Last night I heard that famous English transvestite comedian, who shall remain nameless (you’re welcome), once again say that women can wear anything they want, and “So do I!”
I think women get to wear anything they want because their clothing choices are based on male prototypes (or ACTUAL male clothing) and they are, it follows, invariably practical. It just makes sense that, according to whatever circumstances come along, a woman may wish to cover her legs, protect her skin (and, it follows, her body), keep warm, stay cool, run up that hill, climb that tree, be efficiently mobile and maybe even get to do what she really WANTS to do. It’s not easy in female clothing, but male clothing is designed with practicality in mind...
Male clothing is concerned with dealing efficiently with everyday activities. That happens to be the very definition of "practical." The opposite of practical is speculative, or risky. If a male wears female clothing, he leaves his world of practicality behind and becomes a risky individual. Oh, there ARE practical female garments, such as a practical dress, but when a man puts that same dress on all practicality is suspended for the foreseeable future, and usefulness is at an end. In my humble opinion, male clothing stresses the importance of utility over beauty or other, more speculative considerations...
Since convenience, or utilitarianism, is the accepted norm these days, it only makes sense that women can wear what they want. Who would argue the practicality of pants over a dress or a skirt, especially when the legs NEED to be protected, for one reason or another? I mean, why are females obliged to show their legs in the first place? Why not deal with everyday activities in a more efficient (and practical) manner? Seems logical to me. Also, women are less restricted than they used to be, and their choice of clothing reflects this, n’est ce pas?
Interestingly, I can speak for many males (by birth) on this site and state, quite emphatically, that it is a revelation to become speculative, or risky, after a life spent in the dungeon of utility. To wear impractical clothes, and subsequently do impractical things, makes me HIGH! This may be a case of the haves and have nots, where one sex (or gender, if you prefer) can wear certain things and the other side can’t. If they didn’t TELL me it was wrong, or at least imply it (24/7), I would probably have never come up with the idea of shaking off the cloak of practical ideology, simply by accepting a certain amount of clothed risk into my life. Impracticality suddenly seemed very attractive to me, so I followed that urge...
There may be an overriding need to get serious about things these days, so any male wearing female clothing is treated with scorn, derision, or worse. The female wearing male clothes may be, subject to interpretation, crossdressing, but wearing practical clothing is never challenged. Perhaps the latter CANNOT be challenged, due to the current state of affairs here in the early 21st century. We are at war, both with outsiders and ourselves, and there is no time for frivolity. This may explain why I can’t walk out my front door, in my frock of choice, and wave to the neighbors as I greet the new day. As soon as they see me, they will think something is amiss, since I obviously have no use for practicality, first cousin of conformity...
In short, I understand why women can wear male clothing and get away with it, while we, my MtF crossdresser friends, are not so lucky. I have attached a photo of Ruth Elder, aviation pioneer from 1927, getting ready to cross the Atlantic in her plane, American Girl. Would you say she is crossdressing, or is she merely dressed for the occasion, i.e. wearing something practical?
PS - A male necktie is decidedly impractical. Just ask a lathe operator...
Originally Posted by Frédérique
