“there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to.”
I can think of a reason.
That man lives in a world and a country where some are going to be aroused to violence at the sight of his impersonation and attack him in response to their disgust.
We could argue until the sun dies that this shouldn’t happen, just as we ca…
“there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to.”
I can think of a reason.
That man lives in a world and a country where some are going to be aroused to violence at the sight of his impersonation and attack him in response to their disgust.
We could argue until the sun dies that this shouldn’t happen, just as we can argue that men in women’s prisons shouldn’t rape women or that people with guns shouldn’t kill strangers. What a wonderful world it would be if people didn’t do violent things.
And yes we should work toward that world. No question.
But that isn’t how the world is.
So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack.
But. When I factor in that the feminine projection was not an identity, as is so tiresomely claimed, but only to get some special attention, I really can’t bring myself to care very much. This is the part of "trans" that does not get enough notice: "gender identity" is not something inside them that people let out to liberate their "true selves," it is something they adopt to create pretexts to talk about themselves.
Because people who need so much special attention annoy me, and annoy most of us.
"So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack."
I extremely hesitantly agree with this. But while yes, you're right, our hypothetical crossdresser knew he was putting himself in danger, we could make the same case for a man who was even slightly openly gay 30 years ago (or even today in some places). Or a black man who got stuck near a sundown town 60 years ago. Or even a woman walking home at night
The solution to the world's ills is not to ask women and minorities and people who are a little different to stay at home so that evil people aren't able to do evil things.
This is why I support hate crime laws despite their obvious problems. It's not enough to say, "well, that person committed assault, so let's just punish the assault." Motivation matters. And if the motivation is, "I don't like you because you're different to me in some way," I think society needs to send a clear message that that attitude is also criminal.
Nobody has to like seeing a man in a dress or a black man in their neighbourhood or two men kissing. But people who feel that way can't be allowed to set the tone for the whole of society.
"Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”"
Yeah, I noted all that. And as I said, I hesitantly agree that this qualifies as a reason for a man not to put on a dress and makeup. Which I think was your point. I just also wanted to point out why I think it's a bad reason.
Yes, being black and gay are inborn. But come on, there's no need for gay people to shove it in our faces. Or for black people to not just hang out with their own. Or for women to dress provocatively.
That's the kind of argument some people make. And besides, some would argue that being gender non-conforming is inborn too.
While we probably disagree on percentages, we definitely agree that some people are shocking simply for the sake of it. Or to garner attention (I think a great many in the Q+ community fall into this category). I'm just very reluctant to paint too much of gender non-conformity with that brush.
I truly think gender non conformity is good thing. Even if we have to accept a few attention seekers along with it.
The only "trans" people I have ever known who didn't yap about themselves all day long were the ones who actually were transgender, not the cultists. EVERYTHING to do with the "trans" cult seems to be about attention.
And, for the record, I spent my entire time in gay politics saying that we should stop "shoving it in [others'] faces." Because our goal all along should have been that being gay is unremarkable, undefining, and private. Instead, we had (and still have) those grotesque parades where people act out S&M fantasies on parade floats. And there are still a lot of gays for whom the purpose of life is to make sure strangers know what they think about when they masturbate.
For my counseling assimilation, I was called self-hating, suffering from "internalized homophobia." Even while I was as out as could be at work (except I didn't wear a cock ring or grow any "facial hair statements").
But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?
OK, I am prejudiced, mine is the attitude of one who spent a long time trying to get attention and suddenly outgrew it, and we tend to dislike most in others that which we dislike most in ourselves.
But whether or not there is anything good about gender nonconformity, there are going to be people who don't like it, nd at the extremes of that dislike there is going to be violence. I'm not that extreme but I can easily see making a very loud scene.
"But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?"
No, again, I agree. I'd know full well I was putting myself in danger if I went to a KKK rally. And asserting my right to be there wouldn't make the beating any less likely. But if a significant portion of society was a KKK rally, and my only option to live my life without risk of getting beaten was to hide my skin, should I do it? Would this be acceptable? Would you blame me for refusing or society for being that way?
I understand where you're coming from with assimilation. As we've discussed before, back in the day, many gay people defined themselves by their "otherness," by their status as outsiders. They were shocking and crass simply for the thrill of being so. I think the same is true of the Q+ community today. We are united in our disdain for these people.
But true assimilation also requires adaptation from society. If I'm allowed to kiss my girlfriend or wife in the street without fear of violence, you should be able to kiss your boyfriend or husband. That's not rubbing anything in anybody's face, that's a normal expression of affection that we should *all* be able to take for granted. And it's a long way from the public fetish parties that have sadly come to embody "Pride."
The point I was trying to make is that many of the "don't rub it in my face" people are talking about these ordinary gestures. They're basically saying, "I'll tolerate your existence as long as you completely hide who you are."
I like how we converge on agreement. The more we converse, the more we agree. The same public displays of affection that heterosexual people use should be unremarkable (they would not be in Alabama), but when it comes to going out in public in bondage gear, I shift more toward "what happens, happens."
As I have probably mentioned before, after my solitary march I took part in, 1976, I had signed up for reminders, and every year I got one encouraging me to show up as lewdly-dressed and offensive as I could manage, because ("titter titter") the cops can'tt arrest us all. And that was 45 years ago.
Yes I’ve always found it incredibly selfish to stand in the middle of the hypothetical room shouting ‘me! I’m important! What I want is all that matters!’ So annoying.
“there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to.”
I can think of a reason.
That man lives in a world and a country where some are going to be aroused to violence at the sight of his impersonation and attack him in response to their disgust.
We could argue until the sun dies that this shouldn’t happen, just as we can argue that men in women’s prisons shouldn’t rape women or that people with guns shouldn’t kill strangers. What a wonderful world it would be if people didn’t do violent things.
And yes we should work toward that world. No question.
But that isn’t how the world is.
So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack.
But. When I factor in that the feminine projection was not an identity, as is so tiresomely claimed, but only to get some special attention, I really can’t bring myself to care very much. This is the part of "trans" that does not get enough notice: "gender identity" is not something inside them that people let out to liberate their "true selves," it is something they adopt to create pretexts to talk about themselves.
Because people who need so much special attention annoy me, and annoy most of us.
"So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack."
I extremely hesitantly agree with this. But while yes, you're right, our hypothetical crossdresser knew he was putting himself in danger, we could make the same case for a man who was even slightly openly gay 30 years ago (or even today in some places). Or a black man who got stuck near a sundown town 60 years ago. Or even a woman walking home at night
The solution to the world's ills is not to ask women and minorities and people who are a little different to stay at home so that evil people aren't able to do evil things.
This is why I support hate crime laws despite their obvious problems. It's not enough to say, "well, that person committed assault, so let's just punish the assault." Motivation matters. And if the motivation is, "I don't like you because you're different to me in some way," I think society needs to send a clear message that that attitude is also criminal.
Nobody has to like seeing a man in a dress or a black man in their neighbourhood or two men kissing. But people who feel that way can't be allowed to set the tone for the whole of society.
Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”
Being black, being gay, these are inborn.
Being “trans” but for that almost invisible sliver of the cult, is elective.
Some find it to be thrillingly…. Illicit to feel marginalized. We’ve discussed this before.
I didn’t sneer that “he was askin’ for it.”
Nor did I say I was happy he got his face smashed. I’ve had friends who were beaten. I had one whose boyfriend was murdered. Both for being gay.
Being.
Not putting on fur attention.
Edit: chilled, here. I’ve been thinking of Robert Johnson all day and you just alluded to Crissroads.
"Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”"
Yeah, I noted all that. And as I said, I hesitantly agree that this qualifies as a reason for a man not to put on a dress and makeup. Which I think was your point. I just also wanted to point out why I think it's a bad reason.
Yes, being black and gay are inborn. But come on, there's no need for gay people to shove it in our faces. Or for black people to not just hang out with their own. Or for women to dress provocatively.
That's the kind of argument some people make. And besides, some would argue that being gender non-conforming is inborn too.
While we probably disagree on percentages, we definitely agree that some people are shocking simply for the sake of it. Or to garner attention (I think a great many in the Q+ community fall into this category). I'm just very reluctant to paint too much of gender non-conformity with that brush.
I truly think gender non conformity is good thing. Even if we have to accept a few attention seekers along with it.
Of only it was a "few."
The only "trans" people I have ever known who didn't yap about themselves all day long were the ones who actually were transgender, not the cultists. EVERYTHING to do with the "trans" cult seems to be about attention.
And, for the record, I spent my entire time in gay politics saying that we should stop "shoving it in [others'] faces." Because our goal all along should have been that being gay is unremarkable, undefining, and private. Instead, we had (and still have) those grotesque parades where people act out S&M fantasies on parade floats. And there are still a lot of gays for whom the purpose of life is to make sure strangers know what they think about when they masturbate.
For my counseling assimilation, I was called self-hating, suffering from "internalized homophobia." Even while I was as out as could be at work (except I didn't wear a cock ring or grow any "facial hair statements").
But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?
OK, I am prejudiced, mine is the attitude of one who spent a long time trying to get attention and suddenly outgrew it, and we tend to dislike most in others that which we dislike most in ourselves.
But whether or not there is anything good about gender nonconformity, there are going to be people who don't like it, nd at the extremes of that dislike there is going to be violence. I'm not that extreme but I can easily see making a very loud scene.
"But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?"
No, again, I agree. I'd know full well I was putting myself in danger if I went to a KKK rally. And asserting my right to be there wouldn't make the beating any less likely. But if a significant portion of society was a KKK rally, and my only option to live my life without risk of getting beaten was to hide my skin, should I do it? Would this be acceptable? Would you blame me for refusing or society for being that way?
I understand where you're coming from with assimilation. As we've discussed before, back in the day, many gay people defined themselves by their "otherness," by their status as outsiders. They were shocking and crass simply for the thrill of being so. I think the same is true of the Q+ community today. We are united in our disdain for these people.
But true assimilation also requires adaptation from society. If I'm allowed to kiss my girlfriend or wife in the street without fear of violence, you should be able to kiss your boyfriend or husband. That's not rubbing anything in anybody's face, that's a normal expression of affection that we should *all* be able to take for granted. And it's a long way from the public fetish parties that have sadly come to embody "Pride."
The point I was trying to make is that many of the "don't rub it in my face" people are talking about these ordinary gestures. They're basically saying, "I'll tolerate your existence as long as you completely hide who you are."
I like how we converge on agreement. The more we converse, the more we agree. The same public displays of affection that heterosexual people use should be unremarkable (they would not be in Alabama), but when it comes to going out in public in bondage gear, I shift more toward "what happens, happens."
As I have probably mentioned before, after my solitary march I took part in, 1976, I had signed up for reminders, and every year I got one encouraging me to show up as lewdly-dressed and offensive as I could manage, because ("titter titter") the cops can'tt arrest us all. And that was 45 years ago.
Yes I’ve always found it incredibly selfish to stand in the middle of the hypothetical room shouting ‘me! I’m important! What I want is all that matters!’ So annoying.