and simple. I detest being called a widow.
However, you are technically widowed, and there's no way to escape that.

I formally describe myself as a widower, although that produces a rather interesting conundrum: I am probably the only never-married male widower with a (supposedly) living ex-. It's complex [0]. The upshot is that my ex- underwent a serious psychotic break in 2015, tried to get me killed, and essentially became someone else. My logic kicked in after several months of agony and finally called the demise of the relationship a death, The immediate results were "interesting" in that it put me into a very short and sharp period of mourning for the person I'd lost (the love of my life) long after I'd worked through most of the mourning period for the relationship.

The fun and games with "tailor" versus "seamstress" is all well and good, but does make me ponder the notion of "Mr. Seamstress". Just saying.
I don't agree with the "woke" agenda being force-fed on American society. It is another way to destroy our way of life, and tries to change or remove the history of our humanity.
I don't think it's quite that pernicious, I think it's just misinformed and ignorant of the constructs of language.


[0] For the curious, this was an "engineered relationship" from the get-go. She was at the top of her earning potential and I was still closing in on mine. The original intent was for a lavish wedding in a local museum, but once we started looking at the liabilities of being married (children were never going to be in the picture) realised that we'd be better off staying single and simply "shacking up" (which lasted for 27 years, 20 of which were darned good!). The casting the end of the thing as a death put an absolutely delightful "bookend" on the other side of it which I now regard as sublime. As Massachusetts is not a ""common law" state, nobody could come after us -- nor one of us after the other -- on the grounds of "common law marriage" following the demise. And thus it ended,

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:07 am
by Grok
familyman34, I looked at your links, and it was obvious from the images that this was about women borrowing from the male side of aisle. Same old, same old.

Re: Don't worry, most people know we're not trans

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:17 am
by moonshadow
I wonder...

I science were to devise a way to remove a person's brain and place it into some kind of a machine that would essentially animate the consciousness of "thought", yet this machine had no male or female characteristics, what "gender" would this entity be?