Crossdressers-Haven.com

Hi all,

Not sure if this'll fly or not, but I'll give it a try. Here's the idea: every week, I'll post a little excerpt from a book or web site that I think members here might find interesting, just to see if people are up for a wee bit of discussion and armchair analysis. I'll aim for gender or transgender topics while yet keeping my options open. Some controversy might be generated but I'd much prefer it if people remained civil and on-topic; I'd like for this thread to remain in the general forums and not be cast down into Mordor (as we used to say). Of course, this thread is open to all--GGs as well as anyone on the TG spectrum.

The idea came to me as I was finishing setting up my bookshelves; I kept getting sidetracked, picking up books and reading at random. I realized there's a lot of stimulating stuff, right there in my living room, that's ripe for the intellectual picking. So, on to this week's excerpt.

August 4th, 2008



Femininity
Susan Brownmiller; Fawcett Columbine, NY, 1984. pp. 79, 81.

Who would deny that dressing feminine can be quite creative? A woman with a closetful of clothes for different moods and occasions is an amateur actress and a wily practitioner of the visual arts. A grand sense of theater reposes on that rack of hangers, offering a choice of imaginative roles from sexy vixen to old-fashioned, romantic lady. Children of both sexes love to dress up in their mother's costumes, complete with lipstick, handbag and high heels, because they adore the game of "Let's pretend." Feminine clothing induces the body to strut about in small, restrained yet show-offy ways. Feminine clothing produces its special feminine sounds: the staccato clickety-click of the heels, the musical jangle of bracelets, the soft rustle of silk, or, in an earlier era, the whisper of petticoats, the snap of a fan. And the finishing touches, the makeup and perfume, create a distinctive, sweet feminine smell.

And then there are the compliments, the ultimate reward, for men are known to be highly appreciative when a woman has taken the trouble to create an entire human being who looks and acts and smells so different from them.

Every wave of feminism has foundered on the question of dress reform. I suppose it is asking too much of women to give up their chief outward expression of the feminine difference, their continuing reassurance to men and to themselves that a male is a male because a female dresses and looks and acts like a different sort of creature.

(...)

Then why do I persist in not wearing skirts? Because I don't like this artificial gender distinction. Because I don't wish to start shaving my legs again. Because I don't want to return to the expense and aggravation of nylons. Because I will not reacquaint myself with the discomfort of feminine shoes. Because I'm at peace with the freedom and comfort of trousers. Because it costs a lot less to wear nothing but pants. Because I remember how cold I used to feel in the winter wearing a short skirt and sheer stockings. Because I can still call to mind the ugly look of splattered rain water on the back of my exposed legs. Because I recall the anguish of an unraveled hem. Because I remember resenting the enormous amount of thinking time I used to pour into superficial upkeep concerns, and because the nature of feminine dressing is superficial in essence--even my objections seem superficial as I write them down. But that is the point. To care about feminine fashion, and do it well, is to be obssessively involved in inconsequential details on a serious basis. There is no relief. To not be involved is to risk looking eccentric and peculiar, or sloppy and uncared for, or mannish and manhating, or all of the above.

Who said that clothes make a statement? What an understatement that was. Clothes never shut up. They gabble on endlessly, making their intentional and unintentional points.

There you have it, folks. Discuss. (Heh. I've always wanted to say that! )

Love,
CJ

I agree completely with the author.The feelings,sounds and scents she describes are truly feminine.Being feminine isnt easy for anyone in my opinion.Its an awful lot of work as Susan states.As she also states I feel that the rewards of that effort can be worth it.Whenever I see a woman I know that has put effort into how she looks I like to tell how good she looks.I feel it lets them know that their efforts are worthwhile.Even when I have a day when I have put that same effort into how I look as a woman it makes me feel that it is well worth the effort.I dont get to hear from someone else how I look ,thats life,and it seems to be ok at the moment.

Susan is also right on the mark with the second part of the quote.Just because she is a GG doesnt mean she has to put forth that effort if she doesnt want to.I often wish clothes ,all clothes were gender neutral and anyone could wear whatever they want ,whenever they want.At least for me this wouldnt change how I want to dress at any given time but it would allow me to dress more feminine when I needed to.Just as most of us want the freedom to dress feminine when we want we should also be understanding of all GG's when they dont want to.

Just because [Susan Brownmiller] is a GG doesnt mean she has to put forth that effort if she doesnt want to... Just as most of us want the freedom to dress feminine when we want we should also be understanding of all GG's when they dont want to.

Good points, Jennifer. Thanks for your input.

This is the passage that particularly struck me in the excerpt: A woman with a closetful of clothes for different moods and occasions is an amateur actress and a wily practitioner of the visual arts. A grand sense of theater reposes on that rack of hangers, offering a choice of imaginative roles from sexy vixen to old-fashioned, romantic lady.

This, to me, highlights the fact that "dressing up" in colourful and sensual garb (whether it's females or males doing the dressing) is A) visual, in that it's a matter of presentation--the gaze of some "Other" is required, even if or when that "Other" is merely a mirror-- and B) theatrical, in that the gender presentation "show" is, first and foremost, exactly that, a performance, a show. Mind you, it may not always be a show people are willing to see but it's a show, nonetheless. We're actors and actresses; we "act gender." In fact, we "playact," we "pretend," we "perform" gender. When we perform "transgressively" (such as is the case, allegedly, with transgender behaviour), we are, in effect, reading lines intended for another player. This makes the other actors and actresses on the stage turn to us with a puzzled expression on their faces. Some will go as far as admonishing us for "ruining the play" by not sticking to the script. But the beauty of being human, I think, lies in the opposite direction; while it may be true, as the Bard wrote, that "all the world's a Stage and we are but Players on it," we have the ability (some would say, "the duty") to write our own parts if we wish, and speak our own lines, and to always keep in mind that the ending is never written until the very moment we breathe our last.

Having said all this, I agree with you, Jennifer, that women's clothes are just plain fun (and, yes, thrilling) to wear. Period. But only if you want to, not if you have to. I think this is as good a summing up as any of what Susan Brownmiller is trying to say.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Love,
CJ

Strange thing,, if cding is some kind of stage performance, an act of dressing, then why do most cds on cd forums dislike drag queens? Drag queens are the ultimate transgender stage performers yet most straight cds dislike them, go figure.

Also if this is so “amateur actress and a wily practitioner of the visual arts” then why do cds dress to blend in as most cds on forums want to do. If we are some type of actress in our work, in our art of dressing, then why do most want to blend in and hide? Yes, there are cds that fit the description of the girl in the story but not many. Maybe some closet cds have this feeling while dancing at home but most out going cds are of the blend in type,,, no one can see their art, it is hidden against the brick wall they walk near.


In other words it‘s like the tree example, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does the tree make a noise. Is dressing a form of art or like a stage performance if no one sees it?

What the story tells me is that we as a people have gotten lazy, just toss on whatever is the easiest to wear and off we go to the mall. I am guilty of doing this as well.

WEll, first Amelie, put me in the category that admires FI's. The ones that I have seen put on a show have so much energy and they want to entertain the audience to the best of their ability. I know I could never generate that much energy. They impress me!

Seeing this in writing makes me think as well. I think of all the different "outfits" I have hanging in three different closets and hours before I dress, I begin thinking about it. Now I can ponder, how do I feel, where are we going, what will look best for the time of year, who can I expect to see, do I want to "stand out' or blend in, what if I am confronted by some jerk and have to physically remove his endrocrine system from his body for him, will heels work or just long nails.

As one of my sisters said above, we have to admire GG's who do dress up because if anyone can identify with the complexities of the multitude of decisions that are required it is us!!! What jewelery goes with which shoes and what handbag with which coat and do I wear gloves and on and on.

But again (and I will NOT be drug off to the wood shed for this) we are evidently becoming a "I don't give a damn what you think I look like" society! Pull on pants, sweat shirt, tennis shoes and a ball cap and we're dressed to go anywhere, concert, church, the mall or a dog fight!

Look at the TV broadcasters anymore, polo shirts no jackets, shirts with no tie and rolled up sleeves. As an aside, I have noticed that since Samatha (the pixieish blond) has come on the weather channel, all the other girls have begun "dressing up" more! Don't know if this was a directive from "on high" or not but it has been very obvious since she came on!

Yes it does take work to look good, is it worth it? That is up to the individual. Contrary to what has been said about why, it is in some circles, a given that women do NOT dress for men but for other women.

Oh and Jennifer, make sure you are up on the current "Sexual Harrassment Laws" before you begin complimenting any woman in the work place, it can be disasterous for you I have seen it happen!!!!

Thanks, CJ, hope I did not go off topic too much!

Virginia

Hi all,

Hmmm... those are good points, too, Amélie.

Maybe one of the reasons CDs generally don't like drag queens is that a drag queen, by her "over-the-top" performance and appearance (and it really IS a show, in the case of drag), reminds crossdressers that, however much they'd like to blend in and to pass, gender presentation remains a form of theater; gender presentation is meant to be seen. Like you allude to, with your analogy of the tree falling in the forest when there's nobody around to hear it, there would be no such thing as "gender as performance" if the person doing the performing were alone in the world. No observers, no gender presentation (let alone transgender presentation). Another thought: maybe it's because, however much crossdressers want to see who they are as an essentially natural thing or phenomenon, it may turn out that all the trappings and accoutrements of femininity are superficial and artificial. Drag queens doff the sequins and don their jeans when the day is done.

I think Brownmiller is trying to distinguish between two "functions" of clothing. If clothes are just meant to cover your nakedness and to allow you to walk about comfortably in the world, then, by all means, pull on a pair of jeans and a T (and head for the mall, natch!). On the other hand, if you really want your clothes to say something about who you are (or would like to be), then tend to your wardrobe and dress for the mood and with an audience in mind (the word "audience" isn't very appropriate here, what with its connotations of auditory rather than visual perception, but it'll have to do).

As to the matter of most crossdressers wanting "to blend in and hide," well, for starters, those two things (blending in and hiding) are very different. My sister, Virginia, here, is a great example; Virginia lives in public. She's alive--as Virginia--to all those who see her. Crossdressers looking to pass in public and to blend in, by definition, don't hide (although I guess that, in certain circumstances, they probably wish they could) whereas those that hide make no effort to blend in. They're essentially invisible (like the tree is inaudible). But I see your point, Amélie chérie; why aren't more CDs out there, being "wily practioners of the visual arts"? That's easy enough to answer, I think: because men aren't (yet) generally allowed to do so. "Vanity, thy name is Woman," and all that baloney. Well, I think we live in an age when "Vanity" is about to get a makeover (as it has, periodically, throughout history) and people like you, Amélie, or me, or many others here on this forum (and elswhere) are going to be in on it from the get-go. Watch out, world! First, Boy George, then, the whole lot of us!

Love,
CJ

A greeat idea. Can't wait to see next weeks topic.

Susans piece was excellent, thoughtful and well written and a joy to read. A book could probably be written in response.

I agree with Amelie's comment about drag queens. It also called to mind something Kate Bornstein said about drag queens as queer theater and abstracting and exagerating societal ideas about the portrayal and self portrayal of women. I think she wound up saying the most famous drag queen around is actually a woman, Madonna to be specific. And if we look at Madonna's stage attire this seems entirely true to me.

As for clothing talking, yes they never shut up. And to paraphrase what she says, what starts out as a game for children (dress up) becomes a role imposed on women by society and eventually an onerous and expensive chore with a lot of ways to lose at playing the game.

The female expressiveness and maintainence of an appearance to attract and influence vs men must do this subtly via things like power ties or gang colors is an outgrowth of something far deeper and more subtle I think. One of our very deep seated rules about gender is that men act while women influence. Men rape, women seduce. I am speaking not in terms of sex here but in terms of style of aggresiveness and getting what you want. For men to start playing the part of a woman suggests that they have abandoned the rules of masculinity, and if we abandon something so basic it is threatening to many.

Gender and sex, although different entities, are very tied up with each other, and both are very tied to reproduction or perpetuation of the human race. As such they are as ingrained in us, either through biology or learning or both, as eating, drinking, and sleeping. We have only to look at the obesity epidemic to see what happens when our environment changes to one where we can not be assured of enough to eat to one where there is always enough to eat to see that our bodies and our society adapt initially to change with dysfunction. Is it any wonder that our issues around what is really about reproduction are any more complicated?

Forums like this and writers on atypical gender often give limited discussion to one of the basic facts of gender which is reproduction. The discussion in the tabloids of the pregnant man has proved the rule here in that it is mostly titilating gossip and not real discussion of the implications this holds for what it really means to be a man or a woman. Likewise in our society we have a situation where clothing coveres a very bare minimim or the female breast yet public breastfeeding, which is the real purpose of breasts and the defining characteristic of the entire genera of mammals, is taboo.

Great first choice CJ

Absaroka

Virginia,I am very careful with my compliments at work and only give them to a few women I know well,I dont give them alot and I have been told that they appreciate them when given.They dont mean anything unless they are sincere.Very good advice to all,its not safe out there at times.

Absaroka,I have to disagree,the basic fact of sexuality is reproduction.Gender and sex are two very different things,I think the pregnant transman proves this as he expresses a male gender but his female sexuality allowed him to reproduce.

CJ,
I just wanted you to know I like your new idea. I read all the post to it so far and they are very interresting. I too can't wait for next week.

Yes, that's a noble effort, CJ. See where it takes you, and us.

I like performing, because the effect there is NOT to blend or pass. I can wear things that would be overkill anywhere else.

It is nice having access to so many different colors and designs, in my gal clothing. I didn't know how much I longed for that until I actually started doing it, and realized how many doors it opened.

Hi all,

There are some great responses here. Thanks.

I'd be curious to see what GGs have to say on the matter. So I read Roxanne (my SO) the excerpt to see what she thinks. She says, first of all, who the hell wears a short skirt and stockings in winter? ( ) Second, though she considers herself to have some feminist leanings, Roxanne doesn't believe you cannot simultaneously be feminist and wear a skirt, or wear trousers and be feminine. And although she, too, spends a few minutes each morning "obssessing about inconsequential details," she says that doing so is part of the fun of having a feminine wardrobe. Inconsequential? Perhaps. (She says.) Fun? Definitely! (She also says.)

As to the part about having a range of options in her dress (from sexy vixen to romantic lady), she agrees. She likes the fact that the options are there--if need be. When I point out to her that, generally speaking, those same kinds of options aren't open to men, she retorts: generally speaking, men don't even want those kinds of options. They want to be able to reach in, almost blindly, into the dresser or closet and pull out their "uniform of the day," whether it's a casual top or shirt and jeans or a business suit with matching tie. The exception, she says, are metrosexuals (or, possibly, crossdressers), who enjoy playing around with their appearance. In other words, and generally speaking, women enjoy decorative and "artful" clothing, while men prefer functional clothing. (An aside: I once saw a one-man play--I forgot the title--about Albert Einstein. As ol' Al stood there, on the stage, facing the audience, in his bare feet, he stared at his feet and then looked up at us and said, "You're probably wondering why I'm not wearing any socks." He waited for a beat while he looked back down at his wiggling toes, looked up again and said, "I hate socks." Another beat, and then: "They only produce holes.")

If what Roxanne says has any truth to it, I'm wondering if our "gendered" clothing choices reflect the fundamental or essential structure or nature of the male and female psyches. Men: simple, linear, logical, rational, individualistic. Women: complex, circular, artistic, emotional, consensualistic. Nah, probably not. Men wore the more colourful plumage in many not-so-distant eras throughout history and I find it hard to believe that any essential aspect of men's and women's psyches could've changed so much in so little time. But. Who knows?

Anita,

I'd completely forgotten that, in you, we do, in fact, have someone here who's a public performer. Although what you do on stage isn't a drag show, you're still, technically speaking, "doing drag." Having said this, I think that, in the sense just mentioned, any performer who wears an elaborate costume (Klaus Nomi, Mötley Crüe, Madonna, etc.) does drag. Doing drag (again, in this sense) means putting on a costume for entertainment (or, more accurately, for "entertaining presentation") purposes. Such a costume may not necessarily reflect who you are as a person. Or it may. Depends. Maybe this is why so many crossdressers have such a hard time with drag. They don't make the distinction between what I could call "open drag" (a costume worn for entertainment purposes that's not necessarily gender-transgressive) and "closed drag" (a costume worn for entertainment purposes that specifically aims to violate gender boundaries). Both "open drag" and "closed drag" are performative acts. On the other hand, for a crossdresser (or a transsexual), presenting as a member of the chosen gender is a deadly serious affair, not to be confused with entertainment for the masses. Some may even, and because of this very confusion, find drag insulting. Anyway, just thinking out loud, here. Bring me back home if I'm on Mars with this stuff.

On another note, I'm glad people seem to be enjoying this idea of an "excerpt of the week." I've already got a few more goodies lined up for the coming installments.

Love,
CJ

That was a deep essay - and I I enjoyed and agree with. Well done!
I believe you must be on the philosophy staff with Miqqi Gilbert at York University!

You have a great gift with words and are able to limn complex issues with
lucid writing. I enjoy reading your posts! Thank you

Sandianne

Jennifer I agree completely that gender and sexuality are two different things and would also say that reproduction is yet a third thing. However I think there is a very strong relationship between them and that reproduction and perpetuation of the species is the original wellspring for both gender and sexuality. If we want to get really deep here we can talk about how at a far more basic level matter and energy are the same thing according to Einstein yet no one is confusing a boulder with a photon.

CJ I loved Roxanne's input. And I liked her example of Einstein and how socks only produce holes. However to consider this in another way we can say once more that clothing always speaks, even if to say "I don't care what I am wearing" Just as "no comment" is a comment. The message of mens clothing is usually one of dominance whereas womens clothing is persuasion. Out and out dominance removes more of the targets autonomy than persuasion does.

As for not wanting to be bothered by clothing choices, both men and women sometimes want to wear the first thing that comes to hand, usually sweats and flip flops and similarly casual wear. Men seem to get away with it more. I guess it's a trade off. Men get to spend less time chosing what to wear and can be casual more often without public comment than women (freedom) but have fewer choices and harsher sanctions when they break the rules. Although in reality the sanctions for crossdressing are similar to the sanctions women endure for looking "too slutty" We become defined by our sexuality and then punished for it. Because after all a man in a dress is basically condemned for being like a sexualized female object-we just call him a faggot and not a whore and beat him up instead of raping him-sometimes. When we remember that rape is first and foremost an act of violence and that most women who are raped by strangers say their strongest emotion was fear of being killed, the distinction diminishes.

My, but I've wandered from choices in sandals to violent death. Shows what a wierd and complex subject this whole thing can be.

Absaroka

I love my wife and plan not to leave her!

I am an CD and my wife knows it! I dress in private or with my wife!

I am not out to the world!

I want to wear a skirt and heels to work but that wont happen any time soon

Hi all,

Thanks to all who participated. There were some very thoughtful comments here. Now on to this week's excerpt.

August 12th, 2008



Crossing
Deirdre McCloskey, in Sexual Metamorphosis: An Anthology of Transsexual Memoirs, Jonathan Ames, ed.; Vintage Books, NY, 2005. pp. 203-205.

I want to tell you the story of crossing from a fifty-two year old man to fifty-five year old woman, Donald to Deirdre.
"A strange story," you say.
Yes, it's strange, statistically. All the instruments agree that what's usually called "transsexuality," permanently crossing the gender boundary, is rare. (The Latin in "transsexuality" makes it sound sexual, which is mistaken; or medical, which is misleading; or scientific, which is silly. I'll use plain English, "crossing.") Only three in ten thousand want to cross the boundary of gender, a few of them in your own city neighborhood or small town. Gender crossing is no threat to male/female sex ratios or the role of women or the stability of the dollar. Most people are content with their birth gender.

But people do, after all, cross various boundaries. I've been a foreigner a little, in England and Holland and on shorter visits elsewhere. If you've been a foreigner you can understand somewhat, because gender crossing is a good deal like foreign travel. Most people would like to go to Venice on vacation. Most people, if they could magically do it, would like to try out the other gender for a day or a week or a month. The Venice visitors as a group can be thought of as all the "cross-gendered,", from stone-butch dykes to postoperative male-to-female gender crossers, all the traversers, permanent or temporary, somber or ironic. A few people go to Venice regularly, and you can think of them as the cross-dressers among these, wearing the clothing of the opposite gender once in a while. But only a tiny fraction of the cross-gendered are permanent gender crossers, wanting to become Venetians. Most people are content to stay mainly at home. A tiny minority are not. They want to cross and stay.

On a trip to New York to see a friend after my own crossing I stood in the hall of photographs at Ellis Island and wept at the courage. Crossing cultures from male to female is big; it highlights some of the differences between men and women, and some of the similarities too. That's interesting. My crossing was costly and opposed, which is too bad. But my crossing has been dull, easy, comfortable compared with Suyuan's or Giuseppe's outer migrations.

(...)

The word "education" means just "leading out." People are always leading themselves out of one life and into another, such as out of childhood and into each new version of adulthood. Not everyone likes to keep doing it, but the women I most admire have. My mother educated herself to earning her income and writing poetry after my father died. My roomer for a year in Iowa educated herself as a hospital chaplain after a third of a century teaching elementary school. My sister got a second degree in psychology; my former wife made herself into a distinguished professor. May Sarton, so glad to become by forced crossing an American rather than a Belgian woman, an English rather than a French poet and novelist and memoirist, kept crossing, crossing, and looked forward at age seventy to "what is ahead--to clear my desk, sow the annuals, plant perennials, get back to the novel... like a game of solitaire that is coming out."

It's strange to have been a man and now to be a woman. But it's no stranger perhaps than having once been a West African and now being an American, or once a priest and now a businessman. Free people keep deciding to make strange crossings, from storekeeper to monk or from civilian to soldier or from man to woman. Crossing boundaries is a minority interest, but human.

There you go, folks. A little disquisition on the banality of transgression and on transgression as education. I like it; it rings true. Comments?

Love,
CJ