Crossdressers-Haven.com

Hi all,

I was just reading a few posts in Charlene's introduction thread about our relationship with the gay community. I thought the subject of the inclusiveness (or lack thereof) of the GLBT community important enough to warrant its own topic. That way, we won't have to preface our posts with soapbox alerts.

I came out to one of my aggressively militant gay friends a few years ago. His reaction? "Oh, you're one of those." His attitude led to a fascinating discussion, though, and he brought up several interesting points.

One (and Rikki mentioned this already in Charlene's thread), we've yet to "pay our dues," socially speaking. If we truly want those rights that belong to us, we have to fight for them. My friend's point was that we have to fight for them on our own, not by clinging to the coattails of the gay movement. (Right now, I'm thinking of Kate Bornstein; check out her Gender test--under the forum's Links of Interest/Gender Dysphoria Test section.)

Two, still according to my friend, our own values as heterosexual men are reflected everywhere in society, contrary to his own (artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe notwithstanding). Hence, we are most definitely not alienated from the mainstream culture we belong to. We fit right in.

Three, even our ideals, quite apart from questions of sexual orientation, are reflected in society; we see that feminine beauty and strength that we so much aspire to "posted" everywhere in society. We have "models." They don't. (Although, to be fair, my friend did recognize the increasing commodification of the male body and the growing use of icons of beautiful men by the advertising industry; still, he says, it's a sanitized form of homoeroticism.)

Four, it's unrealistic to suppose that people fighting to have their sexual orientation socially and legally validated can be part of a harmonious group with people who have no interest in that aspect of their struggle. Fighting against sex role stereotypes is not the same thing as fighting against homophobia (or homo-ignorance, as he calls it).

Five, and this is a point I found myself to be mostly in agreement with, it seems we (TVs/CDs) are merely exchanging one set of gender expectations and roles for another. A box is still a box by any other name.

Anyway, these are some thoughts carried on the wind of a conversation with a gay friend. What think you all on this?

Love,
CJ

I feel that we should make this movement our own and get off the coat tails of the homosexual movement. I feel this is important as most of us are hetrosexual and to help the "normal" people realise that because we choose to wear the clothing of the gender that is not our own we are not homosexual. I am not homophobic in the least but I do not like being put in that group just because I like the feel of the softer side of Sears.
::steps off soap box::

CJ writes...

Two, still according to my friend, our own values as heterosexual men are reflected everywhere in society, contrary to his own (artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe notwithstanding). Hence, we are most definitely not alienated from the mainstream culture we belong to. We fit right in.

Three, even our ideals, quite apart from questions of sexual orientation, are reflected in society; we see that feminine beauty and strength that we so much aspire to "posted" everywhere in society. We have "models." They don't. (Although, to be fair, my friend did recognize the increasing commodification of the male body and the growing use of icons of beautiful men by the advertising industry; still, he says, it's a sanitized form of homoeroticism.)

CJ probably realized that she'd get a comment from someone on this! Well, I'll jump right in, feet first.

One of the things crossdressers frequently comment on is the change in women's styles over the past 30 years. Women have gone from dresses to jeans as daily attire. To some extent, this just mirrors a similar change in menswear (suits to jeans). But there's another factor at work. Women have come to perceive traditional womens wear as turning them into sex objects or beauty icons. White gloves (which women used to wear) said "these hands do not do physical work." Sheer nylon stockings say "these legs are not primarily for walking; their primary purpose is for you to admire, even to desire sexually." Women refer to this as being objectified. Unless they are prostitutes, objectification prevents them from being taken seriously in what they do or say or are.

Into this subtle, hard-to-grasp issue waltz the crossdressers, in many ways desiring for ourselves the very objectification women are coming to reject. We often WANT to look like beauty queens, sex objects, icons of traditional beauty. We work hard at it. Many crossdressers take 3 hours to get dressed up for Saturday night.

Feminists feel they have every right to resent us.

What your friend overlooks is that only someone who is outside of the mainstream of our society could seriously think that crossdressers fit into the mainstream. As women continue more and more to adopt the dress codes, vocabulary, and behavior of radical feminism, are heterosexual men going to turn from women to crossdressers as their desired mates? I doubt it. Because sex is not about art. Art may be about sex, but sex isn't about art. And beauty is only art.

CJ continues...

Four, it's unrealistic to suppose that people fighting to have their sexual orientation socially and legally validated can be part of a harmonious group with people who have no interest in that aspect of their struggle. Fighting against sex role stereotypes is not the same thing as fighting against homophobia (or homo-ignorance, as he calls it).

Your friend is terribly nearsighted here. Just as our gay friends are fighting against homophobia and homo-ignorance, so are we fighting against gender phobia and gender ignorance. Jerry Springer isn't bashing gays, he's bashing crossdressers and transsexuals. The religious right is bashing both. In the beginning, the gay community had to fight for basic human dignity just as we do now. They adopted the same kinds of tools, such as support groups (where gays or lesbians could go to socialize with other gays and lesbians).

Are gays fighting for bigger or more important issues than we are? If you think so, wear a dress to work tomorrow and see what happens!

We need to work together with the gay community for mutual support, but we can't do that if they perceive our issues as trivial. We are not their little sisters in drag!

Personally I'll take support from what ever group wants to me me support, but I really desire is that the straight community (of which I'm a part of) gives me support.

I guess that in some ways I'm not at all surprised that many gays and lesbians don't perceive our struggle as theirs or the theirs as ours, and CJ's friend said as much. While we're grouped under the same GLBT umbrella, our struggle is different--just as the struggle by Native Americans or Blacks or Jews of others are similar in many ways, but separate from one another, too.
So, I think Gaven is right when he says the struggle is ours. No one is going to get BEHIND us until we have the courage to lead our own fight--and I'll be the first to confess that I won't be in that first march down Fifth Avenue. As Christina implies, we need more Kate Bornsteins.
Rikki is exactly right, too, when she says we are fighting against gender phobia. Every group's struggle is toward, first, at least civil rights, and then, over time, acceptance by the broader society. The vision is, to borrow from Martin Luther King in a far more critical context, to all God's children walking hand in hand.
So I guess my disappointment if not surprise is that other's who have faced discrimination because of the color of their skin or their cultural background or their sexual orientation don't more often look at least with some sympathy on CD/TG/TVs. But fear of "otherness" is as old as the first ancestors who strode out of the Olduvai Gorge and formed the first tribe, and I don't foresee any end to it.
Each group has to make its own stand. Once again, I think Rikki hit on something important--our struggle for acceptance will never be won as long as it's seen as trivial or foolish. We've let drag queens and Jerry Springer define CDs, all for the worse. Yet, I don't have the courage to wear a dress to work tomorrow, and I guess until I do, I can't ask others to do it for me.


Sara

Hi all,

Wow, what thoughtful responses from all of you (I wish my friend could take a look at some of these!). I'm trying to work up a reply to some of the points Rikki brought up, but I'm pressed for time (going back to work after a month's sick leave is tough!!!). I'll reply soon. Promise! This is a great topic.

Love,
CJ

Everybody here should do what I usually do (I didn't do it in that other thread ) and that is refer to GLBT as TLBG!!!!!

Thats right, use the "T" FIRST!!!

No one subgroup has a monopoly on terminology!

Alexandra has a very good point! All the other 3 letters in 'GLBT" have to do with sexual preference. "T" does not. Our defining issue is not sexual preference. Indeed the best evidence seems to be that T* people are sexually about the same as anyone else.

Sex is about partners; gender is about ourselves.

All this makes strange bedfellows (pun intended) indeed!

Hi all,

Rikki wrote:
Alexandra has a very good point! All the other 3 letters in 'GLBT" have to do with sexual preference. "T" does not. Our defining issue is not sexual preference.

CJ wrote:
Four, it's unrealistic to suppose that people fighting to have their sexual orientation socially and legally validated can be part of a harmonious group with people who have no interest in that aspect of their struggle.

See, Rikki, that's precisely one of the points my friend insisted upon; ours is not the same struggle as theirs. I remember when we first all introduced ourselves in that very first class at university (which is where I met this friend), he lost no time in referring to the fact that he was a member of a sexual minority. That got me thinking, for the very first time in any serious manner, about my own minority status. I'd made friends and sometimes participated in events organized by the university's Queer Collective--a TGLB organization ::winks in Alexandra's direction::--but had never seriously questioned why it was that we, as a group of people who aren't struggling to have the legitimacy of our sexual orientation recognized, would march arm in arm with those who are. I think we are a social minority, not a sexual one. That's the case, I think, especially given the fact that gays, though vocal, are not as visible as T-girls; as you so rightly exclaimed, Rikki, "wear a dress to work tomorrow and see what happens!" Hell, just wear a dress any old time in public and see what happens!

I've dealt often with gays and lesbians (at one point, in a store I worked at in the Village, I was the only straight employee); I find theirs to be a rich and complex and fascinating subculture and, yes, I've had to fend off many a homosexual advance and had to work hard at reaching some understanding with my lesbian friends who were often so ready to dismiss and even condemn me because of my anatomical sex. I always made sure that gay friends and acquaintances understood that I wasn't offended when they showed any sexual interest in me--in fact, I took it as a compliment--and that I just didn't "go that way." I wanted to be certain they understood that I rejected (in as kind a way as possible) their advances because of my sexual orientation, not theirs.

And you know what, Rikki? Life goes on after a friend reveals himself as gay. Not so for the T-girl, transvestite, crossdresser, transsexual, what have you. People are comfortable with polarities and dualities: yes, a gay man is attracted to other men, but he's undeniably a man. Same goes for a lesbian; she's a woman. But what of the T-girl? What manner of creature is this? People don't like it when a gendered soul sits on the fence. Even gay people don't like it. It confuses things. Is this person to be addressed as a man or a woman? It even blurs how this person should be considered as an object of sexual desire, and gays are not any more comfortable with that state of affairs than are straights. I think this is what shone through in my friend's attitude and opinions. Homosexual behaviour can often be an affront to straight sensibilities, but transgender behaviour bucks social mores as a whole. In many ways, our task is much more daunting than that of our "happy" brethren and our fight is thus made much more difficult because of it.

Charlene, in her post, wishes for support from the straight community (all of us do, I think). However, I'm not sure in what sense we can call the straight world a community. A community is a group of people that seek each other out because they share the same values and attitudes as well as a common desire to promote and defend those values. The straight community is too extensive to fit the bill; it's much, much less cohesive than the gay or trans community. So, we might be setting our sights too high in expecting support from such nebulous quarters. Nevertheless, if we focus on individual members of, on people belonging to, the straight world, we might stand a chance of getting somewhere, I think. For me, it's always a case by case approach. As Rikki says, show the "vanilla" person that we're good people, decent people, intelligent and caring people, and there's nothing straights (or even gays) won't do to accept and support us.

Rikki, you also said:

What your friend overlooks is that only someone who is outside of the mainstream of our society could seriously think that crossdressers fit into the mainstream. As women continue more and more to adopt the dress codes, vocabulary, and behavior of radical feminism, are heterosexual men going to turn from women to crossdressers as their desired mates?

Well, first, I'm beginning to seriously question whether gays and lesbians can be considered as being outside the mainstream. They're legally visible. They have the same rights as their straight counterparts. (Here, in Quebec, same-sex unions have been formally acknowledged by the government for over a decade; in the rest of Canada, gay marriage is also fast becoming a done deal.) I couldn't help but feel that my friend was looking at the issues of the transgender community from a mainstream point of view (of course, he would vehemently deny that!).

Second, there just aren't that many radical feminists outside militant student organizations. Most women I know may, at one time or another, adopt the dress codes, behaviour, and vocabulary of the feminist mainstream--that's the feminist mainstream, not the radicals or the integrists--but they often do so as a way to extend the range of their possible ways of being in the world. In my own experience, many truly radical feminists condemn men because of our very nature. It's an essentialism of the most repugnant sort. Many also "espouse" lesbianism for political reasons. My point, here, is that most women do not, in fact, reject whatever "sane" ideals of feminine beauty and behaviour are out there. Moreover, the women I know are culturally aware enough to know that ideals are just that, ideals. They may not agree with them or want to reach for them, but they know the "models" are there. They pick and choose what suits them. In the end, most women I know are both feminine and feminists--without the slightest sign of conflict. I'm just not that certain that a woman wearing jeans and a T-shirt can be any less feminine that she'd be in a dress and heels. Of course, jeans and Ts don't appeal to us TG folk--those are part of our drab costumes. I tend to see femininity as something residing in someone's heart and soul, not as draped on her hips or across her breasts. But that's me. I'm fully aware that others may disagree. And that's fine.

I know that what you're referring to, Rikki, when you say that "we often WANT to look like beauty queens, sex objects, and icons of traditional beauty," is something many GGs find difficult to understand because, to them, such ideals are limiting and they see them as the shackles of sterotypical and passé feminine sex roles. What they may fail to understand is that, to us, this gender-swapping is liberating, not so much because we "become" women as that we abandon, even if only temporarily or partially, the strictures of a weighing masculinity. And the further we are from that masculinity, the more free we feel ourselves to be. One obvious way of distancing ourselves from stereotypically masculine sex roles is to adopt their exact gender opposites.

Anyway, far be it from me to paint the transgender world in unflattering colours. It's the opposite, in fact; everything that I deem good and healthy and sane and wise and so human about myself, I attribute to the fact that I'm a crossdresser. I wouldn't want it any other way, trust me. I have tremendous respect and admiration for people such as yourself, Rikki, who go out there everyday to fight the good fight. My heart, my mind, and my soul are with you always. However, like Sara, I haven't yet come up with the courage to wear a dress to work tomorrow. And, until I do, I thank whatever powers that be that people like you exist.

Well, I'm sorry about the excessive length of this post. I tend to ramble, early on Sunday mornings.

We're in the middle of our second snowstorm of the winter here; I think I'll put on my boots and go make some angels outside.

Love,
CJ

Wow. That's quite alot for me to digest CJ. It gives me some new insights.

here is another good weighty topic for discussion on this rainy Saturday morning!

I'm struck by how much some things have changed: GLBT is not LGBTQ or just plain "queer" because that's so much more inclusive. I won't say that the friction and infighting is gone but I think there is widespread agreement that: everyone should be treated decently no matter what.

And by how much has not changed: are some states really passing laws that prohibit even talking about any LGBTQ issues?????? WTF?????????

And I'm impressed by how much wisdom and insight there is in these posts, reaching back a few decades. It seems like a huge part of the struggle of our community for the last 20 years is recorded here. And even though I was in the middle of it I find it educational to go back and read these. One thing in particular: Sara pointed out that she would never dare wear a dress to work and in 2003 I was in absolute agreement with her. And now I always wear a dress to work. Very interesting....................

"Life goes on after a friend reveals himself as gay. Not so for the T-girl, transvestite, crossdresser, transsexual, what have you. People are comfortable with polarities and dualities: yes, a gay man is attracted to other men, but he's undeniably a man. Same goes for a lesbian; she's a woman. But what of the T-girl? What manner of creature is this? People don't like it when a gendered soul sits on the fence. Even gay people don't like it. It confuses things. Is this person to be addressed as a man or a woman? It even blurs how this person should be considered as an object of sexual desire, and gays are not any more comfortable with that state of affairs than are straights. I think this is what shone through in my friend's attitude and opinions. Homosexual behaviour can often be an affront to straight sensibilities, but transgender behaviour bucks social mores as a whole. In many ways, our task is much more daunting than that of our "happy" brethren and our fight is thus made much more difficult because of it."

"What manner of a creature [am I]?" Yup. We've had various discussions on here in which people provide different boxes in which you can put yourself (Genderqueer, genderfluid and all that) and I don't ever feel they're speaking about me - I always feel they're kind of abstractions. I also spend quite a lot of time watching CD and TG videos and don't ever feel that person is me.

A lot of the time I feel I'm a woman and I don't really know how to express that, being a man. I mean, it's beyond wanting to get into a dress, it's actually *being* a woman. I know that at least some level of expression of me as a man is necessary for me not to lose myself. What am I - a part-time TS or something? Never heard of such a thing.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Anthony. As most of you know I had my my what was then called SRS many years ago, perhaps even before some of you were born. I have definitely seen a change on how people view the TG community but in a way it remains an enigma. Those who know and accept me for who I am have always asked a couple of questions? How can it be? How can one be born male, have testosterone flowing through one's veins yet be female? If you are then why not your siblings? How did you know?

I have had a lot of years to think about and research the subject. I read a while back some scientist thinks he may have found a certain genetic code that may hold the key to why one is TG but have never seen a thing about it since. If anyone has read or heard anything about this or something else please forward the appropriate links. As for me and not my siblings if it's genetic? I think we all know each child is a unique mixture of the parents' DNA.

Guess that leads us to how did you know? Tough one to answer. I can remember even back in my early teens feeling different than the other guys. It is difficult to put into words because there is no defining answer here, perhaps an analogy here will work. Think back to the cute popular girl in high school. The girls in her class would look at her with jealousy thinking how her clothes were so cute and her smile so sweet and think what has she got I don't? The guys in her class would look at her and think of how they wish they were dating her and probably more. I would look at her and think that should be me, I'm more like her than everyone sees.

Anthony you in essence have asked what box do I fit into? I believe it is not about finding the box you fit in rather building the box that fits you. We are all individuals and the worst thing we can do is to try to meet other's expectations of us. If you live up to your expectations of yourself you are far more ahead of the game than most. I will say again that lumping all from the heterosexual crossdresser to what used to be called transsexual under a single umbrella does disservice to all. Each is unique and has unique issues.

Anthony said, "A lot of the time I feel I'm a woman and I don't really know how to express that, being a man. I mean, it's beyond wanting to get into a dress, it's actually *being* a woman."

First thank you for acknowledging being a woman is a hell of a lot more than a dress and heels. Same as men women are all unique. It is not about clothes or hobbies or likes or appearance or activities or even the physical act of sex. It is far deeper and comes from within. The girly girl is no more or less a woman than the tomboy. The supermodel is no more or no less a woman than the woman who works on the factory floor. I freely admit I enjoy getting all dressed up, my make up perfect, and not a hair out of place going out for an evening of dinner and dancing but I am no more or no less a woman then as I am with minimal make up, my hair in a ponytail, and wearing grubby jeans and a t shirt cutting the grass.

I'm not sure if I have clarified or confused things here. I do believe if you were to ask 100 women what is a women you would get 100 different answers after some thought. Anthony for those times you feel you're a woman express it as you feel you should and want for there is no right or wrong answer.

"Anthony you in essence have asked what box do I fit into? I believe it is not about finding the box you fit in rather building the box that fits you."

I think part of the solution to what the box is is in this video (ca 1:30 mins on):

https://youtu.be/o4PhF6FYxsA

This (biological) woman runs a Russian transformation service. She describes herself as "bi-gender" and talks about having a "strange switching of inner feeling of myself [from girl to boy]" from when she was a child.

Very interesting video, thank you for posting it, Anthony. I would love to hear more from her on switching her inner feeling in her youth. One thing that jumped out at me and I don't remember her exact words was her service was more about creating the illusion on a temporary basis not permanently. In other words, she saw her client base as the crossdresser or curious not one thinking of transition and beyond.

Personally, I can't say I "switched" my inner feeling rather growing up in the era I did I always felt "different" than what was expected of a boy back then and more identified with girls. That is not to say I played with dolls or even wanted to. It was more in how they acted, how they bonded with each other, even how they carried themselves. As I said in my previous post it is difficult to put into words for there was no single or even a couple glaring things. It was more a culmination of many little things all adding up and pointing in a direction.

Thankfully there is far more information available today than when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. I have talked with more one of my generation who have told me had they understood earlier or growing up their life would be very different and they probably would have at least transitioned if not also had GCS.