The Difficulty of Acceptance

[Ms. Donna]

I’m trying something a little different here – please give it a chance.


Why is acceptance so difficult for us?


Not just self acceptance, but acceptance by others and for others.

We spend a lot of time on acceptance – usually in the form of confusion. We are confused about who we are – what we are – and why we are. We’re confused because we seem to lack a stabile identity – our anchor to reality.

Judith Butler makes an interesting observation regarding identity:


Inasmuch as “identity” is assured through the stabilizing concepts of sex, gender, and sexuality, the very notion of “the person’ is called into question by the cultural emergence of those “incoherent” or “discontinuous” gendered beings who appear to be persons but who fail to conform to the gendered norms of cultural intelligibility by which persons are defined. [Gender Trouble, p.17]

Sex, gender and sexuality should be stabilizing constructs – and they are as long as you are a male man attracted to female women or you are a female woman attracted to male men. The ‘gendered norms of cultural intelligibility’ only allow one accepted identity: Heterosexual – in its strictest definition. To identify as anything else is to render yourself as cultural intelligible – unable to establish a firm footing in the reality of society.

Heterosexual here goes beyond the compatibility of plumbing. It sums up in one very potent cultural signifier everything that we are expected to be. It makes no allowances for variation or diversity – it is quite specific. One is recognized as ‘valid’ only insofar as one adheres to the definition.

The immediate argument to this, I suspect, is the apparent acceptance of homosexuality in society today. True, there seem to be a better climate now than in the past, but is it really acceptance? Butler comments:


What remains “unthinkable” and “unsayable” within the terms of an existing cultural form is not necessarily what is excluded from the matrix of intelligibility within that form; on the contrary, it is the marginalized, not the excluded, the culturally possibility that calls for dread or, minimally, the loss of sanctions. Not to have social recognition as an effective heterosexual is to lose one possible social identity and perhaps gain one that is radically less sanctioned. The “unthinkable” is thus fully within culture, but fully excluded from dominant culture. [Gender Trouble, p. 77]

Butler’s point is an interesting one. It is not that “incoherent” or “discontinuous” gendered beings are excluded so much as they are marginalized. Anyone who is non-conforming is still “fully within culture, but fully excluded from dominant culture” – they are a part of and yet separate from society as a whole. Gays do not have true ‘equality’ in society – if they did, there would be no reason to differentiate them as ‘gay’. They ‘enjoy’ a marginalized status – not as bad as some – but marginalized nonetheless.

What is it then that we want when we want acceptance? We want to move from a marginalized position in society into the dominant sphere. With self acceptance, our goal is to stop self marginalization – to stop treating ourselves as second-class citizens. We have internalized the construct of the ‘Heterosexual’ as the social archetype, recognized ourselves as “incoherent” by comparison, and declared (marginalized) ourselves as less that those who ‘make the cut’.

Acceptance by others is nearly the same with one additional component. Recognition and acceptance by another – especially an SO – of someone “discontinuously” gendered calls that other person’s identity and being into question. What does it say about their sexuality? E.g.: Many wives fear a loss of and reclassification of their social identity by admitting that they have a cross-dressing husband. Many are afraid of being identified – both by themselves and others – as lesbian: which by all accounts still is considered a radically less sanctioned social identity.

So, just what does it mean to accept oneself – or another – as a culturally unintelligible, incoherent and discontinuously gendered being?

With such narrow confines in which to establish a coherent and continuous identity, it is any wonder we spend our lives fighting for acceptance?


Love & Stuff,
Donna

[Cathy Anderson]

Donna,

1. I think one issue is that gender nonconformity upsets basic gender schemas. In general, people seek simple schemas and avoid changing them if they can. We see this all over--for example, in cultural tension between the West and Islam.

2. While simple schemas are limiting, it is possible that they are to some degree necessary for constructing a consensual "reality" necessary for society to operate.

3. That said, and curiously, the net effect of the revolution in electronic communication seems to be greater homogenization, rather than diversification, of shared schemas.

I also agree with Butler that gender nonconformity tends to undermine others' (and our) basic sense of identity and for that reason is met with special hostility.

Actually, I think gender and sexual preference operate differently here and should be considered separately. Society tolerates gayness, because it fits a separate, definite schema. TG people actually become less threatening to social schemas/identity if they are gay, IMO.

Cathy

[Jerry]

Wow, gals. I'm impressed with the deep thoughts.

I'm a simple gal with a few statistics courses behind her. We are a rare breed. On the normal distribution curve we are a tail item. A solid 6 or 8 sigma.

When you are a very small minority you can't help but feel different. As social creatures, I think it's appropriate for us to want to feel included with the "rest of the crowd".

The world is getting more sophisticated due to technology such as this. In time we will be accepted. But keep the faith. In many cases, with scarcity comes value!

Hog hugs
Jerry

[Ms. Donna]

Actually, I think gender and sexual preference operate differently here and should be considered separately.

I agree that they operate differently. However, if one looks at what what is to considered as culturally intelligible - i.e. valid - there is only one 'officially sanctioned' way to be.

The effect of queering sex, gender or sexuality moves us out of the domain of culturally intelligible - making us “incoherent” or “discontinuous” to society as a whole.


Society tolerates gayness, because it fits a separate, definite schema.

Tolerates, but does not accept. There is no 'straight rights' movement because 'straight' is the dominant culture. If homosexuality were truely accepted, it would cease to be set apart as homosexuality, instead simply becomming a part of sexuality as a whole.


TG people actually become less threatening to social schemas/identity if they are gay, IMO.

Because as a society, we have learned to tolerate 'gayness'. Classifying transpeople as 'gay' makes us something 'familiar' - while at the same time further marginalizes us as it takes away any 'true' identity we might have and replaces it with another.


Love & Stuff,
Donna

[GypsyKaren]

Hi Donna

Good thread. I had trouble accepting myself because for to long I felt like a freak of nature, and feared I'd be treated cruelly and as an outcast. This caused me to hate and despise myself, something I got to be good at. It got me to chasing my tail, so to speak, and I kept getting nowhere in a hurry. I grew up in the '60s, back then us trannies were alone and off the radar. There were no support places, no internet, no information, just an aloneness.

I finally got to a point where I couldn't go on anymore, it was make or break for me, so I decided to accept myself for who I was, and let Karen run the show. This gave me the strength to come out, first to my Kat, and since then to many others. This allowed me the freedom to love myself, which then gave me the ability to feel like I deserved the love of others. With this love I now feel like a complete person with an open heart, and I feel "right".

We can't deal with acceptance because of fear and the feeling that we should be shunned by society. Let's face it, trannies are grouped together with perverts and peeping toms and such, because society has such narrow views on everything, and makes little or no effortto understand or appreciate the differance in others. That's really quite a shame, and their great loss.

Karen

[Ms. Donna]

Hi Karen,

It was the mid 70's to the mid 80's for me and ditto no support places, no internet, no information, just an aloneness. Ditto getting nowhere fast. I hated myself and what I did to the point of seriously contemplation about cutting my losses early.


We can't deal with acceptance because of fear and the feeling that we should be shunned by society.

Which is why all the laws and such will never get up acceptance. Tolerance maybe - but not acceptance.

We don't even realize that we marginalize ourselves. For example: We go shopping and lie about our purchases. Why? Why do we care what the salesclerk thinks? Why is it so hard to pick up a pair of panties and pay for them? What is it in ourselves that makes us feel that we shouldn't be allowed to do this?

We have internalized this 'ideal' - which is nothing more than one possible interpretation of how we should be - and accepted that because we do not measure up, we are not entitled to be a part of the dominant culture.

Yes, the 'gendered norms of cultural intelligibility' are narrowly defined, and yes, will be and are marginalized as a group. But we do not have to do this to ourselves as well.

Until we as a group can accept ourselves, we can not expect that society will make any progress towards the same.

Love & Stuff,
Donna

[Deborah]

My quick answer:
Because society views us as a bunch of pansy ass fairies who prance around in dresses and do perverse things with ourselves. Media is showing us to be that way so that must be the way that we are right?

It's not like we're fighting that image.

[Julie Avery]

Great thought-provoking thread, which deserves more reflection than I've yet given to it. I should also say that I'm unfamiliar with Butler, and really have never been properly introduced to the whole literature within which he's situated.

But fools rush in where angels fear to tread, otherwise I'd have to take a vow of silence ;) so here goes

I'll just select two interesting points that I have doubts about, and limit what I say right now to those.

First, Donna's point (taken from Butler?): "Many wives fear a loss of and reclassification of their social identity by admitting that they have a cross-dressing husband. Many are afraid of being identified – both by themselves and others – as lesbian"

I just intuitively suspect that the vast majority of wives of CD's never see their partner as female no matter how often they see the partner dressed and now matter how well the partner dresses. So I suspect that the lesbian issue doesn't really come up for them, I suspect that's more something that a crossdresser would think a wife might think. I think the real issues wives struggle with are more oriented toward simply the social stigma attached to crossdressing, in addition to individual relationship issues they may have with CD partners such as narcissism, fears of infidelity, etc.

Second, Cathy's point that "the net effect of the revolution in electronic communication seems to be greater homogenization, rather than diversification, of shared schemas." This was certainly true of the media of mass communication, radio, cinema, television, homogenizing culture.

But this overlooks the way the internet has enabled people who thought they were virtually one of a kind to find and interact with thousands of others like themselves. This enablement, to my mind, has had a tremendous, radical impact on the lives of the marginalized - though not, perhaps, on the culture as a whole. And there's no going back, for those who have come to realize they're not alone and they're not monsters - the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

So Cathy's point may well be true, but leaves out something essential, to my mind.

Thanks to all the contributors to this thread. If it enables me to sharpen one pixel in the picture of what's up with this crossdressing thing, and if I can sharpen one pixel a week, one of these days something's going to come into focus!

[sherri]

Great thread, really interesting posts. Of special interest is the notion of residing in a culture but being marginalized. Who knows, though, what the long-term (multi-generation) effect will be of the assimilation of gays, TGs, single parents, etc? Some long-term morphing may take place.

As to what acceptance actually is and how it might play out, I just posted a lengthy, um, diatribe in this thread:
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26774
I'm not sure if forum etiquette smiles on multiple posting, so if you're interested you might take a look.

Thanks for the thread.

[Ms. Donna]

I should also say that I'm unfamiliar with Butler, and really have never been properly introduced to the whole literature within which he's situated.

Judith Butler - Within the confines of the "gendered norms of cultural intelligibility," you had a 50/50 shot. :p


First, Donna's point (taken from Butler?): "Many wives fear a loss of and reclassification of their social identity by admitting that they have a cross-dressing husband. Many are afraid of being identified – both by themselves and others – as lesbian"

I just intuitively suspect that the vast majority of wives of CD's never see their partner as female no matter how often they see the partner dressed and now matter how well the partner dresses. So I suspect that the lesbian issue doesn't really come up for them, I suspect that's more something that a crossdresser would think a wife might think. I think the real issues wives struggle with are more oriented toward simply the social stigma attached to crossdressing, in addition to individual relationship issues they may have with CD partners such as narcissism, fears of infidelity, etc.

The observation is mine but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have made it.

You are correct that our SOs struggle with the social stigma attached to crossdressing. But what does thet say about them? How do our actions reflect on them and their position in society?

Read my post to the thread Why are GG's unaccepting? (http://crossdressers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=315213)

In short (taken from said post): our wives want someone who will enhance their status in their world. For a straight married woman, a crossdresser or TG simply does not provide that support.

Or, to use Butler's language: they lose one social identity only to gain one that is radically less sanctioned.

Bottom Line: We drag 'em down with us. (No pun intended.)


But this overlooks the way the internet has enabled people who thought they were virtually one of a kind to find and interact with thousands of others like themselves.

Marshall McLuhan's global village has finally been realized.

We all 'know' about one another and that we are all in the same boat around the world. Other than that, our 'status' in society has remained largely unchanged.

Perhaps Deborah summed it up best:


Because society views us as a bunch of pansy ass fairies who prance around in dresses and do perverse things with ourselves. Media is showing us to be that way so that must be the way that we are right?

It's not like we're fighting that image.

But we do whinge about it an awful lot...


Love & Stuff,
Donna

[Maria D]

I think it's logical that we focus on gender, sexuality and gender roles as marginalising influences, because those are our issues, but doesn't society marginalise, stigmatise or point at most differences that are in a minority?
Is it really about gender as being discussed, or is it about being different in a non or barely tolerated way, whatever that is? Someone with different coloured eyes is probably going to get stared at to an uncomfortable extent. Perhaps not affected by most people, but there are those that would shout 'freak', just as we get affected.
I think in general it's a human thing.

Take care :)

[Ms. Donna]

I think it's logical that we focus on gender, sexuality and gender roles as marginalising influences, because those are our issues, but doesn't society marginalise, stigmatise or point at most differences that are in a minority?

Absolutely. Butler is writing specifically within the sphere of sex/gender politics, but the construct can be applied to any marginalized minority group who can be viewed as “incoherent” or “discontinuous” with regards to the norms of cultural intelligibility for that group.


Is it really about gender as being discussed, or is it about being different in a non or barely tolerated way, whatever that is?

Again, Butler is addressing sex and gender specifically, but as a general theme, you're right. There are cultural norms for nearly everything - and to present in a way which is counter to that renders you as “incoherent” and therefore marginalized.

A non-gender example of this could be a group who practices a 'non-standard' religion. One could list what are the major recognized religions and consider those to be the 'culturally intelligibility' religions. In general, we tend to view (i.e. marginalize) the 'fringe' religions groups - those who do not practice some 'accepted' religion - much the same way we ourselves are marginalized. While we will tolerate their beliefs, chances are we will not accept them as truely 'valid'.

More than likely, we'll consider them as 'kooks', which - incidently - is how we tend to be viewed as well. :mad:

Love & Stuff,
Donna

[Stacy_CD]

Everybody and their mother wants to be perceived as attractive. Thus, when society encourages males and females to mould their personalities (and looks) into somewhat generic "types" that are portrayed as attractive to the opposite sex... Well, the constant reinforcement will cause people to actually think along those lines. For example, males / females often will date based only on what somebody looks like; if society tells them they should be attracted to that, many people often think they are without really checking themselves. Thus, typical masculine / feminine traits are created, and you are supposed to be one or the other, and attracted to one or the other.

It's also a world where people fear being alone, or unaccepted as well. So most take the safe route in order to ensure this won't happen to them. A large portion of society has low self esteem as well. So people will often make fun of what's different or outside these boundaries in order to make themselves feel better. It can be a frightening thing to be laughed at at all! It is an even more frightening thing to go outside of societal boundaries, and risk being looked at as a freak, pervert, etc. I mean, who wants to be the outcast of the group who others laugh at, and all alone.

Fortunately, not everybody's like that. You're allowed to develop your own way of looking at things! Once you can get away from those boxes, fears and low-esteem, then self-acceptance is on it's way. Acceptance can be contagious as well. Hopefully one can be a lot happier if he / she can learn to develop their own expectations and ideas about things instead of taking society's cookie-cutter molds!

-Stacy

[Bernice]

Wow Stacy_CD! For a newbie on the forum, your second ever post is remarkable in many ways. Sounds like we have a lot to learn from you! I'm looking forward to this!

In fact, your post is so good, I think I'll just say dittoes!

Hugs,

Bernice

[Dizzy GG]

I have found this thread fascinating to read, Thank you. Most of it I need to just read and reflect on as it helps me to put together the "big picture" on my journey as an SO.

Just a comment on something Julie Avery said-quote


First, Donna's point (taken from Butler?): "Many wives fear a loss of and reclassification of their social identity by admitting that they have a cross-dressing husband. Many are afraid of being identified – both by themselves and others – as lesbian"

I just intuitively suspect that the vast majority of wives of CD's never see their partner as female no matter how often they see the partner dressed and now matter how well the partner dresses. So I suspect that the lesbian issue doesn't really come up for them, I suspect that's more something that a crossdresser would think a wife might think. I think the real issues wives struggle with are more oriented toward simply the social stigma attached to crossdressing, in addition to individual relationship issues they may have with CD partners such as narcissism, fears of infidelity, etc.


I agree that the majority don't see their partners as female but the lesbian issue does arise to some extent.If we are attracted and happily in a relationship with a male who has some female identity, it will be different positions along the scale for all of us, then we must question our sexuality even if it is only a passing thought.

However I think for many it is as Julie says and to a large extent it is about social acceptance. We find ourselves in a place we have never been, one you have all had to battle with all your lives.It is reality that when the majority of society meet Crossdressers from then on that is the first thing they think of when they see them. Not what a great neighbour you are, or a professional workmate etc. Our place as GGs becomes yours too, that society judges us by the dressing first and not our worth as a person. Is that right, of course not, is it everyone, well, no it isn't, but for many of us GGs that is the biggest hurdle as we want to "fit in" within society as we always have and suddenly we may be in a totally different place.

I for one have discovered a wonderful person and would never go back to before I met my SO but I'm realistic about the demons Istruggle with at times.

Keep posting debate,it's far more interesting for me than pantyhose! lol

[Adrienne Heels]

The problem is that so many people will judge you based on your outward appearance and not on the person that you are. Let's face it, most of us will look at a guy wearing an old flannel shirt and sloppy beard and think "yuk, a slob". As a result, a CD who gets read is obviously gonna be thought of as totally strange and marginalized.

It is going to be a long slow process for acceptance because we are so far from the accepted norm of male behavior. Probably not in any of our lifetimes. But there will always be those who are willing to accept us for what we are inside, however they may be few and far between.

If we can accept ourselves for what we are and keep a positive attitude, then those who are of an accepting mindset will feel more comfortable in letting us fit into their world. And just maybe there are more of those type of people out there than we think.

I was in a nice upscale consignment shop I have been stopping in once in a whiile the other day browsing and trying on some heels and jewelry while in drab. The people working there were very accepting as I came out to them when one lady approached me the first time I went in. There were a couple of GGs in there shopping and it didn't appear to bother them at all. So maybe there is hope!!

[Ms. Donna]

Hi Stacy,

Excelent post!


Everybody and their mother wants to be perceived as attractive.

True. What nobody ever considers is why? What is it that drives this?


Thus, when society encourages males and females to mould their personalities (and looks) into somewhat generic "types" that are portrayed as attractive to the opposite sex... Well, the constant reinforcement will cause people to actually think along those lines.

There is beauty in the World only to the extent that have put beauty into the World. What we preceive as 'beautiful' is an interpretation of the world - only one possible interpretation.


For example, males / females often will date based only on what somebody looks like; if society tells them they should be attracted to that, many people often think they are without really checking themselves.

This is because we have so completely internalized what amounts to an arbitrary morality - an interpretation of our experiences in the world and the classification of them so as to support our existence in a seemingly positive way.


Thus, typical masculine / feminine traits are created, and you are supposed to be one or the other, and attracted to one or the other.

We have internalized this arbitrary morality to such an extent that we can not see that all of this is a social construct: right & wrong, beautiful & ugly, and especially how people should 'be' - all formed over such a long time that we mistake this all for something 'natural'.

As you pointed out, we feel we are supposed to be one or the other, and attracted to one or the other.



It's also a world where people fear being alone, or unaccepted as well. So most take the safe route in order to ensure this won't happen to them. A large portion of society has low self esteem as well. So people will often make fun of what's different or outside these boundaries in order to make themselves feel better. It can be a frightening thing to be laughed at at all! It is an even more frightening thing to go outside of societal boundaries, and risk being looked at as a freak, pervert, etc. I mean, who wants to be the outcast of the group who others laugh at, and all alone.

You are correct that no one wants to be an outcast or on the 'fringe'. By and large, no one actually chooses to be there - we seem to fine ourselves there seemingly through no fault of our own. Those in the dominant sphere of society have the social power while those who are marginalized do not.

In our case, it is our inability conform to the 'gendered norms of cultural intelligibility' that set us apart - that marginalize us - that label us as 'freak, pervert, etc.'


Fortunately, not everybody's like that. You're allowed to develop your own way of looking at things! Once you can get away from those boxes, fears and low-esteem, then self-acceptance is on it's way.

While one can and does develop individual views, that alone does not change our status as a marginalized group. In fact, those in the dominant sphere will use our individual views against us specifically because they do not mesh with those of the majority.

Belief if not enough,


Acceptance can be contagious as well. Hopefully one can be a lot happier if he / she can learn to develop their own expectations and ideas about things instead of taking society's cookie-cutter molds!

In an individual level, I think most of us get to this point - it seems to take a while (took me some 25+ years) - but we do get there. The trick now is to become culturally intelligibility, to gain acceptance - not tolerance.

We need to come together as a group and demonstrate our self acceptance and unity, and show that cookie-cutter one size fits all view just doesn't work.

Love & Stuff,
Donna