Always the Bridesmaid never the Bride.
Printable View
Always the Bridesmaid never the Bride.
Don’t you find it “odd” that a group, whose very label includes a synonym for “odd” would exclude a man who dresses as a woman for sexual reasons, or don’t they find that “odd”?
But, seriously, it seems to be the nature of any group to form around a common interest, and then proceed to internally start trying to define who has the “biggest dog in the fight” and establish a hierarchy of who most deserves the group’s attention. For instance, how many times have you seen the sentiment expressed, on this forum, along the lines of: Your issue is contemptible. If only you were (insert personal situation here) like me, you wouldn’t have this issue?
Do I consider myself LGBTQ? Never really thought much about it. Do I consider myself “trans”? Well… I don’t feel I would define myself as transgender, nor have I, or do I want to transition, but, I would have to say I am undeniably a transvestite at times.
Although I take umbrage with someone trying to define me by their own experience and observations, I really don’t care what you call me or think I am. I’ll just worry about what I think I am if that’s ok. If you don’t feel I’m a part of your group, then, fine, but, I have to agree with Sarah. Excluding a group of people, who may have a modicum of understanding, and maybe even more sympathy for LGBTQ concerns and challenges, by ostracizing them in a presentation aimed at encouraging tolerance, seems ridiculous and detrimental to the message.
LGBTQ? Trans? Odd? You decide. I would just like to be pretty once in a while.
Hugs
Meeshell
from the thread ...."And then when later asked specifically about cross dressers inclusion in LGBTQ, their response was that CDs do it for sexual reasons and not part of their identity. So No." Doing it for sexual reasons includes gays and lesbians.Personally, the "Trans umbrella" does cover CDers as well.
I know this is important to some people, but it really comes down to how you want to define the groups . . . and yourself; so maybe you fit in someone's definition and maybe you don't. For example, when you are dressed you may have tendencies that move you towards gay or bisexual interests that you do not have in drab mode. That might put you within one of the definitions -- so I just see it as being a very subjective issue.
For me, Carla has the best summary . . . and attitude about this issue.
I consider myself to be under the LGBTQ umbrella, broadly defined. While I am married to a woman, I don't think that defines me -- "straight, but not narrow", perhaps. If my spouse were more accepting, I would present more feminine more often, both at home and out in the world.
I am surprised that an LGBT advocate would be kicking allies out of the tent.
Makes perfect sense for people who dress just for sexual reasons to not be included. For them it's just another kink. The S&M crowd and countless other sexual kinks are not included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeshell
I think I agree that drag is more performance art than gender identity. But most of us in this forum aren't doing drag. We are expressing our inner femininity and it places us on the transgender continuum. Whereas many people tend to think in binary terms, ie either you are or you're not. Like a light switch. Gender identity is really a continuous variation, like a dimmer switch. Some of us have only a small desire for feminine presentation while in others the feeling is so strong that they feel it imperative to pursue SRS. And everything in between. In that woman's binary thinking, you only qualify as trans if you are in the latter group. Big mistake. Ignore her and live your life as you see fit and don't think too much about labels.
What an ugly and bigoted statement. First off ?we all? don?t identify as males. There are MANY of us who identify differently. There is a whole section for trans people for God?s sake! Second, there are also gay and bisexual members here. And ?dudes that like to dress up? is dismissive, ignorant, and the closest thing to outright hate speech I?ve ever seen on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
I'm sorry, but that's a bit like saying someone's half dead or partly pregnant. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie5004
You may dress part time, but you know there is no off switch. Might as well own it.
Thanks for everyone for sharing your thoughts! I wish I could like or comment to everyone but such is the forum design.
It seems pretty split about whether or not CDs are included in LGBTQ, or even want to be.
I?ll leave it at this. To narrowly define Crossdressers as only doing it for sexual reasons is wrong. We are males who on some percentage of our lives dress like females and even wear wigs, forms, and take a female name. Maybe we are just a lower case t? Haha
Seriously though, we face similar self and societal acceptance. If we haven?t felt same hate & discrimination as most LGBT that?s likely because we hide it so well. We may be the last group still so deep in the closet?
If heterosexual, we?ve always been able to marry the one we love, but as so clearly shown in a pinned thread, getting SO acceptance & support is still a major hurdle for us.
Again- thanks everyone for chiming in!
I'll never understand why y'all are so intent on putting everyone into neat little boxes, I remember as a kid when playing in cardboard boxes I used to always end up tearing the box open.
I am more complicated than your label.
Whats the difference between a Crossdresser and a Transsexual ? ...................... Time.
That was my first real conversation with a longtime friend when I finally took my first steps out of the closet. At the time I found it an amusing anecdote. Now years later I find it a truism for a lot of people.
For myself I would have transitioned if not for some medical issues. Also there have been many here who have made the journey. At times I envy those who find peace with transition.
This is just my observation.
Roberta, pretty hard to stuff all of us in one box. I can't say I am transgender. Certainly have no interest in going that far. CD'ers fall into all kinds of groups, straight, sexual play, to those that desire to transition.
I am in the middle somewhere. No interest in transitioning, enjoy the "play" side of CD'ing, but still wonder if I don't have some female genetics floating around inside. I don't feel I fit into the LGBT alphabet.
As for the speaker mentioned by the OP, I find it hard for them to rigidly exclude CD'ers as some definitely fit into the LGBT somewhere. Perhaps, in her mind, at that point they are gays or queer that crossdress.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genni
If I was just a guy who was just wearing some clothes, why do I desire my hips to be wider and my chest to be chestier? Why does it warm the heart to have someone say something about how feminine a picture of mine seems to them?
What that discussion really underlined is that a lot of people still think crossdresser = fetishist. It is deeply ingrained. I think it is why I am presumed to be full time trans by people I talk to, because I am outside in public and not wearing miniskirts and hooker heels (an oft quoted trope on this site). I do have to admit I do not give a jot one way or the other, I have zero time for activism and identity politics. Free yourselves of these linguistic shackles!
I stopped reading this thread after this post, and before my head explodes. Well said, Genni!Quote:
Originally Posted by Genni
I take back everything I wrote in my two posts except that what I wrote applies to me. I am trans and that makes me "T". However, while there are bright lines,such as, you are gay or bi or some other label, this isn't written in law. There is no clubhouse or secret handshake or special discounts. If you feel that you are outside of the main pack and relate to LGTBQ, then I guess you do. This is all about self-identity and you decide that for yourself.
Robin
for me i dress as a woman and feel like a woman when dressed. my life would be torn apart if i did transition,so i wont , but i am transgender
Why does society feel the need to pin a label on everyone?!
I dress in fem clothes cos I prefer them to drab, I'm married to a great wife who accepts that side of me at home. I have no need to be a full time girl, sexually when in guy mode I want women, when in girl mode I want men, does that make me bi? well yes it probably does, but do I feel the need to identify as anything other than me, well no I don't!
I think labels are best understood in the specific context in which they are used. Membership can change depending on the specific context. Let us take the context of the recent us Supreme Court ruling in LGBTQ as an example. In my reading, the majority opinion states that if you are fired for doing something that a person of a different sex would not be fired for, that is sex discrimination. So if a man gets fired for wearing skirts to work, skirts that would be acceptable on a women, that is discrimination. So in that context that person is a member of the protected LGBTQ class. In other contexts that person may not fit in the LGBTQ class. Membership is context sensitive.
As a second example, I only fit in the class football fan on Super Bowl Sunday. At other times I do not fit in that label. Regards, vale
At the end of the day the old saying you can call me anything as long as long as you don't call me late for dinner. Or in the case of crossdressers in the eyes of LGBTQ, you can not allow me under your umbrella and it doesn't mean much in the big picture. Some very good points were made that crossdressers should be included and I think we rightfully could be.
For me it's kind of a moot point because I pinched my ticket to that club in another way but there aren't any Pride parades up here in a one feed mill town and I'm not big on being any kind of activist for any causes.
Not a box, an inclusive umbrella that covers everyone from fetish crossdressers to post-op transexuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumped
The only reason I can think of why so many here do not want to be included in this umbrella is transphobia.
Was coming here to say exactly the same thing, Micki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micki_Finn
The two parts that hurt the most were: "you all identify firmly as males" and "your a bunch of heterosexual dudes that like to dress up". Who said that was me? Or anyone on this forum? How remarkably callous, dismissive, and assumptive are those two statements? Wow, I just had to shake my head in amazement and sadness. And you wonder why some CDers like me hide in a closet? Because of statements like that meant to shame me. Guilt me. Dismiss me. Attitudes just like those, or the tropes that it's nothing more than a sexual fetish thing, or I must be secretly gay.
Megan ... Not sure why the falling back to definitions that clearly do not account for a wide spectrum of emotional and physiological feelings. I identify in so many ways I can't put myself into a simple silo. I am "straight" I guess, but "bi-curious" at other times. I dress for so many reasons at different times and depending on my mood ... to feel pretty, relaxed, calm, to express a feminine side of me, and sometimes for (self) sexual pleasure too. Dysphoria, who knows? It varies as well; for example, I do not want to be a woman full time, but want to feminine sometimes. So what does that make me?
A complex dynamic human being with emotions that does not fit into any one definition, especially that one. I do NOT identify as fully male, despite my sex and outward appearance. Julia is inside me as sure as I breathe. I am heterosexual? Physically, yes, to date, but mentally and as my bi-curious nature grows? Who knows? But I sure as hell am not a dude that likes to dress up. To call me, or anyone else that without considering the person's uniqueness, is horribly offensive and emotionally in really poor taste. That hurt, hun.
I?ve got no desire to transition but also believe LGBTQ is all about challenging gender norms and binary definitions so very happy to identify as trans or queer
From a GG's POV...
In view of social condemnation (which is the first level of discrimination), I am puzzled by the repeated fight between minorities...Instead of searching the lowest common denominator indispensable to achieve a wide grouping !
I believe that the LGBT+ label is already inclusive...But maybe you can all (CDs and Trans') agree to federate under MOGII (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities and Intersex) or GRSM (Gender, Romantic and Sexual Minorities) flags wich are more inclusive : no label because everyone is included (CD, genderfluid, genderqueer, non-binary...to trans'). :)
:winkp: Just for fun I will add that some historians said that DRAG was used to mean petticoat... Finally don't all MtF love petticoat ?! ;)
If drag queens are only into dressing as a job, are probably not T, unless they're LGBT when not "working".Quote:
Originally Posted by Micki_Finn
Who said that we all firmly [no pun intended] identify as males Some days I'm sot so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan G
Some assorted responses without quoting.
That's the problem with labels; they're not specific enough. Remember, T stands for Transgender, not transexual.
As for passing. I've seen many GGs who don't pass as women as well as I do.
I would probably call myself bigender or gender fluid. Am I CD or T.
Don't forget that you can be a non-op T.
Some people believe that the difference between a crossdresser and a transwoman is 2 years. So, at worst, we're only 2 years from T.
I happen to personally know a lot of Ts who fit that cliche. Maybe they knew that they were T at the when I met them as a CD, but they had me fooled; I thought that they were "just a CD".
Lastly, if you are assaulted on the street while dressed, do you or they care whether you're CD or T? If the person assaulted you thought you were T, that could be a hate crime. If that person thought you were a CD, no hate crime?
I think we need to refrain from the idea of applying the notion of passability to genetic females. It's like division-by-zero, and it probably loses us support... lest another genetic female challenges us to give birth, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sometimes Steffi
We also need not to confuse attractiveness with passability. Not being attracted to a genetic female is totally fine, but that is a different assessment than passability. Unless most of us pass with real hair, real breasts, no makeup, independently of clothing, without clothing, etc, we probably shouldn't go there.
( There are plenty of women to whom I am not attracted, with whom I would trade places in an instant ).
- L.
Could be. Personally, I don't care where a person fits in any of these labels. I joke with friends that I hate everyone equally until they prove themselves. I have gay friends that I enjoy being with. I can't say I know any trans people, but I would give them the same chance I give anyone. If you are a decent trustworthy worthy person you are ok with me. Nothing else really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertacd
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lydianne
You may be prettier than some GG's but all GG's are still more feminine than any of us GM's will ever be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Vinova
Forgive me for quoting your entire post, but there are several things I wished to address in it.
During their presentation, Drag was described as only for entertainment and not part of gender identity.
This is true. Look at Benny Hill, or the cast of Monty Python. They often dressed in drag, for a role in their shows. Or take the movie "To Wong Foo..." Swazye, Snipes and Leguizamo dressed in drag, for a role. Or imagine a costume party where some guy shows up in a cheerleader outfit, unshaven, with beachballs in a bra. Is he a crossdresser, or doing drag? Would they be classed as crossdressers? Would ANYone point to Wesley Snipes and say "Hey, look! It's the crossdresser!"?
And then when later asked specifically about cross dressers inclusion in LGBTQ, their response was that CDs do it for sexual reasons and not part of their identity. So No.
I don't agree that the ONLY reason for crossdressing is sexual, there are a multitude of reasons, but sexual fulfillment IS a part of it, for many.
Is crossdressing part of your identity? When going for a job interview, do you agonize over going as "male self" or "female self"?
Lets suppose that you are at work, and for whatever reason, a CD that you know is there, en femme. Would you go and greet them? Duck away, or pretend not to know them? Why, or why not?
Ever been turned down for a job, or a loan, or an apartment, because of how you presented? Ever freaked out, while driving en femme, because you came to a police checkpoint? Ever have a panic attack at work, because you missed a speck of nail varnish?
Crossdressers, and I am NOT degrading them or negging them, don't live the life. They ( and this is a total generalization based on years of reading posts here! ), don a disguise. They take clandestine trips out. At 3 in the morning. On a deserted road, take a selfie, and tell how bold they were. They might meet with a group of like minded people, showing up at the venue, in drab, changing into their glam self, and changing back on leaving.
They tend to have very specific preferences for garments. "I ONLY wear Vanity Fair panties, in peach!", "I love how open bottom girdles make me feel soooo femme!", or, "I love to flounce and swish around in my ultra-feminine 1950's skirts and petticoats!" "I never wear jeans or slacks in girl mode!" Again, I'm not knocking CD's; you do you and more power to you!
BUT, CD's can shed that disguise at a moments notice, and present as "normal" to the rest of the world. And let's face reality, a lot of CD's (not all, and I don't have stats, so don't ask! ) DO get an emotional or sexual thrill from dress up.
So, in my opinion, if you feel that crossdressers belong on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, then builders of model airplanes should be on the aeronautical engineering board. Or that by saying "Hey, I sat next to a POC on the bus, so that proves I'm all about equality!", means you support BLM.
I personally couldn't care less about labels. Being called a heterosexual dude who likes to dress is fine with me, transgender is fine with me, everything goes as these tags are just revealing how the beholder is seeing or trying to understand you, and not what you are.
The need for a brand name for a group takes a meaning when this group has battles to fight (e.g. for equal rights). If you want to marshall its members, make them realize the wrongs they endure, you need a team name, an identity. If LGBTQ people and transvestites consider they are all being treated unfairly and consider themselves sisters and brothers in arm, maybe they can add a letter to that long acronym, or consider the + does it, and like a member dear to my heart said in her post, try to find what unites them and will make them stronger together rather than spending time arguing about what divides them.
First, in the interest of mutual understanding, I want to point out how often misunderstandings happen on message boards like this one. I'm referring to Megan's post about GLAAD's supercilious dismissal of anyone who doesn't fit their definition of "transgender" as "a bunch of heterosexual dudes that like to dress up," Was Megan really echoing the same contempt of crossdressers along with that crowd? Or was she drawing attention to the same disgust I feel at such exclusionary hypocrisy from some outfit like GLAAD? I hope she'll return to clarify that. Please be careful how we interpret another's words, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt!--even "doubts" we may not think of at first blush, as I confess I didn't myself. More on that crowd later.
Thank you for this post, Roberta, which is a good starting point for discussion. I certainly agree with your concept of "T" as an umbrella, in which we all ought in principle to be included. What I have a problem with is that second statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertacd
Although some people "hate labels," I think labels are generally useful anyway. The real value of labels is that people are simply different from one another and want to be understood for "who they really are" and "what they're really like." "Different" doesn't imply "better" or "worse"; just "different" in ways that others often don't understand. It reminds me of a Web site somewhere about an entirely different topic--Myers-Briggs personality classifications--accompanied by a publication called Please Understand Me. The point of course is that people don't always "understand" others who for various reasons think, feel, or act differently from themselves, unless they're educated about it.
So under this T "umbrella" there's a burgeoning list of subcategories like "LGBTTTQQIAA" and whatnot, which can be found (among other places) on a Web site with the delightful name of "ok2Bme.ca,", a philosophy I thoroughly sympathize with. This ever-growing alphabetical sea serpent is not only compendious, but cumbersome besides, so no wonder people shorten it to "LGBT+," or sometimes "LBGTQ+." Still, I think the reason for its growth is not so much that anyone doesn't want to be seen as "like those other people" we get confused with," more that they want their own individuality to be understood.
Sometimes this leads to needless objections by hypersensitive people, such as some who insist "I am not a 'transsexual.' I am simply a woman now." Or those who want us to know that "in our culture, which is different from yours, when somebody has both a feminine and a masculine soul in the same body, we call it 'Two-Spirit.'" Point acknowledged, but from a gender perspective it's still a "distinction without a difference," and when we bring "different cultures" into the mix as well, we only multiply the existing number of labels.
Despite all this, there is a reason why "B" is the third letter in "LGBT," and I'm sure it's not because "bisexual" people are "looking down" on anyone who's purely gay or lesbian. It's just because they want to be understood for themselves, that they're different from others, that they swing both ways and son't belong as "straight" [b]or[//b] gay.
It all reminds me of that ancient but classic comic song a group called the Southlanders did a lifetime ago, back in 1958 when so much music was just plain lighthearted fun: "I Am A Mole":
I'm not a Bat or a Rat or a Cat
I'm not a Gnu or a Kangaroo
I'm not a Goose or a Moose on the loose
I am a Mole, and I live in a Hole!
It's appropriate for some of us who crossdress. Even if we don't live in a "hole," we can be "deeply buried" in the closet!
So with apologies, that's where I don't believe "transphobia" is the reason why some people may not want to be included under an umbrella titled "transgender," which, if it's taken to mean their gender identity is primarily female, does not properly describe them.
It's also a practical matter of how we're understood by others--especially those we treasure the most: our wives, partners and girlfriends. We wouldn't want them to fear that we're gay and might cheat on them or worse, leave them for another man. Just as important, we wouldn't want them to live in groundless fear that the "man" they loved and married is going to disappear forever and abandon them by morphing into a woman.
If your mileage is different, if crossdressing led you to understand that you are truly transgender, that's fine. But the point I'm making above all is that I believe most of us who crossdress, for whatever reason, do sympathize with and support those who are truly "transgender" (whatever exactly that means) and struggle with it, since we've struggled with related issues ourselves. The bogeyman of "transphobia" is only a "threat" as far as transsexualism leads uneducated members of society to misunderstand the rest of us who crossdress, which frankly doesn't bother me one bit.
What DOES bother me is the lack of reciprocity. How some members--not all--of the "trans" community "look down" on us as "mere" crossdressers, when we don't look down on them! The universe of gender is a horizontal spectrum, not a vertical "hierarchy" where some are "superior" to others. If some people are "further along" that spectrum toward the feminine side, that's fine, but it doesn't make anyone "better" or "worse" than anyone else--any more than men are "better than" women, or vice versa. The sexes are just different, that's all, and we're both necessary to the world. It's about as stupid as asking "Is a bolt 'better than' a nut?" If we're ever going to put anything together and build anything worthwhile, we're going to need both bolts and nuts to join them. Otherwise the whole thing is going to fall apart, and we're left with nothing.
Unfortunately that is not the attitude of some people in the community, and I sometimes wonder how this relates to Heinlein's depiction of humanity in Stranger in a Strange Land. His hero, raised on Mars and previously unacquainted with Earth, "never laughed" before--until he saw monkeys in a human zoo. How one monkey, bullied and deprived of his banana by a bigger monkey, immediately reacted by picking on a smaller monkey and taking his anger out by bullying him too. For the first time, the hero laughed until he couldn't stop, at the comedy, the tragedy, and the absurdity of it all.
How many male-to-female transsexuals have forgotten how they and their sisters were rejected, despised, and looked down on with contempt by a gang of females calling themselves "radical feminists," or "womyn," to distance themselves from any dreaded suggestion of "men" in the proper spelling? It didn't matter that the MtoFs in question were just as much "women" in soul and spirit as the genetic females who were shrieking about their so-called "oppression." It didn't matter that transsexuals were battling far greater difficulties of their own., worse than any "cisgender" person, male or female. It didn't matter if transsexuals were entirely in sympathy with the political goals of these "womyn." It was oh, no, you were 'born male,' so you 'enjoyed privilege'"=the biggest load of garbage I ever heard, about some myth of so-called "male privilege"--"so you can't come to our 'womyn's' music concerts, because they're for 'womyn born womyn' only, and because you were 'born male,' you're not 'one of us."
What a load of snotty, "superior," objectionable females! "Eww, you can't be a member of our club, because you "don't belong"! They're like a gang of immature, cliquey high-school girls playing their wretched "exclusion" games on other girls. Isn't it time they grew up?
Yet we find exactly the same attitude among some other "girls"--mind you, I'm not saying "all," just some---who, being "transgender," are pulling the same snotty, contemptuous attitude on crossdressers at large, who, because they're not truly "transgender," are in some sense "not as worthy as us" and "don't belong in our club." Heaven knows what these garbage attitudes are based on: some sniveling idea that "our struggles are greater than your pitiful little struggles," or some assumption of female privilege: that "you're not as good as us because you're not as fully female as we are!"
At any rate it's disgustingly objectionable, and it's exactly what Micki and JuliaGirl spoke of when Julia quoted that contemptuous line about "a bunch of heterosexual dudes,,," I've heard this crap myself. When I lived in Massachusetts I was a member of the Tiffany Club for crossdressers, though some members were fully transgender. Yet on the Web back then I've heard a snotty bunch, who ought to have known better, dismissing the group as "just a men's club."
The same attitude is present anong "persons" like the "non-binary" one who gave the lecture Michelle described in her original post. As somebody remarked, he, she, or it "has an agenda"--and it is not one of "inclusion." All this nonsense about "inclusion" is nothing but hypocritical crap--as is all this petty nonsense about pronouns as well. It's nothing but an excuse to pick on others and create divisiveness. Just as it's ironic that some transsexuals dismissed by "womyn" should show the same dismissal to "mere" crossdressers, I find it ironic that a person calling itself "non-binary" cannot stretch its understanding far enough to encompass other and finer distinctions among humans. What does "non-binary" mean anyway? Only that we don't have to belong wholly to one of two poles--"male" and "female"--and there's whole spectrum of possibilities in between. Some are feminine in nature despite the sex they were born in, and want to transition entirely. Some just need to express their female side socially, much of the time. And some of us just need to "dip our toes in the water" of femininity, whatever our reason, "sexual" or otherwise. Some swing between the two, while other just can't make up their minds. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in [his, her, or its] philosophy!
The same goes for any attempted definition of "transgender" such as the one Megan quoted here, by GLAAD or any other organizaion. Who gives a damn what they think? They're only about gay and lesbian stuff anyway, with an agenda of their own. As important as that may be, what they hell do they know about gender issues, which are entirely different? But to be charitable, maybe they didn't even think about us! Nobody has to buy their definition of what "transgender" means.
We're surrounded by a bunch of wretched "clubs," and some of them want to exclude us. If they do, well, screw them! Groucho Marx famously said that "I refuse to join any club that would accept me as a member." But that was a joke of course, and why would the rest of us want to join a club that wouldn't accept us as a member? If it won't, it's full of rotten snobs anyway, so who wants to socialize with them, when we've got better things to do with our friends and with those who love us?
Yes, we do belong under the "umbrella," whether it's titled "transgender" or something else. If we're "mere" crossdressers, we have the right to create our own "umbrella" definition of what it all means. I know that alphabetical sea serpent is getting a bit long already when "LGBT" was extended to include "Q," meaning those who are "Queer," or better still, "Questioning" their sexuality or gender identity. If those Qs can get themselves added in spite of its length, there's still room for us to plant a firm stake in the ground at the end of it with a big X for us CROSS-dressers.
How does "LGBTQX" sound? We won't get heard if we don't SHOUT! Though I'm not gay myself, I've never forgotten that delicious quote from a man named Robertson Davies, who famously groused that "The love that 'dare not speak its name"--itself a quote from Lord Alfred Douglas--"has become the love that won't shut up!" No doubt the drumbeat of insistence on gay acceptance ticked Mister Davies off a bit, but "marketing" oneself relentlessly is the only way anyone retains recognition in an always competitive world. If that other lot thinks we're not "part of them," the least we can do is push for "LBTGQX" as a legitimate title that we belong under that "umbrella," no matter what the umbrella itself may be called.
Except that there is this other reason...Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertacd
and a whole bunch more that I can come up with without batting an eyelash. Additionally, there are some great comments earlier in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertacd
I made my own umbrella. It is a happiness umbrella and all are welcome. It is for everyone who has found their own happiness as well as those still searching.
I can tell you obviously suffered from some attitudes, but you are heading to one more rant against feminists (no short supplies of that in these forums) and denying of male privilege (like most males at birth you enjoyed it so you couldn't see it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marianne S
So they're calling you names :) Why do you even care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marianne S
Male "privilege"? There is no "male privilege" to speak of. The whole concept is nonsense, a mere invention, pure duckspeak that unthinking persons keep parroting. A "privilege" is a special advantage conferred on someone by people, by society in general, that less "privileged" persons don't have. The main advantages men have are what Nature, not "people," conferred on them. If women are jealous of that, they should blame Nature, not "men" or "society," and stop abusing the meanings of words like "privilege."
When the Titanic went down, people didn't call for "MEN and children first," did they? That's one example of the real meaning of a "privilege." People who buy this stuff about "male privilege" should open their eyes to some reasoned discourse based on facts. Like Warren Farrell's classic "The Myth of Male Power," or Jack Kammer's "If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules?"--a highly readable book.
You take the "male privilege" term literally, when it is just another name for discrimination against women. It is a constant that persons who don't suffer certain discriminations (males here) deny that they exist for others (women here). A young boy taking for granted and normal that he can keep watching TV on the couch while his sister has been called to help setting the table will typically deny any male privilege once grown up, despite the abundance of such examples in ordinary life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marianne S
Anyway it's an old debate and I don't expect to convince you.
-- EDIT --
As for the male power "myth", anybody can write books cherry-picking facts to demonstrate this or that, but the numbers are stubborn :
https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-d...ts-and-figures
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gend...s_of_directors
So much for a myth.
Oh, my this thread has taken some interesting turns since I last looked at it. I am glad it has stayed civil.
As to the question Are "WE" LGBTQ? I'm not sure it can even be answered. "WE" are as diverse as the people the acronym represents. For the thousands of us in this forum, there are that many reasons times two why we do what we do, we are fetish dressers, transgender men and women, purists(only full attempts to pass are good enough for me) and dedicated MIAD's, we are casual under dressers, drag enthusiasts and a million more variations of what we do. Do we all fit under the LGBTQ umbrella, no. Do many of us, perhaps even the great majority, I would say yes but that is just my opinion. Should we, as a collective, be accepted, I honestly do not know.
What I do know is that you as an individual have every right to claim your spot if you want it. For me, I have had experiences that indicate a more than passing interest in more than one letter in the rainbow, to the case in point, in the famous 'pink pill blue pill' threads, I am decidedly in the pink pill camp, unfortunately my reality will never support that choice, If I cold only be 18 again, LOL.
Does my being a forever frustrated trans woman exclude me since I will never start down that path or is it enough to just have the desire? Again, I don't know.
In disclosure, I haven't read through the 86 responses to date, but I had to respond to the comment that "CDs do it for sexual reasons and not part of their identity."
In my opinion, that is a na?ve, and disappointing for in the LGBTQ world, comment. There are many reasons why we crossdress. Sexual reasons is certainly one for many people, but to make that a general comment lumping all CDs into that category is unbelievably immature.
What I think in my opinion LGBTQ Community is a umbrella which covers people who want to express their inner side freely. We crossdressers need to express our feelings through our clothes.
You may want to adopt the label to fight job discrimination based on the latest Supreme Court ruling.
MarianneQuote:
Originally Posted by Marianne S
I believe you misunderstand the concept of "privilege" and it's conjunction with a noun
Privilege - is a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group
Noun - a word used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things.
Put them together as in "male privilege" "white privilege" "gender privilege" or "chef's privilege" and you DO have a meaningful phrase.
Take Chef's privilege as an example if Gordon Ramsey walked into your kitchen and said "I'm going to cook you the best meal ever , you would confer him the privilege of using the most expensive ingredients to cook for you, whereas if a McDonalds 'chef' offered to cook, you would not let him near your truffles or expensive wine.
The richness of language is that it is robust and changeable to fit the needs of the moment to help people discuss things and to communicate (and yes, it does not mean every one agrees on what they are discussing)
" comment that "CDs do it for sexual reasons and not part of their identity."....
sorry, but I'm not sure that I would want to be connected with a movement as narrow minded as that. This certainly IS part of my identity!!! Currently it seems to be the GREATER part of it. if they were as understanding as they say they are, they would know more about us.
The LGB part is about sexual preference and TQAI are about identities including non binary also call gender Queer these are about how you like to express yourself.
I don't really care where I stand within the spectrum of LGBTQIA. I stand in solidarity with them and in gratitude to them for the courage and hard work that has liberated so many people, and made America a better, freer society. The recent supreme court decision is just the latest hard won victory for under represented people.
United we stand, divided we fall.
One word: Yes.
We CDers may not be to the speaker in the OP or to some of the trans community but put on your prettiest outfit and wig and go out and ask the general public what they think and I think there won't be any hair splitting.
In my case, I?m bi. The CD part it?s more of a sexual aid, a fetish to look better when meeting a guy.
I do understand that for some of you, it means so much more.
Here in Montreal, the LGBTQ has an extra + at the end (LGBTQ+) to include the rest.
I'my happy to be a +
I think we are.
I think it's completely dependent on the individual, which is why CDs are not usually included in LGBTQ+. For straight-identifying men who identify as men and nothing more, and wear "women's" clothing (IMHO clothes are clothes), then I'd say those people are not LGBTQ+, but that's only my opinion. Myself, I don't identify as 100% male or 100% female, so I'm technically transgender, and part of the whole alphabet of options. There are members of the community, usually lesbians but not always, that think trans people shouldn't be included at all.
The gatekeepers of the LGBTQ+ community will let this debate rage for whatever reason. It's been happening since Stonewall, so I don't see it changing any time soon. Identify how you want and screw anyone else that says otherwise.