What Does the Tastein Style of TS Tell Us - Transsexuals Response Only Please

[Beth-Lock]

In short, there are transsexuals who enter via the CD route and are often late transitioners. There are also many TS who like, among other fashions, those of the 1950's and 1960's. This does not disprove that they are transsexuals.

[Badtranny]

Beth, you're implying that all TS women have some degree of consternation about how they should dress and it's just isn't true. I don't have any problems at all and essentially dress in the female version of how I've dressed all my life. Occasionally I'll dress up for fun or an event but I really give it very little thought outside of fashion and comfort.

Regarding my quote, you either misunderstood or are misrepresenting it. I dealt with an attraction to men that made me think I was gay. When I was a kid I thought I was gay because I wanted to be a girl, so you see I spent a lifetime running from the wrong thing. I tried being openly gay but it wasn't until that didn't work that I was finally confronted with my gender issues. As my therapist said, "it tends to mean something when little boys wish they were little girls". I started my blog when I started my transition and my comment about being the perfect girlfriend was not about clothes at all.

I was making the point that I was looking for the perfect girl who could cure me, but then finally realized that I wanted to BE the perfect girlfriend. With emphasis on BE and GIRLFRIEND. It was my surrender to my sexuality as well as my GID.

I have mentioned many times in my blog that I don't have a fetish or an interest in women's clothes outside of looking nice. I'm also on record as not cross-dressing until the year before my transition so please don't use my comments to support any argument about clothes. My blog is expressly NOT about clothes of any sort.

[I Am Paula]

I adore fashion. I can be hip, and downtown funky (age appropriate), or Ralph Lauren rural chic (I live in horse country). However, everything I wear is decade, age, situation appropriate. If I'm at the farmers market, I'll probably be in jeans. At an art gallery, I might be in a dress.
Personally, I've never met a transwoman who wanted to be June Cleaver. That, in my opinion, is the exclusive domain of cross dressers. I've never owned a garter belt, or seemed stockings, because I was born in the LATTER half of the twentieth century.

[Beth-Lock]

Personally, I've never met a transwoman who wanted to be June Cleaver. That, in my opinion, is the exclusive domain of cross dressers. I've never owned a garter belt, or seemed stockings, because I was born in the LATTER half of the twentieth century.

Thank you for restating in a different way what I already said in the openning post, except that some transwomen do like the styles of the 1950's, and likely go through a period of duplicating them. Since variations and close copies of some of those styles are still sold, and in mass produced quantity, so that they still have an attraction for GG's and TS, I would pronounce them as enduring, classics. When I rode by on the bus, a semi-elite high school in the 1970's, and saw the young women wearing the attrocious styles considered modern then, I felt really sorry for that generation. Still, I was a few years ago prepared to buy blue eye-shadow at the dollar store, (where it belongs), that was high fashion at that moment.
.. 1 1/2

[Michelle.M]

Didn't we just have this (now locked) conversation?

Let's acknowledge that some people are more oriented towards clothing and outward appearances than others. But the remarks in the book that is cited as a reference in the OP have crossdresser written all over them.

Yes, we do arrive here via several means of self-discovery. Like Misty, I never crossdressed, and only began wearing women's clothing when I began my transition. But this preoccupation with a certain stereotypical feminine image misses the whole point of what it means to be TS.

It's not about being pretty or fitting into a recognizable feminine image. That stuff went out with the gatekeeper paradigm. If someone feels comfortable and natural with this sort of presentation that's wonderful, but to imply that this is typical or expected is wrong and belies a lack of understanding of the underlying issues of transsexualism and trans issues in society.


My insight is that an analysis of why so many TS favour the styles of the 1950's and 1960's, leads one to a conclusion about the definition, or rather redefinition of gender, after the 1950's.

Um, I don't know anything about you or who you hang out with, but I don't know ANY trans women who favor the styles of the 50's and 60's - not even those who grew up during those times. This seems to be a CD-oriented thing.


So, what all TS have to realize is that the definition of "female gender" has changed a bit, but in a subtle and nuanced way . . . Getting mad about it does not help us understand this development in the redefinition of the concept of gender which affects TS so deeply.

I don't believe that the definition of "female gender" has changed at all. I don't believe there is any redefinition of the concept of gender, except to the degree that we, as trans folks, have extended the limits of how we see gender.

What has changed are notions about equality and the expectations of society as to what a woman should be. And what has changed even more is the degree to which modern women will tolerate the nonsense of those who still cling to those archaic expectations.

[I Am Paula]

The locked conversation was more about GG's dressing, but still. Move on...other than at Halloween, who the hell wants to wear anything but current fashion? Yes, poodle skirts and saddle shoes are still readily available. Wear them to the mall. Medieval garb is also available without too much searching, let's bring that back, and expect Joe Public to embrace us.

[Beth-Lock]

I am glad that you were able to change sex in a simpler, less complicated way than many, Michelle. What else can I say?

. . . . 2

[LeaP]

Beth, you've piled projection upon generality upon assumption.

. Who are these TS dressing under the influence of the 50's and 60's? I don't see them. Not here, not out and about when I clock the occasional TS, and not in support groups. In fact a LOT of TS mention their reluctance to wear dresses and skirts. I wouldn't dispute that there are many who don't know how to dress well (a category into which I fall), but that's ignorance and, in my case at least, still doesn't result in what you describe.

. The "women don't dress like women anymore" is common among CDs. TS, not so much. You are more likely to hear among TS that clothes don't matter. When the occasional TS comes along with a strong focus on clothing, it results in pretty heavy questioning about identity.

. I don't think the concept of gender itself has changed at all, even though behavioral norms have changed and broadened. Men still feel like men, women like women. This despite second wave feminists' attempt, repudiated by the younger feminists, to redefine it. Linguistic deconstruction is, in fact, the hallmark of second wave feminism as well as those influenced by it.

. Where are these women who deny that women are treated differently? Not here, where the testimony is the opposite. Again, you do hear it among the CDs, most as as an argument that since women have appropriated mens' roles, men should be able to appropriate womens'. My wife, children, siblings, and virtually every woman into which I've ever run complain of disparate treatment. Even those with a fundamentalist streak who preach wives being subject to their husbands complain about it privately. The ones claiming equal (or preferential) treatment of women are MEN.

I do think there has been a reassertion of femininity in the last 10-20 years, but I regard it as a more balanced counterweight to the aggressive feminism of the 60's into the 80's (or so). The major philosophical shift is from demanding equality on the basis of no difference (e.g., by recasting gender as learned), to demanding equality of treatment while recognizing gender differences. The second wave feminist agenda failed because it tried to reject biology and because it was always too confrontational, both of which run counter to our natural instinct to mate and seek harmony.

. Trans people do have useful cross-gender life experience, but I don't ever expect the general population to look to us to lead anything.

[Beth-Lock]

The locked conversation was more about GG's dressing, but still. Move on...other than at Halloween, who the hell wants to wear anything but current fashion? ... Wear them to the mall. Medieval garb is also available without too much searching, let's bring that back, and expect Joe Public to embrace us.

I don't think that was called for. I really enjoyed seeing Steve Smith's wife wear a poodle skirt, with a poodle picture right on the front, in the predecessor on tv to the Red Green Show, "Smith and Smith." LOL No, I won't hear talk of banning poodle skirts.

....2 1/2


Beth, you've piled projection upon generality upon assumption. .

I call it theory building and reconstruction. I did not say you had to agree with it.

. . . 3

[LeaP]

I call it theory building and reconstruction. I did not say you had to agree with it.

Fair enough. I don't find your premises compelling.

[edit] I see that a comment from a GG was apparently deleted. I understand, as the request was TS responders only, but I want to pick up on it because I think the comment was pertinent. That is, there is a huge difference between someone whose mindset is stuck in the 50s versus a return of fashion industry interest to prior eras.

[Marleena]

Hi Beth, you've covered a lot with your original post. I'll touch a bit on some of it.



. The "women don't dress like women anymore" is common among CDs. TS, not so much. You are more likely to hear among TS that clothes don't matter. When the occasional TS comes along with a strong focus on clothing, it results in pretty heavy questioning about identity.


Yes, the CD complaints are usually based on what they enjoy to wear and I see it as projecting. You know the whole sexy look based on what type of clothing turns them on. They are men and it's from a man's POV that is mostly into the clothing. Most of those comments are made by newer members that still find the clothing and image erotic in nature. I get why GG's and TS women can feel insulted by it.

I also remember a former TS member that was well into transition that felt uncomfortable about wanting to wear a dress for her SO. I was actually pushing her to go ahead with it. We shouldn't have to worry if it makes us appear less TS. I think all of us that are in some state of transition know it's not about the clothes. I've mentioned here before that I can wear a burlap bag since I've started transition and still feel right.

How one dresses should always be personal choice. If you get it wrong other women will let you know in some way anyways. The GG's know enough to dress appropriately for the venue. The (so called) dress code is set by their female peers mostly. There is nothing wrong with dressing for comfort.

I think that's enough from me for now and I won't change my mind and delete it.

[Beth-Lock]

...I see that a comment from a GG was apparently deleted. I understand, as the request was TS responders only, but I want to pick up on it because I think the comment was pertinent. That is, there is a huge difference between someone whose mindset is stuck in the 50s versus a return of fashion industry interest to prior eras.

I think I dealt with some of that in a post to the other thread, which I deleted when it looked like that was going rogue too. I did not notice the delete you refer to of the post by a GG.

Before this thread went rogue, I handled the comments of non-TS via polite PM to me, by perhaps adding the most important of their points to my post, and indeed, it profitted from re-editing to include one such addition. I would like to thank those who were polite and supportive. I will not re-visit this matter here, but am posting a different version of it elsewhere.

It is hard to remember when you are up to your elbows in alligators that originally you just wanted to drain the swamp department:


Hi Beth, you've covered a lot with your original post....Yes, the CD complaints are usually based on what they enjoy to wear and I see it as projecting. You know the whole sexy look based on what type of clothing turns them on. They are men and it's from a man's POV that is mostly into the clothing. Most of those comments are made by newer members that still find the clothing and image erotic in nature. I get why GG's and TS women can feel insulted by it.

Of course calling trans turned on by the sexy overtones of women's clothing "men" is deeply insulting to those who go on to become TS. Duck after you say that, you will start a bun fight. My intention was to try and offer some theory that would bridge the gap between the warring parties within the trans movement. Poor, little, naive me!


I also remember a former TS member that was well into transition that felt uncomfortable about wanting to wear a dress for her SO.t. P.S. I also went through a TS phase of being self-conscious wearing dresses. I think the worry was that I could not pull it off -- solved by buying dresses that fit better and suited me better, helped by a GG friend of those days..

[Kathryn Martin]

Beth, you're implying that all TS women have some degree of consternation about how they should dress and it's just isn't true.

I have a lot of consternation about how trans women dress. Most of the time I am blown away how badly dressed this community presents itself. (I should say that I am also blown away how badly many GGs dress.) For women with a transsexual history this is the killing grounds by the way. While GGs can get away with a lot, in my humble opinion we cannot, ever, because it distracts from our work, our personality, our life. I aim to be the best dressed female layer in my county for this reason.

I mentioned in the other thread that I often think: did you look in the mirror this morning before you left the house. By the way this is not a form of dress issue, it is a style issue. If you concentrate on being an attractive person, woman, man or teacup dog you should look around and to those that do it well and learn. Who doesn't want to look like Audrey Hepburn or my spouse Elizabeth, or my co-workes etc. they all happen to have an impeccable sense of style, and so do I.:D Always had, always will.......

[sandra-leigh]

The conceptualization of gender has changed, primarily since the early 1970's (http://www.du.ac.in/fileadmin/DU/Academics/course_material/hrge_04.pdf), with a lot of the key work apparently done in the mid 1980's and mid 2000's.

"Theory" needs to be able to encompass seemingly antithetical arguments, or else it needs to be able to make testable predictions that differ from the predictions of the alternative arguments, so that the truth of which is more accurate can be determined. It appears to me that the "theory building" that happened here was instead "hypothesis building". A "hypothesis" is less powerful than a theory, and might have obvious limitations, and yet might provide useful ways of organizing thoughts, possibly leading to extensions of the theory or refutation of the theory or just a usefully simplified method of dealing with useful cases.

If there is a clothing image that "turns on" some subset of GG, then I see no inherent reason why a TS might not be turned on by it without having their identity questioned. Is it expected, for example, that lesbians only bother with plain functional bras because "pretty bras are only for the purpose of attracting men" ?? It seems to me that TS ought to be allowed to enjoy being Femmes.

I have met one TS in transition who (in the small number of times I have seen her) only dresses in the cashmere sweater look of the 1950's. To my eyes she has looked a bit out of place, but it could be that she would wear something different "in public". There are other TSs that are almost always wearing "club dress" (gown-ish long dresses) when I see them. The way to learn is by doing; they will either change or the will "grow into it" to the point where such clothes "look natural" on them, just like after a time, a Goth look might look "right and appropriate" on a GG, in some subtle way a natural extension of them.

[LeaP]

Most of the time I am blown away how badly dressed this community presents itself. (I should say that I am also blown away how badly many GGs dress.)

Agree, though that's not the OP topic.




For women with a transsexual history this is the killing grounds by the way. While GGs can get away with a lot, in my humble opinion we cannot

Agree again. The scrutiny - and criticism - is far more intense. I'm regularly reminded of some particularly memorable presentations.




I aim to be the best dressed female layer in my county for this reason.



Oh my!

[Beth-Lock]

The conceptualization of gender has changed, primarily since the early 1970's (http://www.du.ac.in/fileadmin/DU/Academics/course_material/hrge_04.pdf), with a lot of the key work apparently done in the mid 1980's and mid 2000's. .

Thanks, I will take a look at that.



"Theory" needs to be able to encompass seemingly antithetical arguments, or else it needs to be able to make testable predictions that differ from the predictions of the alternative arguments, so that the truth of which is more accurate can be determined. It appears to me that the "theory building" that happened here was instead "hypothesis building". A "hypothesis" is less powerful than a theory, and might have obvious limitations, and yet might provide useful ways of organizing thoughts, possibly leading to extensions of the theory or refutation of the theory or just a usefully simplified method of dealing with useful cases..

Two brief points: I have not kept up with the philosophy, and whether logical positivism has had some sort of reincarnation -- the verifiablility theory that once was its foundation, had already been rejected when I studied it, fifty years ago. Of course, we are also talking about social sceince. My most personally influential psychology professor would dismiss the whole subject as unscientific, speculation, and signifying nothing. Problem is, these issues are hard to resolve in the best of times. I admire your courage in tackling them.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

[sandra-leigh]

With regards to "verifiability theory":

Scientists have been saying lately that "String Theory" is not a "Theory" because (A) it does not (yet) make any testable hypothesis; and (B) it has so many different ways of choosing the parameters of the theory, especially the number of different ways that the "6 extra dimensions" might be rolled up, that it is essentially not explanatory at all; it offers no suggestion for why one configuration might be favoured over another. (Though earlier this year, the first theoretically testable hypothesis of String Theory was announced, but the conditions under which it are testable are going to remain remote in practice for rather some time.)

[Beth-Lock]

It is interesting how the latest developments in theoretical physics are starting to give philosophical theories, (or if you prefer, schools of thought or their basic assumptions), that have been considered bizarre and discarded, a new lease on life. There are also some bizarre theories from others. Who would have thought J. W.Dunne, who thought there were extra dimensions in the physical world that we did not notice,but mignht really exist, might eventually seem to have something. (That pre-WW1 aeronautical engineer designed the first Canadian miliatry airplanes, or something, in addition to writng, "An Experiment with Time.")

Around the previous turn of the century a math savy philosopher, Bertrand Russell wrote a book explaining how things in the world were not relative, (The Foundations of Geometry), while an amateur theoretical physicist by the name of Einstein, came up with a different, opposite, mathematical theory so basic, it overlapped with philosophy.

We live in interesting times. Especially interesting if you have an open mind.

[stefan37]

What is the point of this thread? We all have our different thought of style. I happen to like wearing jeans and tee shirts, peasant style tops and flats, I have friends love to wear skirts and dresses with heels, My wife has her style that consist of nice pants or jeans and tops. Dress and style is all over the place and I think it has nothing to do with being ts. And I do not know anybody that goes out dressed like those styles in the 50's and 60's unless going to a costume party.

Some people like to dress classy and wear business dress clothes, others like to be casual or business casual. I was never one to dress and when i needed to wear a tie to work hated every moment of it.

[Kathryn Martin]

Oh my!

This either a reflection on how bad most women lawyers are dressed here or a reflection of my style. I would vote for the latter.

[LeaP]

As the OP has been gutted of its original substance, it's hard to see the pertinence of the foregoing rhetoric on theories and hypotheses. Comparing physics to a recasting of feminist thought and history, especially when concluded with a not-so-veiled comment on open minds seems a little over-wrought anyway.

In any event, how does any of this translate into "bridging the gap between warring parties"? Given the "new original post" are you really simply saying that having once identified as a CD or liking specific fashions doesn't invalidate transsexuality? OK, I agree. Neither does participating in Renaissance fairs or liking chicken salad. WHAT does the redefinition of gender have to do with your (new) proposition? Why does it require some kind of special open-mindedness to fresh theoretical approaches?

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Let's get back to the important topic of whether liking 1950's style prevents one from being transsexual.

[Beth-Lock]

Let's get back to the important topic of whether liking 1950's style prevents one from being transsexual.

Sorry. Serious discussion had to be abandonned when the thread went rogue due to flaming, and I pulled out. The thread seems to linger on, open, so you can still say what you want.

[mikiSJ]

I am 67 in two weeks. I grew up in the '50s, '60s and '70s and trust me - women look much better, much more feminine, much more comfortable in themselves today than back then. Why would I even want to go back to a time when women were designed to be objects rather than allowed to be themselves.

As kathryn states, so eloquently:


did you look in the mirror this morning before you left the house. By the way this is not a form of dress issue, it is a style issue. If you concentrate on being an attractive person, woman, man or teacup dog you should look around and to those that do it well and learn. Who doesn't want to look like Audrey Hepburn or my spouse Elizabeth, or my co-workes etc. they all happen to have an impeccable sense of style, and so do I. Always had, always will.......

[Marleena]

I
Of course calling trans turned on by the sexy overtones of women's clothing "men" is deeply insulting to those who go on to become TS. Duck after you say that, you will start a bun fight. My intention was to try and offer some theory that would bridge the gap between the warring parties within the trans movement. Poor, little, naive me!


Well Beth you can't win here really. You won't see long time members complaining about what women choose to wear. Anytime I've hinted that a CDer was moving beyond the fetish or erotic stage of dressing I was quickly reminded by them that they were indeed men. If they end up here as TS I see no reason for them to be upset either.


I also find it sad that you were forced to change the original post.

[Beth-Lock]

Well Beth you can't win here really. ... But at least you can avoid losing badly. As the King James version put it, "Be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."



Anytime I've hinted that a CDer was moving beyond the fetish or erotic stage of dressing I was quickly reminded by them that they were indeed men.

I can only rely on your on-the-spot judgement that they had moved on, though it is a process with many little steps, some even back, before going forward to be TS.


I also find it sad that you were forced to change the original post. I do too.

Hugs, Beth

[LeaP]

Once again, the rhetoric is flying a bit. No one forced anyone to change anything. I also think "flaming" too strong. First, disagreement isn't flaming. Nor even the wry poke here and there (e.g., Kaitlyn's). I might have worded the opening of my original response better, and I apologize if it offended, but I stand behind the substance of the rest of it. Really Beth – if you're going to put something out there you better be prepared for responses that don't necessarily track to your point of view.

I'm happy to engage those with whom I disagree. Though I can enjoy the debate itself, the fact is that it is often difficult to get beyond one's own point of view. Vigorous argumentation when people are open (as you indicated) is often the only way to break through. I expected substantive responses, not protests of nonsupport. I see things this way: your original OP had arguable premises, conclusions that didn't necessarily follow, and logic I didn't understand. You can call that flaming if you want, but you might have a different response if you try to repost or clarify your original thoughts rather than run away from the conversation entirely.

[Badtranny]

I also find it sad that you were forced to change the original post.

Whoa, I never asked anyone to delete anything. In fact I told her not to delete anything via PM.

I just didn't want to be quoted out of context. Everybody who follows me knows that I don't think clothes make the woman.

[Marleena]

Oh no.. I wasn't pointing fingers at all. I thought she was receiving nasty PM's that's all. It's all good.

[Beth-Lock]

Whoa, I never asked anyone to delete anything. In fact I told her not to delete anything via PM.

I just didn't want to be quoted out of context. Everybody who follows me knows that I don't think clothes make the woman.

I am sorry Melissa that I did not pick up quickly that you were one of the other categories, I mentioned that the book by Dr. Person identified.

By the time I got the PM, I had already deleted the quote. I am still not sure how I could have continued using that expressive quote, so it was just as well I deleted it all round. As I mentioned, I quickly thought of another thing from real life to illustrate the point, and it was no trouble to substitute it.

The rest of the deletions occurred, when my countdown of disatrous responses ran out. Some, I even gave the benefit of the doubt, by only counting them as half a point. In the end, the result was good, because nobody really disgraced themselves or got kicked off the site, due to flaming. Of course the original thesis did not get thoroughly discussed in this thread or the somewhat similar previous one, that got locked up beforehand. Perhaps it is just not a discussable, debatable issue in trans circles. Eventually the ideas I introduced may help somehow, to unite some factions of the trans groups, by building a bridge between their pet theories. I do think that the fact that a TS is interested in adopting quirky styles, does not mean they are not TS, and are phoneys. That is too simplistic. It may be their unconscious, distorts their inner voice, saying they are a woman, (and so, TS). You know how Freud thought the unconscious distorted some sexual ideas, so dreams featured a cigar instead. The quirky, and often sex-loaded concepts of being female and how to dress as female, are also projected in our decadent culture, especially by advertising that exploits them. They are easy to pick up on, and mistakenly treat as serious, crowding out healthier ideas of gender. Third possibility I raised, is to see how GG's as pre-teens often pass through a time of embracing quirky ideas of how to dress, as they start being young women. Should not TS, be tolerated when it takes them some time and failed experiments, (like GG girls/young women take), to pass through that stage, to a mature adjustment to being and dressing, as a woman? These ideas may help some. Obviously, they seem to just press the hot buttons of many. In time though, they might gain some acceptance. Then there would be "peace in our time," between the two factions.

[Angela Campbell]

There are transsexuals who enter via the CD route and are often late transitioners. There are also many TS who like, among other fashions, those of the 1950's and 1960's. This does not disprove that they are transsexuals.

I am still not sure I understand the intent of this post or what it is asking. It sounds to me like maybe you like the fashions of the 50's and 60's and want reassurance that this isn't a sign you are not transsexual. If this is what it is then don't worry about what others think.

A ts girls taste in style can be shaped by the years she was forced to live and present as a man. This is a very damaging thing and it keeps some from being able to see some things like a person raised as a girl can. It means little other than something we have to learn the hard way.

[Kathryn Martin]

Everybody who follows me knows that I don't think clothes make the woman.

I completely agree with you on this one. But as Desmond Morris observed being attractive definitely helps you to propagate your genes (or whould that be jeans....).

I am not going to bite on what makes a woman a woman though.....

Oh and love the sahion of the 40s and 50s and 60s and 70s, not the 80s, not the 90s, but since 2000 we are pretty much on track.

[Angela Campbell]

I know some girls who love the sixties and dress in hip hugger jeans with patches all over them and a tie dyed top.....wait I have an outfit like that too. I just wear what looks good on me I know nothing about style and really do not care to.

Oh and my genes have been propagated very well thank you!

[Frances]

I see a lot of confusion between gender identity, gender role, gender expression, gender performance in this thread. It's perfectly fine to expirement with clothing styles, whether age appropriate or not. It does not discount anyone's gender identity. Unfortunately, male gender markers are really powerful, and dressing like Lucille Ball will not help if they are obvious. I do not wear skirts and only put on dresses for Christmas, but when I go to bed naked at night, I know I am a woman.

I know one thing though, gender identity or the core essence of an individual does not change with hormones or surgery, and clothes do not reinforce or impede this identity or essence. Gender does not change with transition, only the sex of the individual.

[CarlaMichelle]

I've been following this thread and the other that was locked. One thought keeps coming up for me. At this site, about something that is outside the societal norm, we find debate about people in our own midst that are outside the norm here. Simply astounding. Everyone just wants to be accepted for who they are. Some of use need a little help to discover who we are, exactly, some know and are just being themselves. We all want acceptance and should be just as accepting of others.

This post is not directed at any one member but at all members. Get a grip. Everyone is different. No person is just like you, don't expect them to be, just accept them for who they are.

[LeaP]

LOL! Carla, I finding this thread more and more comical. This is one of those where no-one REALLY knows what it's about, what anyone is responding to, what's going on behind the scenes in the PMs, etc. I didn't see any indications of the angle you are bringing up ... but why not? It's all good.

[Marleena]

I'm sure I'm responsible for much of the confusion. Beth's thread gave me the opportunity to re-post what I had posted yesterday in another thread and deleted. I was encouraged to speak my mind. Wear what you want and carry on.lol.

[Angela Campbell]

LOL! This is one of those where no-one REALLY knows what it's about,

Thats ok I rarely know whats going on anyway

[kimdl93]

After reading Beth's OP, I was puzzled and looked up "Tastien Sytle" assuming it had something to do with how women dressed in the '50s. Then it dawned on me..."Taste in Style" I'm so embarrassed.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Hey a thread on Tastien Sytle would be more informative than this..

[arbon]

After reading Beth's OP, I was puzzled and looked up "Tastien Sytle" assuming it had something to do with how women dressed in the '50s.

I did the same thing :o .l..

[thechic]

I must say this thread is a interesting read, I was going to comment but forgot what this was all about. :eek:

[Beth-Lock]

After reading Beth's OP, I was puzzled and looked up "Tastien Sytle" assuming it had something to do with how women dressed in the '50s. Then it dawned on me..."Taste in Style" I'm so embarrassed.

It is not so easy to correct a typo in the heading for an initial post. I think I figured out how to do it once, but forgot it again now. Sorry - haste makes waste.

Whoopsie! I remember now. You switch to advanced edit mode. All fixed now.


I see a lot of confusion between gender identity, gender role, gender expression, gender performance... I guess my very long initial post was too long to go into more detail, but you raise an interesting point by listing the other factors which could be dissected out. Generally in my own analysis, I use the term "persona" to include both anima and animus, (female and male personality potentialities), so to speak adapting C.G. Jung's terms, and locus of control plus persona = gender performance, etc., in other words if you give control of your self to your female persona, you get female gender performance.


Unfortunately, male gender markers are really powerful, and dressing like Lucille Ball will not help if they are obvious. ..okay...


I know one thing though, gender identity or the core essence of an individual does not change with hormones or surgery, and clothes do not reinforce or impede this identity or essence. Gender does not change with transition, only the sex of the individual. I am on the nurture versus your position on the nature point on the spectrum of opinion on this topic. We shall simply have to agree to disagree.

[Kathryn Martin]

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Frances http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3315435#post3315435)
I know one thing though, gender identity or the core essence of an individual does not change with hormones or surgery, and clothes do not reinforce or impede this identity or essence. Gender does not change with transition, only the sex of the individual.


Originally Posted by Beth-Lock

I am on the nurture versus your position on the nature point on the spectrum of opinion on this topic. We shall simply have to agree to disagree.

So you are saying that as long as you learn to perfect your performance, you are a woman.... interesting. The paradigm of the ruse!

[Beth-Lock]

I realize it was a mistake to post this on this forum. Live and learn. But putting the usual suspects on my dink list, early on has helped. Still, I am afraid my optimistic opinions of how well this was working out, turned out to be wrong. More in sorrow than in satisfaction, I'll have to say, Bye, Bye.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

exactly Kathryn

Frankly, the idea being put forth in the OP here was a bit shall we say obtuse????
.... and the OP has not proved any point in any way at all.. in a true debate , blocking dissenting comments as "usual suspects" creates a bubble of self satisfaction...when the folks you haven't blocked raise their hands against it, your choice is to "dink" more people, or quit

The nature argument is boiled down to people pretending to be a woman because of events that happened in your life...if pretending to be female because xyz happened creates a positive quality life for you, I support you 100%...but that doesn't make you a transsexual , that makes you something else...and it means that if you are not in a position to transition (as a person that was theoretically driven to what you are calling transsexuality), then it implies conversion therapy is something that is doable...after all if you can be turned into a different gender role, then by definition you can reverse it...
..and in most cases, that would be preferable to blowing up your life and living it in the wrong gender...see Charles Kane..

[stefan37]

I just do not get the point of the post at all. People dress in all different clothing and styles and how one or the other has any effect on being ts or not is beyond my feeble mind. But then again I am sure many of you observing me for a week as I go about my day and life would tell I'm not ts either. We all want to live as ourselves and that mindset differs from one to the other. There are no norms when it comes to how we act. It is more societal socialization that determines if our behavior conforms or not to conventional gender behavior. I have been socialized and thrived living as a male for the better part of 55 years. Unlearning that social Indoctrination to live as a different gender does not come easily, esp when we throw in masculine physiology, cues, vocal box development and a whole myriad of issues.

But then again I get lost in heavy philosophical discussions on what it is to be ts. I know what I am and more importantly what I am doing and how positive the affects have had on my mental state.