Put your pants on, Spartacus!

[Frédérique]

“I’m just trying to FIGHT my way out of this dream.” (Pete Townshend)

This is NOT the right time, during the relatively brief history of mankind, for a male to consider wearing a skirt, or a dress, as some form of expression. Out there in the real world, everything works against you. Males are not supposed to seriously consider wearing women’s clothing, nor are they allowed to use make-up (as women would), nor are they allowed to entertain the idea of affecting those feminine gestures and characteristics they so obviously desire...

Your girlfriend, or SO, hits the ceiling when your innocuous “activity” is revealed, and society awaits your imminent correction, otherwise the powers-that-be may feel they are losing control. What, pray tell, is a girly-boy supposed to do? I mean, you don’t wish to cause strife (at least I don’t), but can’t you just affect feminine airs in peace and be left alone? “Any man who dresses as a woman can’t be ALL bad,” Benny Hill once said, but the world doesn’t see it that way...

I see they’ve expanded these “Man Up!” presentations to include other examples of “unmanly” behavior. It’s not enough to be censured for wearing skinny jeans, or carrying a “man” bag, or perhaps being so bold as to wear a kilt without a sporran, but now you are suspect if you squeal like a girl, or if you don’t enjoy getting dirty, or if you unwittingly show your true “self” in front of your male peers. If you believe the TV commercials, everybody’s watching you for the slightest sign of effeminacy, and true individuals (let’s call them sensualists) are summarily being targeted for extinction...

There is gender role reinforcement going on all around, 24/7, and people buy into it – this is why it’s so difficult to swim against the tide, toss gender expectations aside, and wear the “wrong” clothes. The thing is, you HAVE to put on that party dress, because life’s a party, and you will perish if you don’t get in touch with your precious true “self.” Attaining a personal goal, a solitary, meaningful accomplishment if there ever was one, is often rewarded by praise from those who cannot fathom doing such things. But to most people, having your personality willingly removed, or completely altered out of existence, is a far more noble cause, even though the “rewards” for doing so are largely imaginary. I barely dare to leave the house these days, which reminds me...

The local middle school marching band has been practicing for the upcoming Swedish festival here in Lindsborg – they will be featured in the parade a week from today. Every morning at 8:30AM they march past my house, turn around, and march back. I wanted to get some photos of this picturesque scene, so I slipped out of my cute, comfortable, but impractical (for the situation) schoolgirl outfit, put on a DRAB “uniform,” and got out of the house just in time to intercept the band as it swept past. Since they were concentrating on their marching and playing, the kids barely noticed me on the sidewalk. I started to wonder if I could get away with being cross-dressed, in full transvestic regalia, in this unusual situation. Oh, the possibilities...

I mean, would the kids notice me, or would their discipline (group mindset) overcome the need to stop, stare, and giggle? Would the forward progress of the band grind to a halt, as the highly impressionable children gazed upon a transvestite for the first time? Perhaps I would “pass,” and the band would sail by, barely noticing yours truly. I’m sure later that day, at lunch, some boy or girl would say, “Did you see that woman taking pictures this morning? I don’t think that was a woman!” Consider where I live – you don’t see visible crossdressers, transvestites, or transgendered individuals in such a place, and I’m sure the children are not taught about "us" at all. Word would filter down to the teachers, then the parents, then the local newspaper, and one of the three local policepersons would soon be knocking on my door...

Hypothetically answering the door in my normal daily attire (a short pleated skirt, a peasant blouse with puffy sleeves, short white socks, Mary Janes, a cute auburn wig, lipstick, make-up, and dangling earrings), I would say “Yes, officer, that was me – I’m an artist, you know.” He (or she) would look at my outfit, gulp, and struggle to find words to say. “I’m also a transvestite,” I would add, “Have you ever seen one?” I have no doubt that in this polarized climate, this atmosphere of gender separation, and this blessed state of boys will be boys and girls will be girls, that the person in a position of authority would do his/her duty to protect the status quo: "Would you please stop doing that in public, ma'am...er...sir?"

Since I represent an alternative lifestyle that is hidden from view, and my very presence may cause experimental, inquisitive youth to (hopefully) question their gender roles, upsetting the fabric of society as we know it, I could conceivably cause a small rebellion of sorts with unforeseen consequences. Fear of the unknown. In this context, “Put your pants on, Spartacus!” is the only response I would expect to hear, since I may become the vanguard of a gender revolt. They fear (or distrust) what “they” don’t understand, even though I am completely harmless (and ultimately understandable). Let's talk about it - would you like some green tea, officer?
:battingeyelashes:

I reiterate – what is a girly-boy to do? Why is it so BAD to be a MtF crossdresser? :idontknow:

BTW, the phrase “Put your pants on, Spartacus!” is from the Billy Wilder film One, Two, Three The line is delivered by James Cagney. I must say I don’t want to put my pants on – not now, not EVER...
:hmph:

[Kaitlyn26]

Title gets a 9.5/10. :rofl:

[marlaNYC]

good post indeed.

as a parent of a 5th grader...kids, if they watch TV, are shown boys in girls clothes in at least one episode of nearly every kids show - cartoons and real life. my ex and i like to consider ourselves, for want of a better word, 'progressive'. the kid has seen 30Rock, South Park, The Simpsons, regularly watches Victorious, iCarly, Spongebob, Phineas & Ferb. etc etc....he has been exposed to boys as girls and it has been openly discussed. he even bought up a picture of one of the cast of Victorious (male) dressed up to look like the main character. i'm hoping this - amongst so many other values i'd love him to embrace - keeps his mind open as he grows up.

however, being directly presented with it (not me) caused him shock, nausea and anxiety. the way he described his feelings at his classmate appearing in a dress, wig and lipstick on one Halloween was identical to the feeling i had the first time a gay man hit on me (much to do with my victoriana upbringing) when i was 16 - the shock of the new. and within 2 years i was friends with two transgender girls and a very open gay crowd.

directly confronting kids with this - in person - does worry me, having experienced 'that' feeling. it's a visceral reaction and it's quite possible that the knee jerk reaction could be distressing to them, the community and you. i do believe that kids should be exposed to all walks of life, but gently, with discussion, and in their own time.

[Kaz]

Great post as always Freddie! I agree with Marla in that we need to protect kids to great degree, but we do live in politically correct world where they they are shielded from too much (IMO and UK bias)... kids accept what they perceive as normal and in most things will accept what they experience as normal (which is why quite rightly society is concerned with kids being 'groomed'), but at certain ages, especially when they are discovering the difference between men and women... i.e. I am a girl and I do girl things and I HATE boys (the stereotyping bit), they will notice and get confused... as they get to discover their sexuality, we again have a potential problem... it is now OK to be gay... but to be anything else is perverse.

In the UK, the police have to accept the CD community and our rights for free expression. However, if that spills over into 'affecting' children... we would be advised that this is probably not acceptable behaviour... and I agree... though I would like to undertstand how this can be presented as normal to kids... I suspect it would have to be done early, but then we run the problem of manipulating young minds and many parents would crucify us!

As Marls has said... if it could weave its way into kids TV, it would work... but I still think hat there would be a parental outcry from the uneducated and uniformed in society.

[Miss Maxine]

The whole "man up" thing is amusing. The entire concept of being bold enough to do something risky and receiving man-points for it just encourages me to cross dress, more. What is more bold and more risky than a man who is willing to challenge the social concept of masculinity by doing something completely feminine? Man up, men...I dare you to go out in a dress!

[AllieSF]

I read your what if scenario if you watched and photographed that marching band pass your house. How about the same scenario, but no one felt the need to come out to your house to knock on your door to check you out and suggest that you don't do that anymore? I have lived in small towns, and yes, pretty soon they will know a lot about the newbie, but that does not mean that they will come knocking on my door. There is just about the same Peyton Place adventures/scandals in small towns as in a lot of larger ones. Some people talk about them and some don't. All the TG would probably do is bring a little variance to the drunks, wife beaters, illicit affairs of the heart, town idiots, etc. already in town. If someone is proud of what they do and are willing to take the hassle in public once in a while, that person probably may just be considered another one of the town's eccentrics who just happens to crossdress. I am not saying that you personally do that. But it is conjecture on anyone's part to predict the worst case scenario, when if fact no one really knows for that particular small town wherever it is, unless someone tries it. Small town people may be conservative, but they are also some of the most gracious and friendly people around, not hassled by the hectic life of big cities and all that living there entails. We may be surprised how kind they can be. DawnMarie's bicycle tour across small town America has resulted in some very nice and comforting experiences in those small towns. The sky is not falling yet and probably will not until the judgment day, October 12th I think, as forecast by one of California's finest Doom's Day forecasters.

[LeaP]

Very evocative. Don't agree with all of it, but do with most, and the atmospherics are excellent.

So ... when ya goin' out?

And the answer to the final question is "it's not."

Lea

[Cynthia Anne]

When I see a certain name starting a new thread I know I'm in for a real treat! Making this one no exception!!!! Thank you! Hugs!

[Frédérique]

…though I would like to undertstand how this can be presented as normal to kids... I suspect it would have to be done early, but then we run the problem of manipulating young minds and many parents would crucify us!

I don’t know how it would be presented as “normal” in the atmosphere I have described. I have seen a lot of anti-intellectual backlash out here in Kansas – not quite so much in THIS town, since it contains a small college, but people don’t like to be talked “down to.” If gender issues were discussed along the lines of those taken for granted in more liberal states, I would not expect a submissive response from the locals. With this in mind, I maintain a low profile…
:straightface:

I keep wondering how I would react if I were in the 8th grade, and I saw a transvestite one day. This was the age when I was very curious about nearly everything, especially my own sexuality. A “sighting” would’ve been quite memorable, I feel…
:eek:


If someone is proud of what they do and are willing to take the hassle in public once in a while, that person probably may just be considered another one of the town's eccentrics who just happens to crossdress. I am not saying that you personally do that. But it is conjecture on anyone's part to predict the worst case scenario, when if fact no one really knows for that particular small town wherever it is, unless someone tries it. Small town people may be conservative, but they are also some of the most gracious and friendly people around, not hassled by the hectic life of big cities and all that living there entails. We may be surprised how kind they can be. DawnMarie's bicycle tour across small town America has resulted in some very nice and comforting experiences in those small towns.

Pride is not a factor for this transvestite – I just do what I do, and make sure I keep doing it. This means adapting to my surroundings as best I can. I just wish to live my life in peace, and crossdress for my own personal happiness. I need to tell you that there is a BIG difference between passing through a small Midwestern town, and actually living amongst the conservative inhabitants for years on end. I’ve been in this particular place for over five years, and I KNOW whereof I speak (write). I used to come to Kansas as a visitor, passing through many small towns, cross-dressed to the hilt. You’re absolutely correct when you say the people are warm, gracious, friendly, and comforting to outsiders, as long as you are passing through, soon to leave, and not taking up residence among them…

After I moved to this town, and I lived among the locals, I began to notice all sorts of disturbing things. I saw evidence of racism and religious intolerance. I raised many an eyebrow when I declared I do not go to church on Sunday. Since I’m not married, I have no children, and I live with my sister, I am definitely in the minority when it comes to familial concerns. I’m sure my neighbors assume I’m homosexual, which is OK by me, but I’ve seen several pronouncements against gay marriage here, evidence of bigotry and/or ignorance. The church angle is pervasive, filtering into the schools, so you can well imagine that transvestites, or any other type of alternative, eccentric, or queer individual is not at all pleasing to the conservative mindset. A MtF crossdresser is beyond the pale in this innocent-looking setting, which is why I trotted out my little scenario in the OP. I love the town (it IS quiet and peaceful), and I love living here, but I know who surrounds me at all times…

The upcoming parade that I mentioned will reflect the makeup of the town, and that means there will be no pro-choice, pro-alternative, or pro-transgendered element anywhere to be seen. The parade route will be right down Main Street, and right down the middle of the road, same as it has always been. The boys will be dressed as boys, and the girls will be dressed as girls. If there are any secret desires, they will be closeted, no doubt gasping for air…
:sad:

[ReineD]

This is the proper way to teach kids, Freddy, have a look:

Toronto District School Board
Challenging Homophobia & Heterosexism
A K-12 Curriculum

http://word.ca/TDSB%20Equity%20%20Inclusive%20Curriculum%20-%20See%20page%2010%20!.pdf

[Patty B.]

Excellant post Frederique, yes locals are accepting of someone passing through, but it's another thing to have some one thats not normal, living in their own little world. As for this little world I happen to live in more townspeople have some serious skeletons in their closets, just not well known, like the queer or transvestite who lives down the road. I really appreciate and love living in a small town,Frederique having grown up in a more populated area of this state. Reine, good point about toronto, I didn't read the articel, but I assume Canada. Living as close to Canada (approximtely 10 minutes) there is a different mindset over there, they are not a subsidary of the U.S. or just an extension of this country. Not bashing the US, just a point of view living here for the past 35 years. Also Reine always look forward to your replies, you are always so insightful.

[LeaP]

I just do what I do, and make sure I keep doing it. This means adapting to my surroundings as best I can. I just wish to live my life in peace, and crossdress for my own personal happiness. I need to tell you that there is a BIG difference between passing through a small Midwestern town, and actually living amongst the conservative inhabitants for years on end. ... You’re absolutely correct when you say the people are warm, gracious, friendly, and comforting to outsiders, as long as you are passing through, soon to leave, and not taking up residence among them…

After I moved to this town, and I lived among the locals, I began to notice all sorts of disturbing things. I saw evidence of racism and religious intolerance. ... I love living here, but I know who surrounds me at all times…



I grew up in perhaps the most liberal state in the U.S. (Mass), working there until I was 36, then California for 8 years. With the exception of enclaves like small portions of the Boston area (and believe me, by no means all of Boston), Provincetown, a town or two like Northhampton, SF in CA, etc., they are no different than anywhere else. If you follow the news, you'll also see that gay bashing and similar issues aren't much different in liberal states either. I doubt that I'd be any more willing to appear en femme in Brockton (MA) or Fresno (CA) than in Lindborg.

I also lived in the South for 6 years. I ran into some of the most blatant racial BS I've ever seen on occasion, yet by and large the population was far more racially tolerant than I've experienced in more liberal places. Religion - the evangelical variety - permeates the entire culture. In the end, however, I found the South more tolerant. They may not like what you are, or do, but will live and let live. The police thing? Can't imagine that happening.

Lea

[marlaNYC]

@Reine, thank you so much for posting that Toronto guide. that's going to be a great resource for my kid and i over the next few years!

@Lea, even coming from small town suburban London, i had never experienced racism, sexism and all round bigotry to the levels that i did in my first few visits to Boston. but Boston is by no means an exception in my travels. perhaps it's the melting pot of larger populations - an expected self-suppression/repression to be PC? - that can make even 'liberal' cities (and states) a little more closed off and potentially dangerous!

[TGMarla]

I also saw the articles that describe how Canada is changing their curriculum in grades as early as kindergarten to incorporate glbt issues. I cannot say I agree with the concept of exposing 5-year-olds to such issues. It is simply TOO early in their lives to start having them consider sexual and gender issues. If one of the little boys is showing some particular effeminacy, or one of the girls is just not into dolls and hopscotch, I could see some minor group teaching might be in order to ward off bullying. But to incorporate this into a mandatory curriculum at that age, in my opinion, is wrong.

165707


The above is a clipping from a petition put out by 'StopCorruptingChildren.com'. I include it more for the right page than the left page. I don't agree with the whole role reversal games they require these kids to play, nor do I agree with the notion that such teaching should be a required part of a first-grade curriculum. The teachers have to teach this or risk losing their jobs.

I know that the general idea here is to try and ward off the gender bias that is surely coming when these kids become young adults. But I have serious doubts that it will work. And I have even more concerns that it will even backfire and cause greater problems in the long run, like do most things that suffer from mandatory government intervention.

And no, I do not support the organization that put out this pamphlet. But I do believe this Canadian movement will cause more harm than good. Let the crucifixion begin!

[Tina B.]

No Crucifixion here Marla, but come on, the American way has not got us very far, maybe the Canadian system just might help. I've always taught my kids everyone is different, and to respect that. A little role playing never hurt anyone, kids call it pretending, or dress up and kids do it on there own all the time. Even if it doesn't help the "normal kids" it could do a lot to help gay, and transgendered kids a bunch, they could take some of the mystery out of the differences, and let them know they are not alone, and they don't have to silently take the bulling, from others, but that it's alright to seek out help. As we like to Say in the states all the time "If it stops one suicide, or one beating, of a kid, it's all worth while".
Tina B.

[TGMarla]

So we're going to make the 95% of boys who abhor playing with dolls and having tea do so in order to appease the 5% of boys who might (or might not) be gay or transgendered.....when they're six years old? Sorry, but I'm not buying into it. We're really going to have first and second graders read "Gloria goes to Gay Pride" in the classroom? At that age? That's nuts!

Oh....and sorry to hijack this, Freddy. Not my intention. And your reference to the beer commercials that chastise the guys on their "unmanly" behavior is spot on. Way stupid ad campaign there. And they're right on the heels of the same campaign that have the cool, collected bartenders and waitresses that chastise the stupid men who drink ordinary beer while engaging in behaviors like wearing sunglasses indoors, dragon-motif clothing, and the like. Way dumb. I'd like to know how drinking lousy beer is unmanly, especially when the favored alternative is an equally lousy beer.

[marlaNYC]

If one of the little boys is showing some particular effeminacy, or one of the girls is just not into dolls and hopscotch, I could see some minor group teaching might be in order to ward off bullying.

Marla - ok, this is odd! - one of the boys at my kids pre-school was exhibiting a ton of signs. he'd eschew all of the boy games and dress up stuff and go straight for the Princess stuff. the teachers were totally cool with it and didn't make any big deal out of it. attention was not drawn to it. the other kids didn't even bat an eyelid. it was only when the parents witnessed it and started freaking out that it became any kind of issue. they started pressuring the teachers to 'bully' and shame him into stopping. turned out that his older sister loved to play dress up with him, him as her little sister! the school and teachers didn't change their attitude once. the whole incident was definitely worthy of a raised eyebrow, Roger Moore style!

[TGMarla]

Okay! Then you reinforce my argument. I said right away that it is way too early an age to be bothering with any of this. My statement that you referenced is in regards to the government overkill that Canada is engaging in, having kids as young as five and six doing role reversals, reading GLBT propaganda, and discussing matters they cannot even begin to understand at that age. I was suggesting that if the schools are going to address it at all, that some full-bore mandatory curriculum is not the way to do it. It isn't until they hit adolescence that they begin to understand what this sex thing is all about....or maybe eight or nine, given their exposure to mass media at a young age. But pre-school? Kindergarten?

I can even question whether the schools are the right place to address this at all. Some things should be taught by parents and left in the home. You'll argue that many parents do a poor job of teaching tolerance to their kids, and that some even teach hatred to them. So we'll mandate that the government do the brainwashing instead. I'd argue that racism is a far greater threat to civilized society than GLBT intolerance is any day. But did we have a racial tolerance curriculum in our schools to try and ward off the possibility of race riots? Are we going to add a social studies program to teach our kids about every small minority group that begs for a voice? Maybe a social studies topic could be put in place in junior high school to teach tolerance (actually not a bad idea), but I don't think role reversal and "Gloria goes to the Gay Pride Parade" is necessary for kids in primary school.

[ReineD]

I also saw the articles that describe how Canada is changing their curriculum in grades as early as kindergarten to incorporate glbt issues. I cannot say I agree with the concept of exposing 5-year-olds to such issues. It is simply TOO early in their lives to start having them consider sexual and gender issues. If one of the little boys is showing some particular effeminacy, or one of the girls is just not into dolls and hopscotch, I could see some minor group teaching might be in order to ward off bullying. But to incorporate this into a mandatory curriculum at that age, in my opinion, is wrong.



Marla, hate groups (who put out the image you posted) commonly take things out of context in order to make their points. I looked at the curriculum on page 37 (see my link above), and it suggests role play in the section for K-grade 3 as a tool to point out how wrong it is to believe in stereotypes. Kids that age role play all the time, so the concept is not foreign to them and I seriously doubt any teacher would make a child do something he or she feels uncomfortable with. The curriculum does not call for kindergarden age kids to do sexual role reversal.

I also looked up the book they suggest reading to the kindergarden kids:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/188367266X/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

The Amazon site allows you to click on the book and look at a few pages. I don't think that teaching kids we live in a diverse world is too much for them at all.

Edit I've also just looked up one of the suggested books, "Are You a Boy Or a Girl?" that the hate group criticizes. This book is about a tomboy, and how she fits into society.

[celeste26]

FWIW when I was in my local high school band I always paid attention to the band leaders and didn't pay any attention to what or who might have been on the sidewalks. There might have been a fire for all I would care unless the leaders did something about it it didn't happen. Of course the reason was that if I didn't pay enough attention I would screw up badly. I guess I was just not the greatest talent in that pool.

[Frédérique]

I grew up in perhaps the most liberal state in the U.S. (Mass), working there until I was 36, then California for 8 years. With the exception of enclaves like small portions of the Boston area (and believe me, by no means all of Boston), Provincetown, a town or two like Northhampton, SF in CA, etc., they are no different than anywhere else. If you follow the news, you'll also see that gay bashing and similar issues aren't much different in liberal states either. I doubt that I'd be any more willing to appear en femme in Brockton (MA) or Fresno (CA) than in Lindsborg.

There’s no need to talk down to me - I also grew up in Massachusetts (I was born in Weymouth, MA and lived in nearby Hingham for many years), but I moved to Kansas in 2002. I know all about the (allegedly) most liberal state in the nation, in fact my crossdressing flourished in that less constrictive atmosphere. However, I was just as cautious as I am here in conservative Kansas – I had to be highly imaginative to avoid detection and survive with my feminine whiles intact. At least people KNOW there are transgendered individuals in a state like Massachusetts, so tolerance is addressed and not ignored, but once you get away from the big cities and their educational institutions, MA is just like KS in terms of ignorance. Add to this the fact that there are ten times as many people in MA, with a much greater population density, so the chances of encountering someone with transgendered proclivities increases in a place like that. I know, since I’ve lived there, and I’ve been to Provincetown, too (in case you’re wondering)…

That being said, I encountered plenty of prejudice during my early crossdressing period, and information regarding this “hidden” lifestyle was at a premium. This was long before sites like this homed into view, but I never felt “wrong” or ashamed of my convictions. Here in Kansas, controversial things are not talked about – I don’t know why it’s like this, but I recently wrote a thread about the overriding (or inherent) need to procreate. This one topic lies at the heart of why a parent would not want to endorse education (regarding issues of gender) in a conservative atmosphere. Heck, education isn’t endorsed PERIOD, let alone gender issues – funding for education (or lack of) is always in the news out here, and the under-educated children (subsequently parents) just keep perpetuating the climate where crossdressers, along with homosexuals, are marginalized by society. Here in Kansas, if little Hunter, or his brother Colter, see a transvestite and get the idea that boys can dress as girls, and then actually try the idea on for size, it would severely strain everyone’s patience, along with their attendant ignorance…

Since I’m an artist, I’m painting you a little picture of life in a small Kansas town. I would say "conservative Kansas town," but that would be redundant…:straightface:


It isn't until they hit adolescence that they begin to understand what this sex thing is all about....or maybe eight or nine, given their exposure to mass media at a young age. But pre-school? Kindergarten?

I have fond memories of the time when I was in farm school (pre-kindergarten), and I had no idea there were differences between boys and girls. Wouldn’t you say the genders are incorporated when we’re very young, and then they are gradually crow-barred apart over time, leading to the point where you forget you were once a beautiful, hybrid creature? By the time a boy reaches the 8th grade, like the kids in the marching band, things are getting very interesting and very confusing at the same time – I think puberty is a sad time where a boy sails away from his feminine “self,” probably never to return. Luckily, some of us stay on the pier and hang on for dear life…

Don’t worry about hijacking my threads, Marla – my intention is always simply to begin a discussion… :)


FWIW when I was in my local high school band I always paid attention to the band leaders and didn't pay any attention to what or who might have been on the sidewalks.

A few girls waved to me while they were marching, so they definitely paid attention to me… :clap:

[LeaP]

... no need to talk down to me - I also grew up in Massachusetts (I was born in Weymouth, MA and lived in nearby Hingham for many years)

There was no such intent. Rather, I was extending the discussion theme. I'm really trying hard here, Freddy.

Lea

[xcdmargo]

interesting article in today's New York Times and Washington Post, "Latest trend in hip-hop: Donning women’s clothes" maybe it's not that far away when it becomes acceptable

margo

[marlaNYC]

maybe it's not that far away when it becomes acceptable

margo, it's a dream to dream for. but as a long term denizen of an 'open' bdsm world, where coverage here has been plenty, there's still an unacceptable and sensationalist aspect that feeds the tabloids and, no matter how mainstream it may be seen to be becoming, the truth is far from Disney

[Kaitlyn Michele]

I'd like to know how drinking lousy beer is unmanly, especially when the favored alternative is an equally lousy beer.

Nice one!

By the way Marla, thinking about the idea of what the right age may be...it's not about appeasing the 5%... it's about teaching ...teaching 100% that its ok if some of the boys play with dolls.

It's either OK or not OK, right? If its OK, then how can any age be too early? The idea that five is too early concedes the very point we all want to win

[VeronicaMoonlit]

I also saw the articles that describe how Canada is changing their curriculum in grades as early as kindergarten to incorporate glbt issues.............The above is a clipping from a petition put out by 'StopCorruptingChildren.com'. I include it more for the right page than the left page. I don't agree with the whole role reversal games they require these kids to play, nor do I agree with the notion that such teaching should be a required part of a first-grade curriculum. The teachers have to teach this or risk losing their jobs..

That's what those articles "claim" but that's quite incorrect. Said curriculum was proposed a few years ago, but then they decided not to use it. It's off the table no matter what that hate group says...and yes, they're a hate group by my standards. So bascially...they're lying to make people like you upset about "indoctrination" or "government brainwashing the kids"


I cannot say I agree with the concept of exposing 5-year-olds to such issues. It is simply TOO early in their lives to start having them consider sexual and gender issues.

Considering that some transfolk start dealing with their issues at that age it is most certainly not too early. And considering that bullying those perceived as "sisses" can happen at those ages it is most certainly not too early. We're better off nipping bullies in the bud, correct?


But to incorporate this into a mandatory curriculum at that age, in my opinion, is wrong.

You underestimate the ability to understand things in young folk. And you have to do it early because the bullying starts early.


I know that the general idea here is to try and ward off the gender bias that is surely coming when these kids become young adults. But I have serious doubts that it will work.

I think it will work.....once it gets around that this sort of thing isn't tolerated anymore...it basically ends. My dad told me back in his day in the late 1930's kids would be teased for wearing glasses and called teachers pets for having them. because of the anti-intellectual bias in rural areas, (ie if you had glasses you liked to read and thusly were a teachers pet because you didn't read unless you had to, reading for fun was for town/city folks, not farmers)....well that ended when the government made big pushes to get education in rural areas up to par with bigger towns and cities.


So we're going to make the 95% of boys who abhor playing with dolls and having tea do so in order to appease the 5% of boys who might (or might not) be gay or transgendered.....when they're six years old?

I just told you the pamphlet was lies and exaggerations, that's not what the plan was


We're really going to have first and second graders read "Gloria goes to Gay Pride" in the classroom? At that age? That's nuts!

They're old enough to understand MLK day and the original March on Washington where he gave the "I have a dream" speech aren't they? Yes, yes they are. Pride is pretty much the same thing.


My statement that you referenced is in regards to the government overkill that Canada is engaging in,

Why don't you just admit that you're somewhat politically conservative and be done with it? Really. Just get it out in the open.


having kids as young as five and six doing role reversals,

Kids that age role play all the time...they're quite comfortable with it and understand it. genders, animals, kings, queens, dragons, heroes, villains. No big deal.


reading GLBT propaganda

That's a rather interesting word, propaganda, coming from someone who is a part of the GLBT community.


and discussing matters they cannot even begin to understand at that age.

Why don't you just admit you're uncomfortable with activism of any kind and be done with it. It's been obvious for a long time that you are. How else are things going to be better for the next generation of "us
if we don't do anything?


It isn't until they hit adolescence that they begin to understand what this sex thing is all about....or maybe eight or nine, given their exposure to mass media at a young age.

I was taught the proper words for the human reproductive system when I was 10 or 11 years old...in school. But I already knew that stuff, Fallopian tubes, menstrual cycles, all of it...didn't you? we knew about cell division too!


But pre-school? Kindergarten?

It has to start early, in an age appropriate manner, yes.


I can even question whether the schools are the right place to address this at all. Some things should be taught by parents and left in the home.

Most parents are ignorant and have outdated knowledge. My dad admitted that to me when I was young
and he trusted the teachers to do their job because they knew stuff he didn't.


You'll argue that many parents do a poor job of teaching tolerance to their kids, and that some even teach hatred to them.

Yep.


So we'll mandate that the government do the brainwashing instead.

Brainwashing is a strange word coming from a member of the GLBT community? How is it brainwashing? Isn't rather teaching the fact that theres "people who are different in various ways, and we shouldn't be bigoted assholes"?


I'd argue that racism is a far greater threat to civilized society than GLBT intolerance is any day. But did we have a racial tolerance curriculum in our schools to try and ward off the possibility of race riots?

We did, actually. Integration was part of it as were stories and books. We sure as heck learned about Harriet Tubman and George Washington Carver and MLK.


and it suggests role play in the section for K-grade 3 as a tool to point out how wrong it is to believe in stereotypes. Kids that age role play all the time, so the concept is not foreign to them and I seriously doubt any teacher would make a child do something he or she feels uncomfortable with. The curriculum does not call for kindergarden age kids to do sexual role reversal.

Edit I've also just looked up one of the suggested books, "Are You a Boy Or a Girl?" that the hate group criticizes. This book is about a tomboy, and how she fits into society.

Thank you Reine.

Veronica

[TGMarla]

Well, Veronica, I see you have your deeply ingrained opinions, and I have mine. And I have never denied that I'm conservative, either. Simply because left wing politics has incorporated GLBT issues into their platforms does not mean I agree with the rest of the platforms. I do not agree with this initiative, as it's swatting flies with a sledgehammer. This is what government always does, and it's a big part of the reason that when government tries to do anything, it often fails, and loses a whole lot of the taxpayers' money while they do it. If you want to argue that, just talk to any teacher about the "No Child Left Behind" initiative. Parents, whether you agree with them or not, have a right to decide what will be taught to their children. Teachers across this nation routinely indoctrinate children with a very liberal biases in their teaching, and many, if not most, parents have little control over that. And those same liberal thinkers label any groups that protest such teachings as "hate groups".

I realize I'm a small island in a large sea when I'm talking to people who have transgender issues. But I would not want my child participating in such curricular programs at age 5-7. Fine. Disagree with me. But I think this is wrong. And I think instead that a core program on tolerance given in a junior high or a high school setting is much more appropriate.

[ReineD]

And those same liberal thinkers label any groups that protest such teachings as "hate groups".

That would be me. :hiding:

I suppose I'm liberal thinking, but not because of a political ideology. I was, however raised in Canada which may be slightly more liberal than the US.

Politics aside, I had a life changing experience when I was 11. I and 3 others were chosen out of a group of thousands to represent Canada in an international summer village, a four week camp where four 11 year old delegates from each of 10 different countries lived and played together, despite all the language barriers. It was there I learned a fundamental life lesson ... we are all the same, no matter what we look like, what language we speak, or what God or not we believe in. This was a powerful lesson for an 11 year old. Later, when I was older, my unconditional acceptance of who others are, extended to their sexuality and then their gender.

It is this liberal view that I carry with me to this day and it is what enables me to be so accepting and supportive of my SO and everyone else in this forum. I also tried to raise my boys with the same spirit of tolerance and acceptance. I spoke to them from an early age about homosexuality. It came up when my oldest son's high school friend tried to commit suicide because he was gay. My other two sons were 11 and 6 years old. We talked about it after school one day. I didn't tell them they should be gay, I just told them there are people who are, they are vilified, and this makes it difficult for them to be themselves. I asked them to think about what it must be like to be born a certain way, through no fault of your own, and be hated for it. My oldest son then said it didn't matter to him whether his friend was gay or not. He just wanted to see him happy.

This is why I like the proposed Toronto curriculum so much. It is in keeping with core beliefs that I've had all my life, from even before I had any political awareness. I don't think Kindergarden age is too young to begin an awareness of basic human rights. In fact, teaching kids to be tolerant of differences should begin at an early age, before they've developed any bias from the rest of society. If you wait until college to teach these kids, often it is too late.

Marla .. you should look at the two books they suggest reading to the little ones, and tell me what you think of the books. :)

Edit - One last thought, Marla. Had we lived in a different world, where we were all taught from an early age the lessons I learned when I was young, do you think your wife would be more tolerant of who you are now? I don't want to put you on the spot but it is worth thinking about. :hugs:

[TGMarla]

I'm not singling you out on this, Reine. Never will, either. But there is a big difference in teaching tolerance for those who are different from you to a group of first graders, and teaching tolerance of GLBT people to them. Proper subject matter to kids of that age group would be better if it were presented in allegorical terms. For instance, the gray elephants had trouble accepting the white elephant with the red spots on him. Or how about reading "The Ugly Duckling" to them? Why do we need to subject kids who only learned to walk three or four years earlier to GLBT issues? They are not going to be able to relate to it. If we teach tolerance for those who are different (provided they don't seek to right those wrongs via violence) to our children, and leave gender and sex out of it, I think the whole issue goes away.

I was raised in a small subdivision where there was very little diversity in the residents living there. As a result, I grew up without any biases towards anyone. By the time I was subjected to racial prejudice, I already didn't hate minorities, and it was too late to ingrain any such teachings in me. Hatred is a learned philosophy. And I understand what the aim is here, to teach kids from a young age that people who are sexually different from the norm (gender, sex, whatever) are not to be hated, but accepted. Well then, at what age are we going to introduce human sexuality? Are we going to tell them that it's okay for men to have sex with other men if they want to, and then tell them that it's not okay for men to have sex with children? But then, if that child is 18 years old, then it's okay. But 17 is not......gee, it's getting pretty complicated for these five and six year olds already. By the way, just what is this sex thing you're talking about anyway?

If I'm a parent of such a child, I do NOT want the schools to be teaching my first grader about sex, sexual preference, gender diversity, or ANYTHING having to do with human sexuality. Not at that age. If you want to teach them that hatred of others is wrong, I'm fine with it. But the issues that they are broaching here are not for kids.

I have not had a chance to look at those books yet, Reine. But the other books I mentioned, for children this age, should do fine in lieu of anything that mentions GLBT issues.

[AllieSF]

Along the lines of ReineD's experiences, I was fortunate enough to have lived and worked for 15 years, 8 of those with my family in South America. My kids learned a foreign language at the same time they were perfecting their English. They learned new customs and cultures before they knew there was a difference. So, being exposed to and learning about the diversity of human beings in this world of ours is important starting from an early age, before they are exposed to the negative opinions of others. It would really be great if all parents would properly teach their own kids about life in general and the need for tolerance and the rights of people to be themselves. However, very few parents were able to do that well in my generation, because we were as a group never really exposed to the diversity which is everywhere around us. Hell, I just really started to discover things on the "T" side of life after I started dressing a little over 4 years ago. Therefore, with a properly developed and age appropriate program, I do believe that starting young is the best way to go. If they can be taught the truth early in life, they are then better equipped to deal with the misconceptions and bigotry of others in the future. Otherwise, they can easily turn into the unaccepting world that we currently live in. Race issues, diversity issues, civil rights issues should all be taught correctly in our schools to start to erase all the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings about those issues that we all absorbed during our own growing up years.

[ReineD]

But there is a big difference in teaching tolerance for those who are different from you to a group of first graders, and teaching tolerance of GLBT people to them.

I agree with you entirely. The instruction has to be age appropriate. I think the book for the Kindergarden age group is called, "Who's in a Family?" and it has illustrations about all different types of families ... grandparents & grandkids, single moms, single dads, nuclear families, professional moms, stay-at-home dads, multi-racial families with adopted kids, childless couples, a family of cats, a variety of ethnic groups, and yes, there is a picture of two moms and two kids. The book doesn't focus on the lesbian couple but rather includes it among the rich tapestry of all the other families. Chances are, there will be one child in the classroom with such a family.

I didn't like the way the people who object to the curriculum (I won't call them a hate group anymore :p) made it sound as if the intent was to go way over children's heads in their ad campaign. They did make it sound as if young children would be required to do sexual role reversal and I agree, it would not be a good thing to force a boy who thinks that all girls have cooties, to wear a dress and play with dolls. But I've no doubt the content of this program was put together with top educators who do understand what is age appropriate. If we trust them with knowing what is age appropriate for math and history, then why can't we trust they won't make kids feel uncomfortable?

I'd like to know if parents would be given a choice to have their kids opt out. If so, I imagine the vast majority of parents would keep their kids in the program ... unless of course they've seen the anti campaign, their heads are filled with misconceptions about what the program entails, and they don't take the time to determine for themselves exactly what it is about.

[kimdl93]

Last night was the first episode of Ken Burns "Prohibition" on Public TV. I see an interesting parallel with the foregoing discussion. In the run up to passage of the 18th Amendment, the WTCU tried to indoctrinate school age children against alcohol consumption....going to such extremes as suggesting that drinkers might spontaneously combust! Its common for groups objecting to sex education or education on tolerance tend to resort to similarly exaggerated rhetoric, and often remain conveniently ignorant of the actual content of the curricula they've object to.

[Annaka.Soren]

Hi Frederique.

I get that a serious social discussion is going on here but I'm really curious about what type of artist you are? More to the point I'm curious to know what you use visual expression for, as in the intent behind your work, are you talking about LGBT issues visually? Do you focus on presenting your experiences to others, that sort of thing. Sadly my newness here is stymying my attempts to look at your profile :(.

About your topic, I think humans are at heart pack predators, and they often feel a need to attack things and groups they see as weak. I suspect the only way to really over come this very disfunctional aspect of human behavior would be something along the lines of very early behavior interventions. TV/CD, gender non conformists look like a weak group, so I see it as natural to be attacked at times. I also see it as natural to fight back and with the intent of resolving this sort of eternal conflict, some good old fashioned "Its okay for anyone to wear what they like" would be appreciated, starting at birth, for everyone.

[Kaz]

We live in a complex global society that is enabling the expression of things that are trans-national and global. This will lead to cultural interpretations and we need to be both aware of them and to embrace them as elements that will build gobal awareness...

Freddie is quite rightly describing a local phenomenon.. this informs the way we think about ourselves and the way we position in terms of our outward expression. Freddie's post has caused me to think deeply about how we relate to others...

[drushin703]

frederique, your not in Kansas anymore:

You can, anywhere on earth , as a crossdresser, find restrictions and occlusion everywhere you turn. But you always say your an artist.By artist you
must mean a troubleshooter of line and color.Angular perhaps, against this mundane American grain.Every time you post, you can paint the most
vivid pictures.So why ever a discussion of what others might think of you? To quote you, "you have to put on that party dress, because lifes a party,
and you will perish if you dont get in touch with your precious true self"......The most unbridled poetry from one of this forums most unbridled thinkers.
I grew up far from Kansas, on a one way street on Detroits east side. Imagine a world, if you can, of church in one ear, damnation in another ear,
and good, christian folk who think that sissies are nothing more than the devils work personified. Try campaining your crossdressing cause to
todays, macho driven, testos enfueled, hip hop generation that is just, finally, coming to grips with its own demons of anger, violence against
women and homophobia. But Dana as a child and Dana now, likes to dress up in womens cloths. And because of this one fact, where ever I am,
I will never (fully) fit in. My story and your story are kinda the same...lol.


Ime a tranny. Call in the men with the precious stones, you know the ones with the majic charmes, who can envoke spirits, to remove from me
those ersatz souls who might disaprove of who I am..........dana

[Frédérique]

I realize I'm a small island in a large sea when I'm talking to people who have transgender issues. But I would not want my child participating in such curricular programs at age 5-7. Fine. Disagree with me. But I think this is wrong. And I think instead that a core program on tolerance given in a junior high or a high school setting is much more appropriate.

Rather than let education tackle this divisive issue, I would prefer to let the parents teach their children about gender issues, or issues regarding sexuality – since crossdressing is invariably linked with sexuality, I think it would be best if the parents took the lead in this department. However, this idea raises a few questions – what if the parents have no knowledge of alternative sexuality, or a compassionate understanding of the human condition? Ironically, lack of decent education in the case of the parents would lead to projecting the same stereotypes and prejudices onto their progeny, and ignorance would just keep rolling along...

Also, in order to learn something, a person (child or adult) should WANT to learn, or have the propensity to learn things. It’s no good pushing (forcing) thoughtful ideas about gender issues into someone’s head, or down their throat, if they don’t care about the subject to begin with. I think it’s safe to say that we live during a time when gender-specificity is barricading itself against the alternative tide – “they” feel threatened in some way, which is why we get the brush-off. Better (they say) to educate along the lines of what has gone before, keep true to a certain obsolete gender ideal, and maintain all of the ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity that humans hold dear. It’s sad, but that’s what we’re up against...

In this atmosphere of ignorance, a boy cannot wear a dress, even if he wants to. Perhaps one of his parents has heard of such a thing, but what if the other parent is dead set against his (or her) son expressing his “queerness?” Does the teacher, by way of liberal education, tell the boy he is expressing himself, and that it is a wonderful thing, while the parents no doubt fall back on what they were taught (i.e. nothing)? There are no easy answers, but in the town where I live CD’ing is a non-issue, and thus undeserving of education and/or funding. I think the idea of talking to 5-7 year olds about issues of alternative sexuality is much like talking to their parents about the same subject – neither group will be able to understand what you’re talking about, albeit for different reasons. Needless to say, a discussion about crossdressing without the usual side-trip into the wonderful world of homosexuality, or any “-sexuality,” for that matter, just wouldn’t fly. Some things don’t fall neatly into pre-arranged categories, or neatly laid-out prejudices...


The instruction has to be age appropriate. I think the book for the Kindergarden age group is called, "Who's in a Family?" and it has illustrations about all different types of families ... grandparents & grandkids, single moms, single dads, nuclear families, professional moms, stay-at-home dads, multi-racial families with adopted kids, childless couples, a family of cats, a variety of ethnic groups, and yes, there is a picture of two moms and two kids. The book doesn't focus on the lesbian couple but rather includes it among the rich tapestry of all the other families. Chances are, there will be one child in the classroom with such a family.

Out here on the prairie, a family will contain parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and even great-great grandparents. That’s four sets of elders influencing the young ones, and the latter will “see” what is expected of them all the live-long day. It’s grow up, get married, have children - any questions, my heterosexual child? In this context, this gender-specific atmosphere, can you imagine how unwelcome a book containing a lesbian couple might be? A homosexual male couple would surely not be seen, or addressed, and it follows that a family with a crossdressing boy or girl would not appear – well, maybe a tomboyish girl, but certainly not a boy...

This is a small town, and other towns with larger populations would have a greater likelihood of families with children who (at least secretly) entertain the idea of crossdressing. Issues, words, or depictions of sexuality are dealt with disappointingly around here – I’ve seen illustrations of nude sculptures or famous paintings ripped from books, and I’ve seen the word “faggot” scrawled on a page of a book that contains free-thinking as espoused by a cultured gentleman. The fact that the latter is (or was) heterosexual is of no consequence. In this context, I can’t imagine a book about this “rich tapestry” of families you refer to retaining all of its pages. In fact, the conservative censors would prevent such a book from being seen, while “Freddy Puts on HIS Pants” would no doubt be a best-seller...
:sad:


I get that a serious social discussion is going on here but I'm really curious about what type of artist you are? More to the point I'm curious to know what you use visual expression for, as in the intent behind your work, are you talking about LGBT issues visually? Do you focus on presenting your experiences to others, that sort of thing. Sadly my newness here is stymying my attempts to look at your profile.

I’m a visual artist, namely a painter/printmaker. I was an artist before I was a crossdresser, but both things spring from the same source, namely my sensitive nature. However, I keep my artwork and crossdressing separate – I may crossdress while I’m making my pictures, but I do not express my alternative nature openly in the latter. Of course, my desire to crossdress “comes out” in any visual presentation due to symbols contained within the work itself, but few have the ability (or interest) to “read” such things. Like on this site, I strive to be different through my artwork – there’s a constant need for expression, and I could couch my words in art-speak, but let’s just say I create things that I wish to see, or read, or feel, and crossdressing is all about feeling....

I’d be happy to send you a PM regarding this “arty” topic, once you get over 10 posts… :)

[LeaP]

The instruction has to be age appropriate. I think the book for the Kindergarden age group is called, "Who's in a Family?" and it has illustrations about all different types of families ... grandparents & grandkids, single moms, single dads, nuclear families, professional moms, stay-at-home dads, multi-racial families with adopted kids, childless couples, a family of cats, a variety of ethnic groups, and yes, there is a picture of two moms and two kids. The book doesn't focus on the lesbian couple but rather includes it among the rich tapestry of all the other families. Chances are, there will be one child in the classroom with such a family.

I didn't like the way the people who object to the curriculum (I won't call them a hate group anymore :p) made it sound as if the intent was to go way over children's heads in their ad campaign. They did make it sound as if young children would be required to do sexual role reversal and I agree, it would not be a good thing to force a boy who thinks that all girls have cooties, to wear a dress and play with dolls. But I've no doubt the content of this program was put together with top educators who do understand what is age appropriate. If we trust them with knowing what is age appropriate for math and history, then why can't we trust they won't make kids feel uncomfortable?


This is all very sensible and balanced. It begs the question of whether acculturation should a function of schooling at all, however. To be honest, I'm dual-minded on this - even with a viewpoint-neutral, age-appropriate approach. Do I trust educators to know and deliver age-appropriate material in topics like math and history? No, not really. We have 6 kids, several of which were home-schooled at different points in part due to considerations like this. Part of the problem is that schools are and perhaps must be reflective of BOTH local community and broader social concerns. As we all know, that is ultimately not reconcilable, certainly not to everyone's satisfaction. I'm far more libertarian than conservative per se. Tolerance is baked into my personality through and through. The children turned out pretty much the same way vis-a-vis tolerance. But not because they learned it sitting at teachers' feet.

There is a set of fairly universal civic values (I'm thinking U.S. here, though I'm sitting in Toronto at the moment!) on which there is sufficient agreement and historical weight that they can be inculcated in the schools as a result. To advance other, and controversial values is arguably propaganda, even if age-appropriate.

Lea