The T-Girl Dilemma

[Michelle Hart]

I read this on URNA.COM (http://journal.urnotalone.com/75185-632217) and was really impressed by It. I feel like it really aplies to to us, maybe not for obvious reasons. We all want to look our best and this sums up some of the crazy things we have to deal with. I highlighted the blue portion because it really hit me hard and made me realize somthing in my own life.


It begins the same way for all of us … something doesn’t feel right about our masculine gender for one reason or another and the second we embrace the feminine side of ourselves, we experience a bona fide electric shock … and everything feels natural. To some degree, this is where the similarities between all of us begin. Unfortunately, it’s also where a lot of those commonalities end. What I am referring to is what I call “The T-Girl Dilemma”.

It’s something I’ve thought a lot about – and it’s the subject of what I think is an extremely important blog. I was talking with a group of girls at First Event recently. We were discussing ourselves, how we looked … and how others looked. While much of what was said was complimentary, there were some negative comments made about some of the other girls.

It got me thinking. Why does the t-girl community fight so hard for rights and acceptance … only to turn around and not accept each other on the basis of how we look? That’s the basis of the dilemma … we clearly have some unwritten pecking order based on our appearance. I’ve seen and heard it be downright mean at times. It bothers me. We all begin at or around the same place – getting in touch with our feminine side. And then some of us search for more than that and we find out we’re not alone (unintentional pun, but a good one nonetheless) and there are others seeking the same thing.

Ultimately, that’s when the competition begins. Who’s hair is better? Who’s clothes are better? Who’s boobs are real? Who’s on hormones? Who can pass? And the class system begins to rear it’s ugly head. And when it does, it can leave girls broken. Here’s something I believe in my heart – I have yet to encounter a t-girl who cares about the feminine side of things more than I do. There isn’t a t-girl out there who cares about portraying (and honoring) the feminine package more than me.

While some readers will understandably disagree, it’s the way I feel inside and you will never convince me otherwise - just as I will never know exactly how you feel. It’s just the way it is. But this means everything to me. I put those convictions down on paper to prove a painful point: A year or so ago, I overheard a “friend” of mine on the phone.

She was talking to my best friend. The call happened to be on speaker … not for any other reason than my friend was driving and it was safer for her to keep both hands on the wheel. Out of the blue, my “friend” on the other end of the phone says to her, “you look great … but we need to work on Danielle.” I froze. It was painful, horrible and terrible. This was a person I respected.

She’s full-time and fairly pretty and her opinion meant something to me. And her opinion of me was (evidently) not good. When you care about THIS as much as I do and you hear something like that about yourself … it sucks. It would have broken a lot of people. I know this because I’m a pretty strong and confident person and even I had a period where I wondered if I was fooling myself. I wondered if the pretty girl I saw in the mirror was a figment of my imagination. Was I a joke? I love women. I love them so I much I became one.

So learning I was nothing more than a bad caricature of a woman is the last thing I would ever want to happen. But there it was – the beat down of one t-girl by another … in all it’s brutal glory. I’ve been on the other end, too. Going out to straight clubs and restaurants can be challenging (so is the mall). There’s a premium on “passing” or coming damn close. I’ve been out to straight clubs with other t-girls who may not have fit the feminine ideal quite as well as some others. Because of this, there was a movement to not have those girls come out the next time we were going to those kinds of places.

It’s pretty lousy, isn’t it? Not wanting a “friend” to come along because of the way they look? I didn’t originate those thoughts, but I didn’t do anything to stop them either – and it makes me feel bad when I think about it. More victims of the tgirl class system, to say the least. And that sucks. Thing is, I can see both sides. I was talking with a beautiful t-girl on-line the other day.

I was beginning to formulate this post in my head and I happened to ask her about the t-girl dilemma … and her response summed up the other side of this situation: “I’ve worked my ass off for 10 years to be what I am today,” she said.

“More than anything, I wanted to be a girl. So I transitioned – hormones, implants, surgeries and in the course of all of that I worked my ass off and went through a lot of BS – telling my family, getting a new job, starting over as a female. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done and it’s also the most rewarding. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be compared to a guy who puts a dress on every couple of months for a kick. That’s a fetish. I’m a woman. Those two things aren’t even in the same ballpark.”

Pretty compelling – and understandable. So on and on it goes. Should it stop? I don’t know. I know that we – as a group - work so hard every day as we fight for acceptance in society – and I know it frustrates me that we then turn around and tear each other apart. We claim solidarity, yet we often practice the opposite. I believe this is wrong. I also believe there are distinct differences in what we all want from our t-girl lives.

Therefore, just as it’s wrong to tear each other down, it’s also wrong for those struggling to achieve a truly feminine appearance to expect the same level of acceptance in mainstream society as their more “advanced” sisters. It would be great if we lived in an all-accepting society, but we don’t - and it’s impractical to demand that acceptance from a stranger. The world doesn’t work that way. I realize there are far more questions than answers in this post. I don’t claim to have the answer. This is simply something that has been on my mind. I believe it’s worth talking about. If you feel the same, let me know what you think by leaving a comment or sending me an email. Thank you very much for reading this.

xoxoDanielle

Pretty compelling and insightful exelent job!!

[deja true]

This makes me really sad after all the talk of "unity". I can't quite think what to say. I think I'll read this over a time or two and see if I can put into words what a blow like this feels like to me.

Oh!

deja

[Michelle Hart]

For me it was like god are we really that bad?

We all work so hard at perfecting our image, sitting just right, saying the right words, dressing apropriatly and on and on. Then when one of us makes it all the way or is farther along we don't want to associate with the "little people".

I feel like every one of us has done this, me included. It's one thing to think it but so much worse to aactually voice it.

It could start of so innocintly, How do I look? OH you look great BUT.......

At that point some poor girls world just got crushed.

The flip side is that some just don't care how they look and "the world be dammed" attitude just flies in your face.

With so many differing veiws and beleifs how can any of us judge another but how can we not??

It makes me sad.....

[LilSissyStevie]

It sounds a lot like how the women I work with talk about each other -- especially the one who isn't there.

[Kate Simmons]

Pretty profound stuff. For myself it's all about self expression and the freedom to do that and once it ceases to be fun, it becomes a chore and a burden. Men are competitive by nature and there is more than enough of this nonsense in the world at large. One reason I do this is get away from all of that absurdity.

I have very little patience or time for those who consider themselves "superfine crossdressers" or "grande dame" CD's who are going to try to tell everyone how to act or what to look like because if we don't "look" and "act" a certain way we make it bad for the "cause" because we are representing CD's everywhere and if we want acceptance, we can't look "bad".

Get real. I personally don't see and never have seen an "army" of CD's out there backing me up when I go out anywhere and have always basically been on my own. Most of us are and we sink or swim on our own "merit" really unless we go along with our friends or a group. Even then I'm proud to associate with my friends regardless of appearance because they at least had the guts to be themselves and do this.

In all honesty this kind of stuff is lost on me. "Pecking orders" and "hierarchies" have no value to me and I look at the people not the clothes. We keep complaining that we have no acceptance by society and they look down on us, yet we tend to do the same thing within our own ranks and that is ridiculous. The value of being an individual cannot be over stated and our quest by it's very nature has to be an individual one to seek out who we really are, otherwise we become like Borg drones merely going through the motions or becoming a clone of someone else.

Of course everyone is always free to express themselves the way they please but so called "CD standards" do not hold water and anyone who really believes this stuff is being self deceptive. Nothing wrong with offering constructive comments when asked for of course but that is where it ends for me. I'm more concerned with my friends being free to be themselves and that is what it is all about as far as I'm concerned.:happy:

[Nicki B]

It would be great if we lived in an all-accepting society, but we don’t - and it’s impractical to demand that acceptance from a stranger. The world doesn’t work that way.

Well the world's certainly not gonna change, if we all stick by those rules... :sad:


If gays had followed that, they'd all still be in the closet, or prison - instead, they said "stuff you - this is who we are. If you don't like it, that's your problem."

[Mary Morgan]

Very sad state of affairs. Even sadder I suppose is the fact that this is the norm throughout our society. Both sexes are guilty of the worst kinds of discimination and critism in order to "feel better" about who we are. Men certainly know how to include or exclude and cut others from the pack. Women have a class system, always have, and if we want to be a part of their world, we must expect to be put into one or two or more of the boxes. Some of us may even feel that we should construct our own subsets to further the divisions. I find it interesting that when we reallly know someone, we find that the "differences" between us are unimportant and trivial, and yet we often allow those same differences to prevent us from getting to know each other, and therefore prevent us from playing together or working together to overcome other societal obstacles. In the end, it is what it is. What are you and I going to do about it?

[Angie G]

In any group Of more then 10 people you will nave make every one happy and most likely never will that's thhe way people are hon. And some people just suck. :hugs:
Angie

[MJ]

how very sad , but true. we need all the help we can get but lets be respectful Sal said it best :-

I have very little patience or time for those who consider themselves "superfine cross dressers" or "grande dame" CD's who are going to try to tell everyone how to act or what to look like because if we don't "look" and "act" a certain way we make it bad for the "cause" because we are representing CD's everywhere and if we want acceptance, we can't look "bad".

Get real. I personally don't see and never have seen an "army" of CD's out there backing me up when I go out anywhere and have always basically been on my own. Most of us are and we sink or swim on our own "merit" really unless we go along with our friends or a group. Even then I'm proud to associate with my friends regardless of appearance because they at least had the guts to be themselves and do this.
it seems there are the pity me pity me or the hey my sh*t don't stink group and i stay away prefer to hang around with the gg's

[docrobbysherry]

I don't see this as a T-Girl dilemma, it's really a Human Dilemma.

We r all judgemental, visually oriented, and intolerant of SOME others! Whether it be different races, sexes, ages, national origins, or just dressing differently, we notice others who r DIFFERENT.

Just the fact that others register as "different" in our minds, brings up conscious and/or unconscious prejudices in us. That is a fact.

It's a natural human condition. I hate it in others, and in myself. But it's a little like cursing the darkness at nite. That does little good, and denies the truth.
Better to turn on a lite, as Salandra suggests. U can't change everyone else, but u may change yourself! I hope to change myself.
RS

[Nicki B]

In the end, it is what it is. What are you and I going to do about it?

Well, we could make a conscious decision not to accept that's the way it will continue to be?

[JoAnnDallas]

This is not just a T-Girl problem. This happens all the time in society. A person struggles to make it big and then when this person does make it big they tend to look down on those that they left behind. They don't want to be assoicated with them, because they would just drag them down or they don't want their new friends to know where they came from. This happens everyday all around us. Many of us are not passable, but we go out in he public anyway. We interact with people and most of the time have no problems at all.
At the same time I do understand that when one does go all the way as in a TS, that they are in a completely new world. They have no choice but to live in this new world, so I can understand if they want to cut their ties with thier old world. It is not the same as us CD and TG folk. We can switch back anytime we want to. Not so for the TS.
How many times have you read of a person that went from dirt poor to rich and/or famous and now that they have made it, don't even ackowledge thier past. It happens all the time. To me it is Human Nature, we all want the grass on the other side.

[MaidInCan]

Pretty profound stuff. For myself it's all about self expression and the freedom to do that and once it ceases to be fun, it becomes a chore and a burden. Men are competitive by nature and there is more than enough of this nonsense in the world at large. One reason I do this is get away from all of that absurdity.

I have very little patience or time for those who consider themselves "superfine crossdressers" or "grande dame" CD's who are going to try to tell everyone how to act or what to look like because if we don't "look" and "act" a certain way we make it bad for the "cause" because we are representing CD's everywhere and if we want acceptance, we can't look "bad".

Get real. I personally don't see and never have seen an "army" of CD's out there backing me up when I go out anywhere and have always basically been on my own. Most of us are and we sink or swim on our own "merit" really unless we go along with our friends or a group. Even then I'm proud to associate with my friends regardless of appearance because they at least had the guts to be themselves and do this.

In all honesty this kind of stuff is lost on me. "Pecking orders" and "hierarchies" have no value to me and I look at the people not the clothes. We keep complaining that we have no acceptance by society and they look down on us, yet we tend to do the same thing within our own ranks and that is ridiculous. The value of being an individual cannot be over stated and our quest by it's very nature has to be an individual one to seek out who we really are, otherwise we become like Borg drones merely going through the motions or becoming a clone of someone else.

Of course everyone is always free to express themselves the way they please but so called "CD standards" do not hold water and anyone who really believes this stuff is being self deceptive. Nothing wrong with offering constructive comments when asked for of course but that is where it ends for me. I'm more concerned with my friends being free to be themselves and that is what it is all about as far as I'm concerned.:happy:

Salandra, I couldn't agree with you more. We try to be the best "that we want to be" and use whatever help we can get to do that. Fortunately, there are a lot of people, and sites like this one, where others in a similar situation can provide such help. Ultimately, each individual is a judge of what achievement she (he) has made to date and where SHE (HE) wants to be. Nobody else should be telling her how to feel, or what she should be. I appreciate each girl on this site and what they have achieved, some is inspiring as to what can be achieved but I am realistic and know that my own limitations won't allow be to get there. What do they say about shooting for the moon and being happy with something less?
To Danielle, keep the faith, honey, we support you even if your friends don't.:hugs:

[Genifer Teal]

I’ve been out to straight clubs with other t-girls who may not have fit the feminine ideal quite as well as some others. Because of this, there was a movement to not have those girls come out the next time we were going to those kinds of places.

xoxoDanielle

Pretty compelling and insightful exelent job!!

This is a tricky situation which has come further into the light as my cirle of friends expands. Living in NYC, we are offered a vast variety of places to explore. My friends and I most enjoy straight bars and clubs. Acutally, I like clubs and they like bars but that is a different problem. Either way, going mainstream, "streaming" as my techie self likes to call it, is a unique situation. We don't delude our selves to think we pass, however we do look good enough to get over an imaginary acceptance barrier that could otherwise smack us in the face.

Rather than passing, I like to think I create a good illusion of a woman. An illusion is when you trick someones mind to think something other than what it really sees. We've all seen exapmles of pictures where if you look at them a certain way you see one thing, but if you blink or break your concentration, you suddenly see what is really there. So here we are, out in public, not quite passing but creating this wonderful illusion of a woman, when a man in a dress walks by. Bam! Our illusion suddenly disappears and the man in us appears. It is unfortunate, but things can work this way.

I call it the lowest common denominator (LCD) factor, which can apply to any group in many situations. With tranies (I use that term generically), it has a lot to do with looks. When we go out as a group, we will all be judged by and compared to the look of the least attractive or most inappropriately dressed member of our group. If one of us is seen as Dr. Frank N Futter (think back to Rocky Horror), we will all be compared to him.

If I went to a main stream club on my first nite out ever, I would have scared everyone with my look. No one would have talked to me. I would have felt very uncomfortable being there. Having attaned a look that meets this imaginary minimum standard, I am treated very differently in clubs. People come talk to me. I dance. I have a great time. If I bring along someone who doesn't meet the "minimum standard" I get less attention. I don't have the same experience. It is hard not to consider this when a group of TG friends gather for a nite of "streaming".

This doesn't have to be about looking better, or more passable. Even someone who can expertly apply makeup can make you feel uncomfortable if they show up to cruise the mall in 6 inch pumps and a skimply skirt when you have on jeans and a blouse and are trying to blend in. Likewise, the soccer mom look does not fly in a bar or club. It is about appearances, but the LCD factor may have more to do with choice of clothes than beauty or passability.

Society has always been hierarchical, wheather it be based on money, power, staus, looks or whatever. As easy as it is to explain what is happening, I can't justify my actions. They might be better understood, but my actions remain disgraceful for not accepting all of my TG friends as they are. I admit that I am perpetuating this way of thinking. It is an easy trap to fall into. Hopefully someday I will mature.

Hugs - Genifer

[Emily Ann Brown]

I have been sitting here for some time trying to decide what to say....and for once I am pretty much without words. (Where is that applause coming from???)







Bottom line....not one of us is perfect, as a PERSON. We all at times suffer from pride, anger, jealousy, greed, and ego to name a few. When one of these horrible character flaws crawls out of the dark and breathes whoever around us gets hurt. We want everyone to be exactly like ourselves because that is our comfort zone. When someone around us sticks out it destroys that comfort zone, and we tend to immediately hammer the violator back outta sight.

Maybe what we need is not a female makeover, but a makeover as a human being.


Emily Ann

[stellatoo]

Hi folks,

Thats what was said to me on Friday (I manged to get out again:D thank heaven for weekends away!) by a t-girl who I'd seen before but not spoken to.
I was speaking to one of her friends who was complimenting me:happy: on my high cheekbones and lack of make up and still looking ok, when this girl came across and said "yep; got potential"

I just smiled and let it pass as I'd just had my photo texted to another girls sis-in-law (long story this girls in the process of coming out to her family and is dropping big hints) because she wanted someone who looked passable.
Now I don't think I look that passable but two major compliments certainly outweigh one iffy remark.
I think we're always going to get them (I've had words said to me by "elder brothers" at martial arts classes because they were better than me!) and it behoves us to let it pass
"Sticks and stones" and all that.


Just my :2c:

Best of luck to all you who strive to look your best :love:


Stella

[Michelle Hart]

I think that's the whole problem. Some of us look really good from luck, genes, or hard work. Whatever the case may be we put our own effort into what we "beleive" to be the right look or style.

Someone else may look better or worse and uses that as a club to inflate their own self worth. Good or bad like Emily said it is in our nature to be critical of others.

I don't feel like every girl gets up in the morning and thinks "hey, who can I be hurtful to today" it just happens. I feel like if we all strive to keep that kind of thing to ourselves it will be better for everybody.

Some of us are on the path to womanhood and some of us just dress up. Two totally different objectives and goals colliding on the same road.

[Sally24]

T-girls, in groups, can be much like teenage girls in groups. Many of us have not had years to gain the proper skills to interact with others as "women", we're more like "girls". With time and attention we can gain some wisdom on how to avoid cliques. I am working on my own skills. I tend to be a "popular" gurl with groups I go out with and it is a decidedly different role for me. I was never particularly popular as a guy and haven't had but a few years as a girl to gain social skills. It's easy to fall in with a group that is much like yourself and end up ignoring many other interesting people. I try to avoid that mistake when I catch myself heading in that direction. Like most of this, it takes alot of work.

[deja true]

"...and we tend to immediately hammer the violator back outta sight."


It's called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" and a lot has written about it in sociological literature.

But after reading this through several times and thinking about it for hours, I'm still at a loss for words. When i finally do think of something it'll probably come out thesis length. But it still makes me sad...

deja

[Kate Simmons]

"...and we tend to immediately hammer the violator back outta sight."


It's called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" and a lot has written about it in sociological literature.

But after reading this through several times and thinking about it for hours, I'm still at a loss for words. When i finally do think of something it'll probably come out thesis length. But it still makes me sad...

dejaPeople who lack self confidence will always worry about the "other guy" my friend. We used to play the card game "Uno" at break time at work. A couple of guys would always cheat like crazy, even looking at my hand and what cards I held. I usually won anyway. Perplexed they asked me:"How can you still win when we cheat, doesn't that bother you?" I looked that them and said: "I'm not concerned with what you are doing, I'm concerned with what I am doing." Once again, it's not whether we "pass" or "fail", it's how we play the "game.":happy:

[Sophie_C]

I'm going to actually completely disagree on this.

Look, we all know the image of the 'bearded lady' which has existed for ages in pop culture.

We know it's looked as a fetish, a kink, something only a 'freak' would do and is completely looked down upon by mainstream society, since people are naturally accustomed to gender roles.

It is basically shooting ourselves in the foot to not lay pressure on each other to be seriously passable.

Every single person who does not make a strong effort to do this only reinforces the 'freak' stereotype which is what all bias is hinged on.

You know as well as I do that the more passable a woman is, the more she's simply treated as a woman.

So, as technology advances and makes this possible, I believe it is our OBLIGATION to make sure that every woman just doesn't don a skirt and walk down the street to get a thrill (like the scary mask lady), reinforcing this 'freak' stereotype, and instead does everything in her power to make herself come off as a real woman.

And if this hurts, tough.

I think it's perfectly fine to do a so-so job at home where no one else can see you, but if you go out in public, you must see yourself like Motown Artists did in the 50s and 60s - pioneers and ambassadors of a community that is discriminated against, by and large, whose actions pave the way for the freedom of others. So, therefore, being an ambassador, every step you take, you are making an impression on the rest of the world, which affects the acceptance of every single other girl who wants to go out in public, and you had BETTER make your best effort possible. Anything less is selfish and ignorant.

I dare anyone to say otherwise.

:meditate:

[kathy001]

Some good comments here especially from Salandra and Genifer Teal!
All i can think of saying at the moment is that the hen gossipping, belittlements, hierarchys, "she's not that pretty"... and all this kinda stuff is a part of girlhood like it or not. Apparently this kinda garbage follows the makeup, skirts, etc. into the MtF TG territory also.

I've overheard women talking and yes they (and apparently now some of us) can be real cosmetically catty whether it be aimed at other women, men (or fellow CDs)!

Guys generally just don't comment on other guys looks unless there's something out of the ordinary going on or in a joking manner. To do so would put our masculinity at question.

[docrobbysherry]

I'm going to actually completely disagree on this.

It is basically shooting ourselves in the foot to not lay pressure on each other to be seriously passable.

Every single person who does not make a strong effort to do this only reinforces the 'freak' stereotype which is what all bias is hinged on.


So, as technology advances and makes this possible, I believe it is our OBLIGATION to make sure that every woman just doesn't don a skirt and walk down the street to get a thrill (like the scary mask lady), reinforcing this 'freak' stereotype, and instead does everything in her power to make herself come off as a real woman.

And if this hurts, tough.

you are making an impression on the rest of the world, which affects the acceptance of every single other girl who wants to go out in public, and you had BETTER make your best effort possible. Anything less is selfish and ignorant.

I dare anyone to say otherwise.

:meditate:

Boy Sophie, u talk about "selfish and ignorant"! Sweetie, the gloves r coming off! Your's is the most arrogant, off the wall. out of line, post I've ever read here!
And this is not about me. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Scary Sherry is staying in the closet. U and your high heel black booted sturmfuers won't catch me out on the street.

But what about all the other CDs who look like "freaks" to u? What do u propose to do to stop them from going out? Steal their purses? Call their bosses? Let the air out of their tires? Put them behind bars? Blow up their houses? Where do u draw the line?

U know someone else tried to kill off all those that didn't fit his idea of beauty. Do u realise that's who u sound like in your post? R u the one who gets to decide who passes and who doesn't, like him?

Sophie, please reread your post. I can't believe u meant what u rote! Do u really mean that u would stop Cds from going out dressing to save CDing? Huh?
RS

[Sophie_C]

Boy Sophie, u talk about "selfish and ignorant"! Sweetie, the gloves r coming off! Your's is the most arrogant, off the wall. out of line, post I've ever read here!
And this is not about me. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Scary Sherry is staying in the closet. U and your high heel black booted sturmfuers won't catch me out on the street.

But what about all the other CDs who look like "freaks" to u? What do u propose to do to stop them from going out? Steal their purses? Call their bosses? Let the air out of their tires? Put them behind bars? Blow up their houses? Where do u draw the line?

U know someone else tried to kill off all those that didn't fit his idea of beauty. Do u realise that's who u sound like in your post? R u the one who gets to decide who passes and who doesn't, like him?

Sophie, please reread your post. I can't believe u meant what u rote! Do u really mean that u would stop Cds from going out dressing to save CDing? Huh?
RS

I never said I saw other cross dressers as 'freaks.' I said mainstream society does when girls don't pass a damn bit.

People have a choice. They can either reinforce the stereotype by going out for a thrill, being careless and not giving a crap on how much effort they make *or* they can destroy it by making a strong effort to be as passable as possible as well as classy so that ignorant people no longer haver firepower to use against us.

It's like an African-American talking 'ebonics' or speaking like Barack Obama. Which do you think helps further that persecuted group? The person who reinforces the negative stereotype for their own pleasure or the person who defies it and progresses forward?

I'm not a person who EVER wants to harm another (as you imply) which means also not ever going out unless i'm very strongly passable. I believe all girls should take the same approach when they look in the mirror before leaving their home.

Every single time they cut a corner or make little effort to make themselves passable, that harms other cross dressers, by giving fuel to the fire of ignorant people out there by reinforcing a negative stereotype. So, effectively, by doing that, they are harming other girls.

And, if you like doing that, fine. I can't.

[Ellie]

Here is my 2cents.... take it for what you will.

I have chatted with a great number of great folks on this board and some others and I've noticed many of the CD/TV girls have one or two particular items of clothing or "looks" that they saw as the ultimate in femme-ness when they were growing up. For example, hose and heels (my fav) or long nails and big breasts. Whatever it is for that person it is usually the one thing that they crave to wear/appear as/do the most.

I think that for some of us this happens on the behavioral side of things as well as the appearance side. For example, Some CD/TV girls grew up around femme women that were also drama queens or judgmental of appearance or overly sensitive to come ons by men and as such mimicking that behavior also helps them to feel femme.

Not all GGs are drama queens or judgmental of appearances or prudish so there is no reason for us to feel compelled to be that way.

As for the full time pre op TS and the CD that only dresses twice a week well there really is no way to compare the two since it would be like comparing a professional ice skater's performance to that of someone that only has weekends to practice.

All of us in this community transform to the degree to which we are comfortable and/or able to do so due to our own circumstances and as such there is no one basis or ideal of what is femme-enough or passable-enough. Knowing there is no single basis means that there can be no objective conclusion drawn and thus the judgment of others becomes meaningless.

To put this in car terms, if the ideal femme appearance is the oil level then everyone's dip stick has different marks for too much and too little.

Thanks for reading this far :D

[Kate Simmons]

While I see the point being made, who is to say that those who may not "pass" as well as others are NOT putting up their best efforts? Just WHO is to judge that? If one does not want to be seen with or associate with someone else, that is entirely their business and they should not be forced to do so if they feel that makes them look "bad". Conversely, those who don't look as "good" as others should not be forced to try to imitate some stereotypical appearance created by others. Such thinking is counterproductive to the so-called solidarity we seek in order to gain acceptance and really does more harm than good.

Really, how we can say we are united when such barriers exist whether they really do or just exist in the minds of some? I love my friends and want them to be happy. The same goes for my CD sisters and my love is not conditional according to what they look like. I think it's obvious that no one is purposely trying to sabotage our "bid" for acceptance but just where does one draw the line? To be perfectly blunt, the "public" is fickle and doesn't really give a damn about us, so why should we care what they think? Not to mention that WE are part of that public, so who is fooling who here? My care for my friends is not conditional on what a bunch of strangers think and my main concern is how they feel about themselves.

I choose my friends very carefully and it's based on who they are, not what they look like. While I'm glad this issue was addressed, the whole argument accomplishes no useful purpose and only causes unnecessary divisions. I am not a Borg drone and will not "comply", not now, not ever. To do so would compromise my freedom of expression, a freedom that is more valuable to me than any "popularity." We can choose to act any way we want because we have that freedom but as the Knight said to Indiana Jones:"Choose wisely.":happy:

[JaytoJillian]

...This doesn't have to be about looking better, or more passable. Even someone who can expertly apply makeup can make you feel uncomfortable if they show up to cruise the mall in 6 inch pumps and a skimply skirt when you have on jeans and a blouse and are trying to blend in. Likewise, the soccer mom look does not fly in a bar or club. It is about appearances, but the LCD factor may have more to do with choice of clothes than beauty or passability.

Hugs - Genifer

Well put, Genifer. I would totally love to hang out with you in NYC one weekend!

Jill

[Nicki B]

I'm going to actually completely disagree on this.

Look, we all know the image of the 'bearded lady' which has existed for ages in pop culture.

We know it's looked as a fetish, a kink, something only a 'freak' would do and is completely looked down upon by mainstream society, since people are naturally accustomed to gender roles.

It is basically shooting ourselves in the foot to not lay pressure on each other to be seriously passable.

I really want to say something VERY unladylike in response to this....:censor:


Anything less is selfish and ignorant.

I dare anyone to say otherwise.

Well - I for one think that trying to pretend to be something you're not and berating those who don't fit your view of what transpeople are allowed to be is both selfish and certainly VERY ignorant... :rolleyes:

I wonder how much time have you spent in the real world? If you believe the only way to get 'acceptance' is to hide - well, THAT'S NOT ACCEPTANCE.

The strength of this community is in it's difference and diversity - to refuse to allow that to be expressed does us ALL a dis-service and just reinforces the discrimination we already face.


And if this hurts, tough.

[deja true]

Depending on many factors,especially our role models growing up, the age at which we starting dressing and our choice of friends, we all have different mental ages wrapped into our alter-personas.

The idea of having to be just right or as good or better looking than the other girls is so "high school' that we can tell where the original poster is at on the femme maturity scale (no matter what her real chronological age.) That's okay for now,really, for as long as she matures in mental state, like the majority of us, she'll eventually regret her present stance and learn something from it. (I hope!).

Our mental states mature with our bodies and so do our tastes in clothes and friends. Many have noted this phenomenon. As younger, more attractive girls are prone to being extremely judgemental of their peers and older girls, so do mentally young CD's. It's a little sad to me to see CDs in their 50's and 60's insisting on dressig as 'club kids" in public, unless the point of the exercise is masquerade or caricature. Adopting a more realistic public persona for our ages is a sign of maturity, not only of our femme personas but our male personas as well. (How we dress at home is,as docrobby would say, our own business. That's personal fun time, not out-in-public time, where I kinda agree we should think a bit about our impact on the rest of our sisters.)

After many years of private-only dressing, I've recently committed myself to going public (in a totally T-friendly venue) in the near future. That scary/thrilling decision also made me realize that some of what I wear at home would just be laughable in front of people I wanted to so desperately accept me. So, I'm agonizing and doing my homework on flattering and attractive styles for my age. I'm not gonna present myself as Fergie or Pink but will try to come out as the classiest "woman of a certain age" as I can (think of those slim, hot senior news ladies!) Hope it works... My femme mental age has finally caught up with my body's real age. I'm not sad for my crows feet, I'm actually taking joy in them, because they made me grow up in both my souls!

Sure, we're all hung up on aging, as men and as women. But we'll all be a lot happier when our maturity levels start to converge. That's when we become more satisfied with ourselves and more mature over all.

respect & love (especially for Boomers,yay!)

deja

[battybattybats]

I'm going to actually completely disagree on this.

Look, we all know the image of the 'bearded lady' which has existed for ages in pop culture.

We know it's looked as a fetish, a kink, something only a 'freak' would do and is completely looked down upon by mainstream society, since people are naturally accustomed to gender roles.

It is basically shooting ourselves in the foot to not lay pressure on each other to be seriously passable.

Every single person who does not make a strong effort to do this only reinforces the 'freak' stereotype which is what all bias is hinged on.

You know as well as I do that the more passable a woman is, the more she's simply treated as a woman.

So, as technology advances and makes this possible, I believe it is our OBLIGATION to make sure that every woman just doesn't don a skirt and walk down the street to get a thrill (like the scary mask lady), reinforcing this 'freak' stereotype, and instead does everything in her power to make herself come off as a real woman.

And if this hurts, tough.

I think it's perfectly fine to do a so-so job at home where no one else can see you, but if you go out in public, you must see yourself like Motown Artists did in the 50s and 60s - pioneers and ambassadors of a community that is discriminated against, by and large, whose actions pave the way for the freedom of others. So, therefore, being an ambassador, every step you take, you are making an impression on the rest of the world, which affects the acceptance of every single other girl who wants to go out in public, and you had BETTER make your best effort possible. Anything less is selfish and ignorant.

I dare anyone to say otherwise.

:meditate:

This argument seems to have merit until examined in depth. But I don't have time so I'll cut to the chase.
Every single group that has gone for an incremental approach or an appeasement route of trying to be as 'normal' and 'acceptable' as possible has actually set back everyone else and humanity in general.
Consider this. In the enlightenment it was argued that all people, on account of their conciousness, should be considered equal irrespective of the happenstance of their birth. The incrementalist argument applied that just to the middle classes struggle with the nobility and eventually we got modern democracies... for the white middle class males who owned property.

Right then and there hundreds of years ago we had an argument that has never been philosophically defeated that SHOULD have achieved equality for everyone. All races, All ethnicities, All classes, All sexualities, All sexes. The whole entirety!

Instead each successsive group has argued for just what is acceptable, what is close to 'normal'. Each successive group have been betraying the entirety of humanity when they have done so.

People put other people down as a way of defining 'us' and 'the other'. That way they can be recognised as being in the 'us' group. You can see this in any playground, in almost any large organisation. There are people who learn not to do this, it's a cognitive skill. 'us' social structures, friendships etc are characterised by brutal power struggles, domineering behaviour etc. However those social structures, friendships etc not built this way are characterised by mutual respect, deep loyalty, compassion and understanding.

The 'freaks' are, from my extensive personal experience, in reality generally the best people. Often the smartest (high intelligence and eccentricity go hand-in-hand), the bravest, the most wise.

Given the choice of being labeled as 'the other' and having good friends who I can trust and whose opinions are valuable or doing what I can to fit in to join 'us' and betray all of humanity and perpetuating a destructive and self-destructive wasteful and totally worthless social structure for.. what? A shallow back stabbing social climbing 'in-crowd'? A clique of the clueless? General acceptance into a society of banality and often outright evil? Well that's not really a choice is it?

It's a trap. A psychological and a social trap. One that propagates itself like a virus, a self supporting and reproducing psycho-social mechanism.

Give me the bearded ladies, the kinks and fetishists, the geeks and the weirdos, the outcast and the eccentric, the bohemians and hippies. Seriously, learn to tolerate everyone no matter how different and urge everyone you know to do the same. You can fight off the infection of this dreadful habit of weak shallow-minded unconcious reasoning and replace it with concious rational logical thinking until it becomes the new habit and everyone will be much better for it.

When looked at clearly it's the only social, political and philosophical position that adds up entirely. Any apparent gains of 'fitting in' actually do harm wheras every goth and punk and hippy and bearded lady and weirdo that gets accepted and tolerated in their community for being different enriches all of humanity and makes everyone more free.

[JessieB]

I call it the lowest common denominator (LCD) factor, which can apply to any group in many situations. With tranies (I use that term generically), it has a lot to do with looks. When we go out as a group, we will all be judged by and compared to the look of the least attractive or most inappropriately dressed member of our group. If one of us is seen as Dr. Frank N Futter (think back to Rocky Horror), we will all be compared to him.
Genifer, your whole post is great. I can tell you're speaking from experience. I quoted this paragraph because I agree with your LCD theory, but I think we're judged by the LCD and the HCD (highest common denominator). If the LCD is too bad, our whole group will get branded as weirdos. At the same time, if there is a pretty gurl in the group, everyone else in the group will be judged in comparison to her -- judged as to whether we are "viable" as gurls, and judged as to our individual personal appeal, or lack thereof.

[docrobbysherry]

Your summation and analysis cuts thru CDing problems. It really applies to all humans in all situations.
You've pinpointed the problem(s) with our society, our world, and in each of us!
Of all your thotful posts, this one demands a " Hurrah", and a long applause from your audience here. Certainly u have those from me!
RS

[Nicki B]

Of all your thotful posts, this one demands a " Hurrah", and a long applause from your audience here.
.
:yt:

[Michelle Hart]

Yes Batty has a really good point but at what point does "ultimate tolerance" degenerate into contemp?

If "everyone" is equal and NO judgemnets are made we collapse because there are no standards?

I decided I want to go out naked smeared in jello today, Don't judge me be tolerant?


That is the flaw in the everybody is equal argument. There HAS TO BE RULES!

No society can function without some standards of conduct or apearance. It's not trying to be normal or submit to a clique, to gain acceptance. It is doing the right thing at the right time.

I love the "freaks & wierdos" as much as the next girl but Why should I tolerate theire errant behavior if it makes ME look bad? Should I not offer some gudance and say hey you're acting like a fool? Actions have consequences.

It makes me think of the two gay nuns who went into a church to "make a statment" in San Francisco a few week back. All they did was make the whole comunity look bad. Actions like that DO NOT help us.

While Batty has and exxellent point it has a few flaws too.

[battybattybats]

Yes Batty has a really good point but at what point does "ultimate tolerance" degenerate into contemp?

If "everyone" is equal and NO judgemnets are made we collapse because there are no standards?

I decided I want to go out naked smeared in jello today, Don't judge me be tolerant?


That is the flaw in the everybody is equal argument. There HAS TO BE RULES!

No society can function without some standards of conduct or apearance. It's not trying to be normal or submit to a clique, to gain acceptance. It is doing the right thing at the right time.

I love the "freaks & wierdos" as much as the next girl but Why should I tolerate theire errant behavior if it makes ME look bad? Should I not offer some gudance and say hey you're acting like a fool? Actions have consequences.

It makes me think of the two gay nuns who went into a church to "make a statment" in San Francisco a few week back. All they did was make the whole comunity look bad. Actions like that DO NOT help us.

While Batty has and exxellent point it has a few flaws too.


Actually there are no flaws. It's all a philosophical argument of Ethics. For everyone to be equal everyone has to recognise that equality. That means that informed consent is an intrinsic part of all mutually involved activities so a murderer is only free to murder when he has his victims informed consent. That is the only neccessary limit and it covers literaly every debate and point.

Any sex act you can imagine is right or wrong dependant on informed consent. Child abuse, rape, bestiality is wrong because children can't give informed consent on sexual matters, animals can't either and rape is defined as being without consent. Simple and easy.

Any act of public behaviour is limited only by it's risk of causing children harm and the freedom of others to look away or not listen. At this point the philosophy is informed by another science: psychology. So anything so overtly sexual as to risk harm to children as defined by psychologists should never be public where children might see. That is the rule. Simple again.

If someone has the freedom to look away or ignore it and it is not harmful to any children present any speech or expression is then acceptable. it is only if the expresser literally captures his audience (like shouting in someones face while they are sitting on the bus, backing them into a corner or drowning out all other conversation) where the individuals freedom to ignore is removed that it becomes wrong. The interferance with the others freedom defines it as unethical.

It's all an unavoidable logical consequence of the first principle. It can be defined as a simple logical formula:
If all people = equal + free then all people must recognise all others equality + freedom then all neccessarily mutual activity requires informed consent and that is the only limit on freedom, applied equally.

Each persons freedom forms a natural boundary on everyone elses freedom.
Simple. No other rules are required.

Ultimate freedom involves no contempt, it involves responsibility and respect. It is enirely ethical while still allowing personal morality it restricts the extension of subjective morality to only the self requiring all interactions with others to be governed by a simpler higher order of ethics. The standards are the highest standards of ethical behaviour possible (take that Peter Singer and your utilitarian eugenics nonsense!).

As to your two gay nuns, the church is private property owned by a specific community, they tresspassed. Their actions were inside other peoples space in a way it would not be in the street outside. Simple.

and if someone elses actions make you look bad, then it's good to look bad (it is much better morally to be in the comunity discriminated against than in the one doing the discrimination) as anyone judging you by other people is using a generalisation to judge others. That's bigotry. It's a logical fallacy, a lazy mental shortcut that is the operative principle behind racism sexism and all the rest of discriminatory bigotry. Anyone who judges people by the actions of others who share similar features or characteristics is being mentally lazy, stupid and idiotic. Yes most people do this. Everyone has to un-learn this pathetic and now counterproductive instinct. We aren't living in caves or trees anymore, the Smilodon Cave Bear and Dire Wolf are all extinct now, we don't need it.

Simple.

[Michelle Hart]

Batty, exellent and well reasoned.

I still disagree. You have taken a philosophy argument ( perfect world ) and tethered it to a phycological opinion ( imperfect world ) and imply that all of us can "consent".

Non of which is true. You completly ingnored human nature ( flight / fight ) and learned behavior ( subjective morality ).

The use of children as the linchpin is weak, since some children have higher basline Iq's than adults. You surmize that "IF" a child is harmed it conflicts with informed consent but how can a child be harmed by an action which is intrinsic to our nature ( sex ).

I could go on but am curious as to how you would resolve these?

This is not meant to be "catty" I really am curious as to your thoughts.

[Valeria]

The use of children as the linchpin is weak, since some children have higher basline Iq's than adults. You surmize that "IF" a child is harmed it conflicts with informed consent but how can a child be harmed by an action which is intrinsic to our nature ( sex ).
:shocked:

I'm stunned by this argument. You sure you don't want to rethink it real quick?

[battybattybats]

Batty, exellent and well reasoned.

I still disagree. You have taken a philosophy argument ( perfect world ) and tethered it to a phycological opinion ( imperfect world ) and imply that all of us can "consent".

Non of which is true. You completly ingnored human nature ( flight / fight ) and learned behavior ( subjective morality ).

The use of children as the linchpin is weak, since some children have higher basline Iq's than adults. You surmize that "IF" a child is harmed it conflicts with informed consent but how can a child be harmed by an action which is intrinsic to our nature ( sex ).

I could go on but am curious as to how you would resolve these?

This is not meant to be "catty" I really am curious as to your thoughts.

Ah, but all moral and ethical reasoning is bent to shift an imperfect world towards an increase in it's perfection. Metaphysics aside right and wrong is still the domain of philosophy.

Of course not everyone can consent, but it is still the only way of havng a functional system of right and wrong. The next layer of responsibility is that owed to those who cannot consent, the immature, the severely disabled, the insane and the drunk. Each of those groups need to be protected and looked after. That is the responibility of those who can consent. Responsibility is the key word rather than privelege.

Human nature is an easy out. Instincts can and often should be overridden. Subjective morality is subjective, therefore it is wrong the instant it is applied externally. Racism and slavery were subjectively moral. A husbands ownership of his wife was subjectively moral. Therefore all subjective moral behaviour when applied beyond the self is unethical and therfore wrong no matter how much it might fit into a persons personal beliefs.

Those who cannot consent are the responsibility of those who can. Those who knowingly place themselves in situations where they render themselves incapable of consent (such as get drunk) are responsible for taking steps to minimise the possible consequences (such as handing their car keys to someone not drinking). Even a psychopath who lacks the biological basis for intuiting empathy can still intellectually recognise equality and adapt their behaviour accordingly. Those with biological behavioural problems (or functional disability) are the responsibility of the society (as in the collective responsibility of all others) to help and ensure that they can gain control over their problems in one form or another to give them the maximum possible autonomy and self actualisation. A moments consideration is enough to show that all people arn't actually equal, some are smarter some are healthier etc. However as everyone desires not to be treated as inequal it is clearly right to consider all people as having equal rights. This is the important part of recognising the reciprocal function necessary to equality.

Children aren't the lynchpin of the argument, equality, freedom and consent and the subsequent responsibility that is unavoidable as it's consequence are. While children have a higher baseline IQ this is because their brain is keyed to learning at as swift a rate as possible. Children are learning machines, their accelerated language acquisition is a perfect example. However as even a cursory look at the social/psychological/sexual developments of puberty shows they only slowly develop the awareness, understanding and drives that are neccessary for the fully informed part of consent. Children aren't for example harmed by nudity in a non-sexual context however child abuse clearly causes substantial long-term harm. Some things children can understand enough to make informed consent other things not (dependant on level of knowledge and experience of the child with which to relate that understanding) so then clearly they cannot fully understand things of a substantial sexual nature until after they have developed sufficiently. Therefore they cannot give informed consent on sexual matters till they are by definition no longer children.

Now when it comes to what kind of material will actually harm children, that is up to the psychologists to determine and I'll happily defer to their expertise.
The argument that sex is intrinsic in our nature is obfuscatory, after all so too is a long childhood and late biological sexual maturity compared to other animals.

The crux is that for a sexual action to be ethical it requires informed consent, children can't give that on sexual matters so there we go.

[Denise Somers]

Michelle,

Magnificent post and absolutely true. As Angie G. efficiently points out, once you get past a small group of people you'll never please everyone. I think a community is at its best when it listens and provides positive support towards one another within that community. It does seem, however, that as a community, province or state, and even an entire country grows larger the further it gets away from the stated ideals that it was founded upon. Precious ideals such as the freedom of speech are never really appreciated until they are tested; like someone says something that makes you want to take their head off. When everyone agrees there is no controversy, it's how we act when there isn't agreement that is the best barometer of true tolerance. I think you are seeing this on a very personal scale, your true friends will reveal themselves over time even if they are complete strangers. True tolerance isn't conditioned once one's inner circle is affected rather it is a quality that only comes from taking a good look within. Some have lost the point of why this group was founded. I haven't. I accept you for who you are and the courage it took for you to get there. Sometimes it also takes courage to simply tell others that want to shape you into "their" preference to "get bent" or more colorful words to that effect. It can be very liberating.
Be yourself and live well. Happy Valentine's Day. Denise

[Michelle Hart]

:shocked:

I'm stunned by this argument. You sure you don't want to rethink it real quick?

Why? It's part of the Morality of Self vs Others argument that Batty and I are having. She understood what I meant. As he pointed out "eventually" children will discover sex. It is in our nature to reproduce. Her argument was that children can't consent to sex because they lack the knowledge or experiance to make informed and knowledgable choices. Which I agree with. It has nothing to to with having sex in front of kids or with them. Read it again.



For Batty:

Morality and ethics are both learned behavior. I.E. Muslims do not think it is immoral or unethical to strap bombs to their children, wives, or themselves to kill others whome they disagree with.

Is that ethical? Moral? Yes and no. I think it is they don't. It is subjective. Your morals may not coincide with mine, so which of us is immoral, which is unethical?

Your thought is that those who can "consent" are resposible for those who cannnot, why? If you go out and get drunk how am I responsible for your actions or lack of planning. Your thesis suggest that all who can consent must look after those who can't. That concept totally negates personal responsibility. Each of us must captain our own ship.

A functional system of right and wrong is based on RULES not the subjective morality of one person or another. Laws are made so each person can see what is "good" behavior and "bad" behavior.

It's illegal to drive drunk = Bad behavior.
It is legal to drive sober = Good behavior.

Human nature is the product of millions of years of evolution i.e. trial and error. Should I attack a dinosaur alone or whith a group. It's raining should I stand here or seek shelter. Regardless of which instinct it is it can't be swept away because we WANT it to be that way.

Slaverey was the accepted practice. It was ok to have slaves (good behavior) eventually it becam unacceptable (bad behavior). Today people involved in BDSM have "slaves" does it make them "bad" or "good" (subjective morality again).

That is why Rules and laws are the bedrock of society not philosophy. Informed consent has nothing to do with ethics. Informed consent is a free market concept whereby people who are "informed" can consent to X law or Y rule. The information about a subjet is redily available to make a decision which helps you or hurts you.

I know alcohol gives me a headace (informed) I am going to drink anyway (consent).

Where is ethics? where are morals (again subjective morality) Children/adults have almost nothing to do with each of these. If a child gets drunk by sneaking into his parents liquor cabinet he is consenting to a behavior he may have been informed about anyway.

"Hey son, don't sneak into the liquor cabinet it will make you sick"

The child is informed that his decision will have consequences. He chose to acept the consequences when he drank. It's choices not morality or ethics. We "chose" to change our sex, wear diferent clothes, drink, buy a gun or a porche. None of which makes as any more moral or immoral than our neighbor.

I can say "it's immoral to kill or rape or steal property" but why? Because I said so or because societal norms and rules say so. Norms and rulesm which each of us can go read (informed) and chose to follow (consent) or ignore (nonconsent) .

Philosophy is an abstract a perception of reality. It is not reality.

[Michelle Hart]

Michelle,

Magnificent post and absolutely true. As Angie G. efficiently points out, once you get past a small group of people you'll never please everyone. Be yourself and live well. Happy Valentine's Day. Denise


Thank's Denise, I was really touched by it so I thought it would be nice to share it here.

[deja true]

All you girls, This discussion on ethics/morality/philosophy/law is among the best threads I've been privileged to read here. Michelle and Batty, your exchanges are teaching me more than I was ever able to comprehend about these subjects in college. Maybe I'm just old enough now to want to understand. Thank you, thank you very much.

Some times we all play at being silly or dumb, but that doesn't mean we really are...

respect & love ( for intelligent discussion)

deja

[Michelle Hart]

Thank's Deja,

I'm actually enjoying it but we have strayed a little from the original subject.

[Joy Carter]

This goes beyond looks Michelle. But with thought and words. Ive seen some here severely pummeled for what they say. We all are still in the stone age. :2c:

[docrobbysherry]

Michelle and Batty, while I've tried to follow the conversations, they have been quite extensive and detailed. I appologise for moving back in the direction of the original thread BUT, I have question regardin Batty's "informed consent" . As it applies to the over the top men-in-dresses, that go out in public.

If a man-in-a-dress goes out, and a young child sees him, that is clearly not informed consent, as explained by Batty.
Michelle, it seemed u move the conversation toward consent by an individual, for their own activity, and their own responsibility for the result.

My question is for either/both of u. Is it a good or bad thing for the youngster to see the man-in-a-dress in public? Not looking for a psycologist's answer, just your opinions. You've moved so far into the theoretical, I'm not sure if u think it's OK or not?
RS

[battybattybats]

[I][COLOR=magenta]For Batty:

Morality and ethics are both learned behavior. I.E. Muslims do not think it is immoral or unethical to strap bombs to their children, wives, or themselves to kill others whome they disagree with.

Actually there has been significant research to show that not all moral values are learned. Some seem intrinsic. However it is truen that the instinctive basis can be both built on or challenged. Also just because varying forms of morality or ethics may be learned or developed from learning does not make them all equally valid or congruent. Many muslims in fact do think it immoral and unethical for suicide bombing. A big reason why the taliban and al qaeda are losing followers in Pakistan and Iraq is because people are objecting morally to the civillian casualties. Let us not forget all the christian acts of war. At one point during a siege russion priests doused themselves with oil, set themselves alight and hurled themselves off the walls into the enemy as living napalm!

The fact is that if one accepts the logical concepts of eqaulity and freedom then all the rest fall into place irrevocably if one is to maintain consistency. Any sensible person of faith who considers that a person of another faith is equal to themselves will fall into the same conclusions no matter how much they personally consider their faith right and the others rubbish. If they don't and impose their belief on another they are no better than someone who may force their faith over them. The operative here is that each considers their position true on faith while disrespecting the faith of the other. To do so is inequal and unfree. therefore an untenable position logically no matter their personal revelation.




Is that ethical? Moral? Yes and no. I think it is they don't. It is subjective. Your morals may not coincide with mine, so which of us is immoral, which is unethical?

Moral yes because it stems from set precepts of assumed truth, ethical no because it does not respect the free choice of others to disagree, therfore it remains wrong.



Your thought is that those who can "consent" are resposible for those who cannnot, why? If you go out and get drunk how am I responsible for your actions or lack of planning. Your thesis suggest that all who can consent must look after those who can't. That concept totally negates personal responsibility. Each of us must captain our own ship.

Actually no I pointed out someone who gets themselves drunk is responsible for taking precautions whereas someone who stumbles upon someone drunk about to do something dangerous (like driving) is still obliged to intervene, it's a shared point of responsibility. Whereas a small child or an intellectually or physically disabled person is relaint upon others and therefore societies responsibilty wholely. Personal responsibility can only extend so far, once a person is incapable of making responsible decisions they clearly from that moment are not responsible. They are only responsible for easily predicted consequences, therefore choices made before becoming inebriated.



A functional system of right and wrong is based on RULES not the subjective morality of one person or another. Laws are made so each person can see what is "good" behavior and "bad" behavior.

That is only one actual function of law, law is also used for control, politics and other uses, not all of which are moral or ethical, hence the validity of civil disobedience. Never in the history of humanity has a set of rules been entirely ethical and therefore they cannot be construed as a functional system of right and wrong. In fact in very many cases they are an iimpediment to doing right and wrong. The worst regimes in human history had rules, the gulags and concentration camps were still clearly wrong.



It's illegal to drive drunk = Bad behavior.
It is legal to drive sober = Good behavior.


Logical fallacy. Just because some laws coincide with right and wrong does not mean that they define it or universally match with right and wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. An unethical act does not become right because it is legal nor an ethical act become wrong because it is illegal.


Human nature is the product of millions of years of evolution i.e. trial and error. Should I attack a dinosaur alone or whith a group. It's raining should I stand here or seek shelter. Regardless of which instinct it is it can't be swept away because we WANT it to be that way.


One of the things we evolved is the capacity to resist instinct. Our adaptability to many circumstances and to reason rather than function purely on reaction is the most defining aspect of humanity and the reason for it's success. That does not make it easy and we can use compassion when concidering that. However instinctively punching someone in the face and breaking their nose because they startled you is no less wrong no matter how understandable.


Slaverey was the accepted practice. It was ok to have slaves (good behavior) eventually it becam unacceptable (bad behavior). Today people involved in BDSM have "slaves" does it make them "bad" or "good" (subjective morality again).


Nope, from the instant it was understandable to challenge the notion of slavery on philosophical grounds of ethics it became wrong. That was a very long long time ago. The conflict wasn't the shifting of relative moral positions but between ethics based on principles of inalienable rights versus a moral argument from authority (accepted practice or religious texts) those are logical fallavies. Again wrong. BDSM is different, that can be ethical though is not automatically so. Where the slave consents and has (by use of a safe word for example) can remove or withdraw that consent then they are not true slaves but indulging in a fantasy of slavery. Willing slavery is not really slavery. That can be ethical and therfore right but only provided the consent exists and the person is knowingly freely able to withdraw consent at any time.


That is why Rules and laws are the bedrock of society not philosophy. Informed consent has nothing to do with ethics. Informed consent is a free market concept whereby people who are "informed" can consent to X law or Y rule. The information about a subjet is redily available to make a decision which helps you or hurts you.


No rules and law are frequently an evil that is an abuse of society. Examples are aplenty from Iran to Soviet countries and the Nazi's. They all had rules and laws. Those were clearly wrong. Philosophy is the only valid system of determining right and wrong, not law. Philosophy has explored the subject for thousands of years (and it has it's arguments hence my getting up Peter Singer and the Utilitarians). Law needs to be in a state of perpetual reform, it allows abuses, genocide, torture and every wrong imaginable. In fact law is often informed by philosophy. The modern democracies including the USA have all been profoundly affected by the philosophical conclusions of the enlightenment for example.

Informed consent has everything to do with Ethics. It existed centuries before the stupid free market economy notions started to be explored. Those are based on a misunderstanding of the dynamic equilibrium of darwinian evolution that is fatally flawed by the reality that evolution is only successful because it's initial unti, solar energy, is in constant supply whereas the free matket system is a constant excessive watse of resources. These are unrelated subjects glued together because of one stupid law decision that twisted the law that determined black people to be persons and decided that corporations too were legally a person.


I know alcohol gives me a headace (informed) I am going to drink anyway (consent).


And there is nothing wrong with that choice unless coercion is involved (most likey a genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction).


Where is ethics? where are morals (again subjective morality) Children/adults have almost nothing to do with each of these. If a child gets drunk by sneaking into his parents liquor cabinet he is consenting to a behavior he may have been informed about anyway.


A child has not finished developing the portion of the brain involved in decision making and limiting impulses, therefore all their decisions need to be supervised. It is important that they exercise this part of their brain so they need to be able to make these decisions but they cannot be wholely responsible for them. Again scientific truth must be considered in moral arguments otherwise the argument is self referential, circular and logically false.


"Hey son, don't sneak into the liquor cabinet it will make you sick"

The child is informed that his decision will have consequences. He chose to acept the consequences when he drank. It's choices not morality or ethics. We "chose" to change our sex, wear diferent clothes, drink, buy a gun or a porche. None of which makes as any more moral or immoral than our neighbor.


Choices are the only operable use of morality and ethics. If it isn't chosen a person cannot be responsible for it. An alcoholic is not responsible for being born an alcoholic. They are only responsible for trying to get treatment for thst alcoholism. As mentioned before a child cannot be entirely responsible for their choices as the parts of the brain involved are not finished developing. We do not choose to have whatever it is that drives us to desire to change our sex or express gender variance. We are only unethical if we are harming others against their will or abusing their freedoms. Clearly no part of crossdressing intrinsicly does that. Whether it is moral or imoral depends on the relative and often arbitrary precepts one first accepts as the base values for that moral system. Crossdresing and literally any action can be moral or imoral. However not any action can be ethical or unethical. That is why ethics can be applied beyond the self wheras morality cannot.


I can say "it's immoral to kill or rape or steal property" but why? Because I said so or because societal norms and rules say so. Norms and rulesm which each of us can go read (informed) and chose to follow (consent) or ignore (nonconsent) .


These are inconsistant. They vary from state to state, religion to religion, culture to culture, person to person.

However if one accepts equality and freedom then there is one single universal set of determinants of right and wrong with a vastly smaller area of grey. That would not allow genocide, rape, murder, torture, child abuse or any of the other things that are being legally done this very instant somewhere in the world.

Therfore law is only right when it is consistant with ethical principles and is wrong when it does not.


Philosophy is an abstract a perception of reality. It is not reality.
Just like law, just like maths. Except that there is a measurable differnece between a gram and a tonne. Each is a descriptor of real-world things. All huamn understanding is an abstract perception of reality and not reality itself. all our senses are flawed. However that does not rule them out or render tham unimportant.

And as matters of right and wrong are the most important to individual human lives in reality therefore philosophy rather than meaningless becomes the most important thing in the world.


Michelle and Batty, while I've tried to follow the conversations, they have been quite extensive and detailed. I appologise for moving back in the direction of the original thread BUT, I have question regardin Batty's "informed consent" . As it applies to the over the top men-in-dresses, that go out in public.

If a man-in-a-dress goes out, and a young child sees him, that is clearly not informed consent, as explained by Batty.
Michelle, it seemed u move the conversation toward consent by an individual, for their own activity, and their own responsibility for the result.

My question is for either/both of u. Is it a good or bad thing for the youngster to see the man-in-a-dress in public? Not looking for a psycologist's answer, just your opinions. You've moved so far into the theoretical, I'm not sure if u think it's OK or not?
RS

A man in a dress is covered by freedom of expression and does not require the consent of others unless he is unavoidable, cannot be ignored etc or is causing harm through some means. Informed consent involves activity between individuals not free action in public space. However if said person was performing a sexual act that would be different.

If a child sees a man in a dress who is not engaged in sexual activity they will become aware of a variance in gender related behaviour. This is good and not bad. If the child is transgender they will be helped by witnessing the possibility. If they are not by seeing this variance as normal they will be able to be more tolerant of such. This is no different from a child seeing a punk, a goth, a cowboy, an eccentric old man who still dresses in the fashion of past eras or any other such.

People are not harmed intrinsicly by the differences of others but instead enriched by them. Even when they dislike those differences. It is only when people are the victims of unethical behaviour that they are harmed. Being upset by anothers free ethical choices is not to be harmed. To restrict that freedom is to do harm.

[docrobbysherry]

[/quote
If a child sees a man in a dress who is not engaged in sexual activity they will become aware of a variance in gender related behaviour. This is good and not bad. If the child is transgender they will be helped by witnessing the possibility. If they are not by seeing this variance as normal they will be able to be more tolerant of such. This is no different from a child seeing a punk, a goth, a cowboy, an eccentric old man who still dresses in the fashion of past eras or any other such.

People are not harmed intrinsicly by the differences of others but instead enriched by them. Even when they dislike those differences. It is only when people are the victims of unethical behaviour that they are harmed. Being upset by anothers free ethical choices is not to be harmed. To restrict that freedom is to do harm.[/QUOTE]


Thank u for your elaboration. I thot that's what u were saying, or meant.

I believe I am living proof of this theory. Where, and when I grew up in SoCal., there were no blacks or hispanics. We read about them in books, but never discussed real living black people, as I recall. My first direct contact with innercity blacks, was in the service. Not knowing any blacks previously, I had no idea of what to expect. I knew the history of black prejucide, and tried to treat them as regular people. I was shocked to learn THEY were prejudiced against me, and white people! However, after awhile, I became friends with some, and found them to be mostly just folks, same as the rest of us.

A friend of mine hung around with a lot of gays when I was younger. I hung with him, and consequently found gays were pretty much people like everyone else.

Now, on to my issue with CDs. Or, the man-in-a-dress look, that I used to revile. I never have met a CD in my life! Everything I had read, saw, or heard about CDs, prior to joining this site 4 months ago, was mostly very negative, or very comical. I'm SURE if I had been exposed to real CDs earlier in my life, I would never have formed negative opinions. Now, I find they r pretty much regular people, like me.

So, Batty, I entirely agree. If even the worst man-in-a-dress looking CD, went out in public, the next generation would not fear or be repulsed by them! And "passing" as a CD issue, mite disappear completely in 50+/- years!
And THAT, I think is, the most important message in your post.
RS

[battybattybats]

All you girls, This discussion on ethics/morality/philosophy/law is among the best threads I've been privileged to read here. Michelle and Batty, your exchanges are teaching me more than I was ever able to comprehend about these subjects in college. Maybe I'm just old enough now to want to understand. Thank you, thank you very much.

Some times we all play at being silly or dumb, but that doesn't mean we really are...

respect & love ( for intelligent discussion)

deja

Your most welcome!
I'm glad to be playing a part in this enjoyable, challenging and important discussion.
:hugs: to everyone.

[GypsyKaren]

There are some wonderful conversations going on here, unfortunately they have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic. If you want to carry this on, please start your own thread in the Lounge, I would hate to have to close this thread because of others taking it over.

Karen Starlene :star: