Discrimination: Inevitable

[Jenna Lynne]

Politically progressive CDers may be offended by this, but my progressive credentials are intact, so please bear with me for a minute.

I think there will always be anti-transgender bigotry -- not because the populace is unenlightened but because bigotry is built into the nature of gender itself. If there were no bigotry, there would be no such thing as transgendered activity! They're two sides of the same coin.

Here's why:

We live in a world where kids get messages that certain behaviors are gender-appropriate for them, while others are not appropriate. Everybody learns gender-coded behavior, appearance, speech, and so on.

Attitudes toward gender differentiation lie on the good old bell curve. Most people are in the middle of the curve -- they're mildly uncomfortable with cross-gender behavior, but don't make a big deal out of it. Out at the extreme are certain individuals who, for whatever reason (their own insecurity, or just because they're naturally hostile) feel called upon to enforce the unwritten laws of gender differentiation. These are the bigots.

The only way to get rid of those nasty people at the far end of the bell curve would be to create a world in which no behavior, clothing, or anything else was gender-coded to begin with.

This would be a dull world indeed for the crossdresser! In fact, there would be no crossdressers, because the distribution of lipstick use across the population would be random. 50% of lipstick users would be male, 50% female. No gender distinctions = no crossdressing.

Since I happen to like gender distinctions (vive la difference!), I need to accept that there's a price to be paid: I get to live in a world where a few of us are beaten up (or even murdered) by those nasty psycho guys at the far end of the bell curve.

The only other alternative (which we'll never achieve anyway) would be to live in a world where everybody wears tennis sneakers and baggy trousers. That would be safe, but dull.

Comments? Agree? Disagree? Don't understand?

***Jenna Lynne***

(blogging at jennalynne.wordpress.com)

[Nicole Erin]

Hopefully this doesn't end up in the politics area cause I don't have access to it...

ANYways, yeah you are right, we do enjoy CD'ing and without those gender barriers, it would be boring.

I always wondered about that tho. If a man could go out dressed en femme [as the gender world knows it], would we get told we look pretty?

I mean would you hear guys at a football game say something like "John, that LBD looks good but you should wear tan hose instead, and that dress has nothing on the gown that Brian was wearing yesterday, he looked amazing!"

[Nicole1]

Actually, I think most of us are hoping for something a little less radical than uniformity across the board. I would like to just see a greater acceptance of CDs in general. I don't particularly wish for anyone else to even want to dress as I do or to have a desire to be "Ladylike" or however you may wish to catorgorize it. It would just be nice to be able to dress in the form and fashion that we desire without the discrimation. It is possible, I believe; just look at women now as compared to the early 1900s. Women in pants would be severly discrimated against and they certainly could not hold down the types of jobs that they do now. But now, women seem to wear pants more often that they wear dresses and heels. That would seem to indicate, that change is possible. It is totally acceptable today for women to wear pants; therefore it should be possible for men to wear dresses and heels someday. :2c:

By the way, good thread.:battingeyelashes:

Hugs:hugs:

Nicole

[Sarah Doepner]

Jenna Lynne,
I wrote this on a previous post about sexism, and an attempt to provide some underpinning for that bell curve;

"The basic issue is very deeply rooted in society. For a very long time it has been a successful model for men and women to take specific roles. Our species has grown and prospered and developed an expectation that those [gender] roles are part of a successful society. Any variation from that could be seen as a threat to survival. Threats to survival are very often met with very strong responses."

I believe there are folks out there who are more closely tied to that basic survival of the species part of the genetic code, just like we seem to be dealing with other issues. The big difference is they have more control in the world than we do, possibly because their view is easier to grasp than ours is. Our nuanced view of gender presents a real challenge to most folks and the most basic response is to feel threatened. In other words, you are probably right and it will most likely take more than just politics and changes in society to remove the threat crossdressers face. It will have to evolve at a deeper level.

[Alice Torn]

I dream of great bonfires of women's jeans, and punk baggie pants burning , up!

[Jenna Lynne]

It is possible, I believe; just look at women now as compared to the early 1900s. Women in pants would be severly discrimated against and they certainly could not hold down the types of jobs that they do now. But now, women seem to wear pants more often that they wear dresses and heels. That would seem to indicate, that change is possible. It is totally acceptable today for women to wear pants; therefore it should be possible for men to wear dresses and heels someday.
I'm not sure. Seems to me women's options have broadened a great deal in the past fifty to a hundred years, but men's options haven't broadened in nearly the same way. Because women are moving upward in status and power, they can adopt some clothing types previously reserved for men. And at more formal occasions, they can still dress in extremely feminine ways.

But if a man wore a skirt, he would be moving downward, to a position of less status and less power. He would be showing weakness, and other men would quickly stop taking him seriously.

You'll notice that at the occasions when women are most feminine, men are most masculine (wearing suits and ties, or even tuxedos). At a softball game on Saturday afternoon, there would be much more overlap in dress -- much less differentiation. Some women could dress 100% male, and it wouldn't be noticed. But if a guy showed up in, you know, a tennis skirt and pink lipstick, you bet it would be noticed!

If it were possible for anyone to wear anything with equal acceptance, the cute outfits would have no gendered meaning at all. Anybody could wear anything.

Maybe I'm just getting old. Maybe I'm getting nostalgic for the Fifties or something, when women wore nylons and girdles and spike heels while making breakfast for Wade and Wally and the Beaver. But I think it's probably significant that the most enticing women's wear, be it a ball gown or a French maid outfit, is the furthest from looking masculine.

Anybody ever see a French maid wearing a kilt? I didn't think so. See, it's not just a question of, is it technically a skirt? The question is, is it girly or not?

I'll go with girly every time.

***Jenna Lynne***