That is a great point Ryan, especially when it comes to discussion of labels with people who reject such notions. You can easily put the binaries on the diagram along with pretty much every mode of TG expression.Originally Posted by JiveTurkeyOnRye
Maybe the idea should be to view it less like a spectrum vs. binary idea, and view it more like a venn diagram:
There's a "male" side and a "female" side, but there's also plenty of space for personal expression where the two circles overlap.
That said, I don't think it changes anything in the original premise, that most men simply don't have it in them to migrate to another point in the diagram, whether towards androgyny or otherwise.
This makes me think of something I thought of the other night. I had flipped on the TV coverage of the NHL Draft's first round. Up on stage were the Tampa Bay Lightning's staff. Men, several of them, along with their draft pick. And again it struck me, these guys are MEN. They give no thought to their gender, they just do it. And a couple of them do it very well from a style standpoint. Think about it, what's not to like about a man who looks good in a smart suit? Steve Yzerman and Guy Boucher in particular looked incredible. They're both decent looking to begin with but still, could you imagine either of them up there in a dress??? I think not. Nor would they be prattling as they were getting ready about the perceived lack of fashion choices for men as they were getting ready.
So once again it's three cheers for men being men, and women being women...and of course acceptance of variations without expectation that such variations will somehow take over. I just don't see it happening.
