Hi all,
Okay, not too sure right now where I want to go with this, but...
I've been reading quite a few posts lately by people on all points of the gender spectrum--posts relating to the, I guess, difficulty, of grasping what it means, essentially, to be at whatever point we are (or choose to be) on that spectrum.
Am I a gay male in woman's body? or a lesbian in a man's body? am I trans? genderqueer? gay? bi? het? both? neither? Am I a man? a woman? both? neither? And why do I feel this way?
Obviously, folks are searching. This quest for self is extremely difficult because it's made more complex by the fact that "self"--whether mine or yours or Joe's, over there--is an ever elusive entity. Self is not a fixed thing. Hell! it's not even a thing! Every moment, every second, of our experience as individuals inevitably changes who we are, i.e., changes what our self looks like (or, more properly, what it feels like). Plato, in his Cratylus, quoted Heraclitus as saying: You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.
Indeed.
What we do when we seek to attach a label to our self is to pretend that our self is frozen in time... that we can step twice into the same river. We cannot (and the argument can be made that neither should we wish to).
I'm not saying we ought to do away with all labels, no. Labels can be both useful as well as detrimental. All I'm trying to point out is that, if we're going to use them, we ought to remain aware that they refer to something that has no power to coalesce, on the one hand, and, on the other, to something that is already a thing of the past the moment we try to seize it.
Your being is lighter than you think. Labels are weights. And you swim in the ocean of experience.
Enjoy the clothing and the looks and the roles and the scent of lipstick; enjoy the sexiness and the air and the sun. Tune in to yourself, as you are, right now, with nary a thought but for the joy to be found in the unbearable lightness of the moment.
Have a great weekend, y'all.
Love,
CJ
The Unbearable Lightness of Being... Transgendered?
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
-
Dolores(GG)
- Miss Emerald Goddess
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 2:47 pm
-
SilverLady(SO)
- Retired Site Administrator
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Strange Magic Hill (Virginia)
Proud Military Family - Navy, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard -
Jennifer
- Miss Sapphire Goddess
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
I gave up many years ago trying to figure out where I sat on this scale that we have created. What I realized was that if I couln't figure it out how could anyone else. My conclusion: It doesn't matter to anyone but me and my wife and as long as she's fine with it I will dress in what's comfortable.
-
Lydia
- We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
- Location: Sarasota, Florida
Let me put in a good word about labels
Labels are descriptive nouns and they are necessary for communication. I see a little "thing" moving about on my kitchen table. I need to label it: Is it an insect? if so, an ant? a fly? What kind?
Where would we be without labels? "You know that thing-a-ma-jig I saw last night left me feeling what's-it." Nouns = labels, and the more precise, the better -obviously. But approximations are often quite adequate. The "bug" on the table is quite adequatedly described, and we need not go into taxonomic detail to deal with it.
Approximations in labeling behavior are more critical. We often describe the behavior of our pet cat or dog in terms that assume the critter is acting like a human being. Similarly, the act of crossdressing is easily labeled as being homosexual behavior. A label = noun is not the object or condition or action, but is an arbitrary name for that object, condition, or action. Once a label is voiced or written, a definition is implied. What is often neglected is the fact that the inferred definition will vary with the person hearing or seeing that label.
A Democrat hearing that something is "liberal", is likely to react favorably, while a Republican may be horrified. Each will have a different response (semantic reaction) to the same word. One's state of mind at the moment can make the difference between accepting a word as an insult or a joke.
Again: labels are nouns that describe something, and without nouns there can be no communication. But there must be assumed or expressed definitions that are agreed upon by the communicators. There lies a trap and the basis for arguments and disagreements.
I don't propose an ultimate solution. Maybe CJ, in her wisdom, can suggest something. Certainly it would help if we had a glossary of some sort, and if we use terms that have the widest agreement as to meaning.
Sorry for the ramble - blame CJ.
Hugs,
Lydia
Labels are descriptive nouns and they are necessary for communication. I see a little "thing" moving about on my kitchen table. I need to label it: Is it an insect? if so, an ant? a fly? What kind?
Where would we be without labels? "You know that thing-a-ma-jig I saw last night left me feeling what's-it." Nouns = labels, and the more precise, the better -obviously. But approximations are often quite adequate. The "bug" on the table is quite adequatedly described, and we need not go into taxonomic detail to deal with it.
Approximations in labeling behavior are more critical. We often describe the behavior of our pet cat or dog in terms that assume the critter is acting like a human being. Similarly, the act of crossdressing is easily labeled as being homosexual behavior. A label = noun is not the object or condition or action, but is an arbitrary name for that object, condition, or action. Once a label is voiced or written, a definition is implied. What is often neglected is the fact that the inferred definition will vary with the person hearing or seeing that label.
A Democrat hearing that something is "liberal", is likely to react favorably, while a Republican may be horrified. Each will have a different response (semantic reaction) to the same word. One's state of mind at the moment can make the difference between accepting a word as an insult or a joke.
Again: labels are nouns that describe something, and without nouns there can be no communication. But there must be assumed or expressed definitions that are agreed upon by the communicators. There lies a trap and the basis for arguments and disagreements.
I don't propose an ultimate solution. Maybe CJ, in her wisdom, can suggest something. Certainly it would help if we had a glossary of some sort, and if we use terms that have the widest agreement as to meaning.
Sorry for the ramble - blame CJ.
Hugs,
Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Thanks for the replies. I guess I was feeling a mite lyrical this morning and felt like waxing poetical (while some of you undoubtedly were waxing their legs).
That was a good post, Lydia. You must be a trained scientist.
I, too, have been known to use labels on occasion. Seriously, where would we be without our ability to represent reality to ourselves? or to communicate our representations to other perceiving (and communicating) beings? Still roaming the savannah, fighting over possession of water holes? In my wisdom, no, I have nothing to propose as a viable alternative to the use of labels.
My main point in the original post was simply this, that we ought not to get hung up on labels. By trying to create overwrought and unnecessarily complex "maps," we lose sight of the "territory," so to speak. Never will a word or idea or phrase or concept or image completely and faithfully represent that which it attempts to describe. Remember Magritte's Treachery of Images ("Ceci n'est pas une pipe")? This is the kind of conundrum an over-reliance on nomenclature can lead us into. George Orwell pulled the same thing off in his brilliant 1984, where, for instance, the arm of the government in charge of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth. And this brings out another point: not only can labels be misleading (intentionally or not), the very act of naming something can be--and often is--political in nature.
One obvious example of this is to rob a perceived adversary or enemy of his humanity by labeling him a "monster," an "animal," or "godless" (on the assumption that being godful is the superior moral state). You're right, Lydia, about words and labels eliciting different reactions from different quarters. But this is further down the road. In the beginning was the word. Whoever first called a gay man a "queer" back in the 1920s or 1930s was making a moral judgment ("queer" meaning strange, off-center, unbalanced, odd). This label is now used with pride by the gay community itself (as in, GLBTQ).
Anyway, this is all merely academic. Again, the point is to avoid letting ourselves be strung up, as it were, by our use of labels. In the same way that it's very difficult to explain the colour red to someone born sightless, it's not possible for me to explain to another person what it feels like--exactly--to be who I am (hell, it's hard for me to explain myself to myself, sometimes, let alone to anyone else!). As you say, Lydia, I can only communicate an approximation of the experience. Unfortunately, when so much rides on the definition, approximations are often tragic traps. But what can we do? What can we do? Wiser minds than ours will know. Or, who knows? maybe one day science will give us a way to visit the territory that is a mind other than our own without relying on the use of any map whatsoever. (And should we hail the advent of that day or, rather, dread it? Again, wiser minds than ours will know.)
In the meantime, I'll go on assuming that you have a fairly-to-somewhat good idea of who I am when I say that I'm rather comfortable in my own skin as a Liberal-Humanistic French-Canadian Transgendered Feminist Caucasian Middle-Aged Male with a Steady Moderate Income.
Love,
CJ
Thanks for the replies. I guess I was feeling a mite lyrical this morning and felt like waxing poetical (while some of you undoubtedly were waxing their legs).
That was a good post, Lydia. You must be a trained scientist.
I, too, have been known to use labels on occasion. Seriously, where would we be without our ability to represent reality to ourselves? or to communicate our representations to other perceiving (and communicating) beings? Still roaming the savannah, fighting over possession of water holes? In my wisdom, no, I have nothing to propose as a viable alternative to the use of labels.
My main point in the original post was simply this, that we ought not to get hung up on labels. By trying to create overwrought and unnecessarily complex "maps," we lose sight of the "territory," so to speak. Never will a word or idea or phrase or concept or image completely and faithfully represent that which it attempts to describe. Remember Magritte's Treachery of Images ("Ceci n'est pas une pipe")? This is the kind of conundrum an over-reliance on nomenclature can lead us into. George Orwell pulled the same thing off in his brilliant 1984, where, for instance, the arm of the government in charge of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth. And this brings out another point: not only can labels be misleading (intentionally or not), the very act of naming something can be--and often is--political in nature.
One obvious example of this is to rob a perceived adversary or enemy of his humanity by labeling him a "monster," an "animal," or "godless" (on the assumption that being godful is the superior moral state). You're right, Lydia, about words and labels eliciting different reactions from different quarters. But this is further down the road. In the beginning was the word. Whoever first called a gay man a "queer" back in the 1920s or 1930s was making a moral judgment ("queer" meaning strange, off-center, unbalanced, odd). This label is now used with pride by the gay community itself (as in, GLBTQ).
Anyway, this is all merely academic. Again, the point is to avoid letting ourselves be strung up, as it were, by our use of labels. In the same way that it's very difficult to explain the colour red to someone born sightless, it's not possible for me to explain to another person what it feels like--exactly--to be who I am (hell, it's hard for me to explain myself to myself, sometimes, let alone to anyone else!). As you say, Lydia, I can only communicate an approximation of the experience. Unfortunately, when so much rides on the definition, approximations are often tragic traps. But what can we do? What can we do? Wiser minds than ours will know. Or, who knows? maybe one day science will give us a way to visit the territory that is a mind other than our own without relying on the use of any map whatsoever. (And should we hail the advent of that day or, rather, dread it? Again, wiser minds than ours will know.)
In the meantime, I'll go on assuming that you have a fairly-to-somewhat good idea of who I am when I say that I'm rather comfortable in my own skin as a Liberal-Humanistic French-Canadian Transgendered Feminist Caucasian Middle-Aged Male with a Steady Moderate Income.
Love,
CJ
-
Carolynn
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 2754
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 12:52 pm
- Location: Oklahoma City area
- Contact:
Maybe it goes back to the kid's playground refrain,
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me".
In a pigs eye!!
Words and labels can be used to cause great harm, especially if we let them. Just have to recall that they are usually meant as transitory if they come from social science research, a colation of data for the most part, and hope that the bigots don't get their hooks in them. That happens more often than not though, and there are those in the social sciences (like the Blanchards, Baileys, and Zuckers of the world) that are just as bad as any other bigot.
Ah well, float away.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me".
In a pigs eye!!
Words and labels can be used to cause great harm, especially if we let them. Just have to recall that they are usually meant as transitory if they come from social science research, a colation of data for the most part, and hope that the bigots don't get their hooks in them. That happens more often than not though, and there are those in the social sciences (like the Blanchards, Baileys, and Zuckers of the world) that are just as bad as any other bigot.
Ah well, float away.
"It’s not given to anyone to have no regrets; only to decide, through the choices we make, which regrets we’ll have,"
David Weber – In Fury Born
David Weber – In Fury Born
-
Anita
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:55 pm
- Location: Burlingame, CA (San Francisco Bay area)
Hi CJ--
Thanks for the word-waxing post. Your writing is as strong as ever.
I've always enjoyed trying to create precise definitions and/or labels for the things around me. One rule of thumb about this is to not force them on anyone. You can suggest, but that's all.
By coming up with labels for things I see in other people, I 'check in' with them. I'm asking them, is this how you see yourself? And if I'm wrong, it's not meant as an insult to them--I really want to know how to refine the definition, so it reflects their experience.
I acknowledge that's not a majority view. People can see labels as a way to judge others, or put them in their place. This usage is what gives labeling a bad name, but it's not the labels per se that are the villains.
If I value precision, then labels can be a way to maintain that value.
Thanks for the word-waxing post. Your writing is as strong as ever.
I've always enjoyed trying to create precise definitions and/or labels for the things around me. One rule of thumb about this is to not force them on anyone. You can suggest, but that's all.
By coming up with labels for things I see in other people, I 'check in' with them. I'm asking them, is this how you see yourself? And if I'm wrong, it's not meant as an insult to them--I really want to know how to refine the definition, so it reflects their experience.
I acknowledge that's not a majority view. People can see labels as a way to judge others, or put them in their place. This usage is what gives labeling a bad name, but it's not the labels per se that are the villains.
If I value precision, then labels can be a way to maintain that value.
-
Gillian
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:27 am
Labels can either put you in a box, or get you out of one. As I have read we are the same and different at the same time. How can one label fit all? To the outside world a one label fits all is the approach, yet I see so many differences that I can not see how even "we" can give ourselves one label. We do give ourselves a label and it is called the Crossdressers-Forum. I think that I can call myself an underdresser so others will know a little more about me, and know where I am coming from. As for someone who wants to judge, there is nothing I can do about it but this. Noone died and made me Judge, so I will do my best not to judge. If someone wants to write a glossary of terms that we can all use, then do so. Some one will still use it to label, and I mean not in the nice way. thus is life.
So I concluded that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to enjoy themselves as long as they can. People should eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of there labor, for these are gifts from God.
-
DanteCarrie (FTM)
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:31 pm
- Location: Liverpool
I like nouns nouns are very useful like cat, knife, breasts, bi, computer, world of warcraft ahhhhhh
to many over precise labels are annoying. a knife is a knife. what do you mean its the wrong knife? its a knife isn't it? what the hell is a goddamn desert knife? they look exactly the same? for christs sake this isn't rocket science just use the knife before i stab you with it.
this analogy can be used for many. things. less worrying about how labels are bad or which label you are and more fun oooooo another corneto? perhaps.
to many over precise labels are annoying. a knife is a knife. what do you mean its the wrong knife? its a knife isn't it? what the hell is a goddamn desert knife? they look exactly the same? for christs sake this isn't rocket science just use the knife before i stab you with it.this analogy can be used for many. things. less worrying about how labels are bad or which label you are and more fun oooooo another corneto? perhaps.
-
KimberlyS
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 3341
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:01 pm
- Location: North Central USA, SD
Labels , nouns or Boxes are a needed thing for us human beings. They allow us some basic knowledge on how to interact with other things. In science nouns are often very precise and exact in their definition. Others have very broad and diverse definitions like food. The boarder labels are usually heavily influenced based on our person experience, expose and teaching of others.
Having worked in a university setting I often her the phrase:
Think outside of the box.
And I think that is what CJ is trying to get us to do. Yes we have the Box / Label / Noun as a starting point but we should not use that to limit us as in individual. We must be our own self and not be some other person.
Some of my boxes:
Male
Father
Transgender
Cross Dresser
Emotional
Handyman
jack of all trades
Fisher
Carpenter
Electrician
Cook
Baker
Seamstress
Nerd
Love to wear skirts
Love to wear pants
Love to wear frilly shirts
Love to wear tee shirts
....
With all of those labels do you really know who I am? No, we are each an individual and different for each and every person. Yes we may be similar and alike in some ways. But we are each very different and unique.
kimberlys cd
joe in a skirt
Having worked in a university setting I often her the phrase:
Think outside of the box.
And I think that is what CJ is trying to get us to do. Yes we have the Box / Label / Noun as a starting point but we should not use that to limit us as in individual. We must be our own self and not be some other person.
Some of my boxes:
Male
Father
Transgender
Cross Dresser
Emotional
Handyman
jack of all trades
Fisher
Carpenter
Electrician
Cook
Baker
Seamstress
Nerd
Love to wear skirts
Love to wear pants
Love to wear frilly shirts
Love to wear tee shirts
....
With all of those labels do you really know who I am? No, we are each an individual and different for each and every person. Yes we may be similar and alike in some ways. But we are each very different and unique.
kimberlys cd
joe in a skirt
Site Administrator
I am a physically male person that likes to wear feminine clothes at times.
Just trying keep a balance for my self along with keeping my wife and kids in mind.
I am a physically male person that likes to wear feminine clothes at times.
Just trying keep a balance for my self along with keeping my wife and kids in mind.
-
Azurielle
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:40 pm
- Location: N.-B., Canada
A purer flow of truth couldn't trickle down from the mountain springs of Shangri'La. I agree beyond measure.Glyn wrote:Labels can either put you in a box, or get you out of one. As I have read we are the same and different at the same time. How can one label fit all? To the outside world a one label fits all is the approach, yet I see so many differences that I can not see how even "we" can give ourselves one label. We do give ourselves a label and it is called the Crossdressers-Forum. I think that I can call myself an underdresser so others will know a little more about me, and know where I am coming from. As for someone who wants to judge, there is nothing I can do about it but this. Noone died and made me Judge, so I will do my best not to judge. If someone wants to write a glossary of terms that we can all use, then do so. Some one will still use it to label, and I mean not in the nice way. thus is life.
''We are strong, yet we don't belong. Born in this world as it all falls apart.''
-
Anouk
- Miss Silver Goddess
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:28 am
- Location: Finland
The labels could be considered as some average places in multidimensional space of wast number of parameters. The parameters might be such as ability to live in opposite gender role, affinity to opposite gender identity, contradict wit born gender identity, pleasure caused by dressing up, etc. The labels may help to make presuppositions for a person who uses the labels to characterise her/himself.
However the individual can be situated in any place in that space and not necessary in the place any label would suggest. And an individual may slide from a place to another during his/her life.
And as far as I've talked to some people who regard themselves as transvestites, I haven't met two similar cases.
However the individual can be situated in any place in that space and not necessary in the place any label would suggest. And an individual may slide from a place to another during his/her life.
And as far as I've talked to some people who regard themselves as transvestites, I haven't met two similar cases.
Anouk, always dressed to please someone
-
April Rose
- Miss Golden Goddess
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:18 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
Am I a cross dresser? A transvestite? transgendered? These are all labels I have called myself at one time or another. Over the past year or so I have been working at accepting myself as effeminate.
It's not that the label fits me any better that any of the others, it's just that in the conservative mindset I am confronted with in my everyday working environment, effeminate is pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Worse than homosexual, because it's weak. I don't think that I'm weak. I think that in the relative scheme of things I have a pretty good handle on myself and who I am. The fact that my customers and coworkers have little understanding or respect for any hint of feminine behavior in a male just makes it a challenge. How am I as a navigator of human social interactions? I keep my mouth shut about my personal feelings. I am cordial, but distant with my neighbors. I listen to what people say. I am comfortable enough with myself that I am perfectly happy to keep my own company.
As extroverted as my job is, and as private a person as I am, I seem to be able to do it pretty well. It's not that I don't like people.
Early on I went out of my way to please, often at my own psychological expense. Nowadays I'm always willing to make a new friend, but if you're hung up about gender roles, we're not going to be close.
It's not that the label fits me any better that any of the others, it's just that in the conservative mindset I am confronted with in my everyday working environment, effeminate is pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Worse than homosexual, because it's weak. I don't think that I'm weak. I think that in the relative scheme of things I have a pretty good handle on myself and who I am. The fact that my customers and coworkers have little understanding or respect for any hint of feminine behavior in a male just makes it a challenge. How am I as a navigator of human social interactions? I keep my mouth shut about my personal feelings. I am cordial, but distant with my neighbors. I listen to what people say. I am comfortable enough with myself that I am perfectly happy to keep my own company.
As extroverted as my job is, and as private a person as I am, I seem to be able to do it pretty well. It's not that I don't like people.
Early on I went out of my way to please, often at my own psychological expense. Nowadays I'm always willing to make a new friend, but if you're hung up about gender roles, we're not going to be close.
I am a vessel of the Goddess. Let me express my calling to a feminine life through nurturing love and relatedness.