Crossdressers-Haven.com

Scroll down and click on the arrow beside the title
"Not The Man I Married"

http://www.podshow.com/music/?artist_id=4750

I listened to part of the song and then closed it.

It was the same false stereo-type images that people hold about cross dressers.

CE

I, too, listened to the song only half-way, and stopped when she got to this part of the song:

". . . You're not the man I married, but a gay transvestite. . ."

In the songwriter's defense (which may/may not be the singer, I don't know), the song may be reflecting her personal experience.

However, to the many people who do not know anything at all about crossdressers, this song is, like CE said, continuing to portray the false stereotype images about CDs in general. Those people are the ones who will take what she says as fact, and continue the false images that CD's are trying so hard to break down.

- SL

Well, she wrote the song for a friend of a friend who's husband came out to her, to get her to laugh, a little.

And no, she's not portraying all TVs as gay, as the song also includes the line "And I haven't stopped shaking, since I heard you say, that you loved someone else and that you're also gay. . .".

Not until this is revealed and near the end of the song does she include "gay transvestite".

Too bad that that is the title and context. That is the same title used by Helen Boyd in her just published her "vent" on the issue of her husband Betty's apparent shift to transitioning. Helen wrote the excellent piece "My Husband Betty" a couple of years ago (my 15 minutes of center stage occurs as my picture as Becky appers in the book! ). And her most recent one, "She's Not the Man I Married" is a heart-felt piece recognizing the feelings and concerns as the person she loves appears to be aligning more and more with the transition aspect. Betty is anything but a gay transvestite...but, as Helen illustrates, Betty is far more than a crossdresser. Having cooperated with Helen on her first book as well as having her edit some of my drab work as well as my CD autobiography, my concerns and worried re with Helen and with Betty during this sensitive time. As I said, it is a shame to "parallel" the titles...

Becky Adams

Helen knows about the song, as the songwriter/singer emailed her the link.

She found it interesting and apparently found it humorous. She posted it on her web site, which is where I got the information.

So what are we saying here? With up-front apologies to SL and any other country and western fans, it is not likely that the song will make the Billboard top 10 or maybe even top 100.

Yes it is an unacceptable characterization but it is just a song and as Donna pointed out it does say "loves someone else" insinuating that the person is gay. There may be some but it has got to be such a small number of crossdressing gays - kinda defeats the purpose does it not??

On the up side, we have made it into the Country and Western genre. That is a giant step!

Virginia

Any song, to sell, must have a universal element in it. Are you trying to say that there are NOT gay TVs? Of course there are. And lots of bi ones too. So it's her song, and if people are listening to it, it must hit some responsive chord with some people.

As for it being a title from something else, what???? You want to erase the entire Dylan songbook too. Ya'all really think that Aerosmith really were the first ones to say "Walk This Way?" That the Beatles invented the phrase "all you need is love." Or maybe, just perhaps, that Garth Brooks thought up "I got friends in low places"? Let's get real. Poets, take from the common culture and render it into a mytho-poetic form. And poetic is something that can never be said about the stiff prose (this is one PBK honor student to another) that Helen sometimes writes. I would recommend that stuff to no one. Ever. For something as funny as it is, her stuff is devoid of all the good humor it could have. For something that is as internally confusing and lonely, it reflects little of that either. Of course that leave room for people like Kate Bornstein who ARE TG and who know (instead of guessing or getting it second hand) what being TG is like. (And who know how to write for an audience also, but that's a different argument.)

And, as long as I'm grinding that axe (which also cuts off Peggy Rudd, who makes Helen Boyd look like Shakespeare). I've never seen a community that is so into having people other than themselves define them. It's like letting Black Like Me speak for the entire range of the black American experience while ignoring Native Son, I Know Why the Cage Bird Sings, Coming of Age in Mississippi, The Fire Next Time, And Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Color Purple and Go Tell It On the Mountain. In short, all you would have is a white perspective on being black, and not a single black perspective on being black. That is not a minor point.

And so, what's the big deal? I swear that the most homophobic stuff I've ever read on the web is out of the CD community, often sounding like the Liberty Road Baptist Church. Which is very insulting to the only community that let us in. The ONLY community that ever worked for our rights. The ONLY COMMUNITY that gave us meeting space, as well as a and a place to be. For shame on us. The only, ONLY response to someone calling you 'gay' should be 'so what.' To do any less is to kick those who helped us, stood up for us, and worked with us, and let us in - even when most of us were afraid to even come out of the house much less stand up in a public political form, heck a lot of us are afraid to go to Sears and buy panties.

Of course, that kind of "I'm a-scared" militant heterosexuality is perhaps why so many male crossdressers are so willing to let non-transgendered women speak for them.

The existance of gay crossdressers is REALLY inconveinient to all the people trying to say that all crossdressers are straight or that some may exist but are such a small # as to be insignificant.

And Tekla, your right. some of the most venomous homophobic crap I've ever encountered came from crossdressers trying to convince the world how straight they all are.

Me thinks they doth protest too much?

And like all numbers, who really knows? I'm guessing most are bi. If not in reality, at least in inclination. And that is not CD, its standard Kinsey, which, of course, is also flawed.

Hi Tekla and Amanda,

Your participation with us gives us all cause to think and challenges us in varied ways.

Is it not a given that there has been little, dare I say, professional scientific study into the "who, what, when, where, why" of us = crossdressers? There are a few absolutes that even without scientific study has a firm foundation. One is: WE EXIST, i.e., crossdressers are real. Two: We function on a what is sometimes defined as a continuum, that is, "we" have a multitude of ways/methods of expressing our innate desires to "challenge societal norms." Three: many of us do go forth into "harms way" in the face of the "great unwashed = society!" - some of us pass, others don't, but we are amongst "them." Four: Many of the "great unwashed" believe in their heart of hearts that we are an abomination, an affront to God and civilized society and we are going to Hell. Five: some in this sorority do have trouble, from little to terminal, dealing with (sic) "this gift!"

Now in deference to homophobia being expressed by members of our universe, yes, I know it has happened "When Universes Collide." Gays and Lesbians have every right to demean us, to disrespect us. Those that I have talked with, the militant ones, the ones as you allude to that "took the arrows" for their cause, YES they do ask me "Where were you when we were bleeding in the streets?" We know where we were, in the closet, in our dresses and heels, shaking and praying that we did not "get caught." Are there those of us who are still homophobic - yes, but there are fewer and fewer. We seek acceptance - they (gays and lesbians) are thinly accepted in most venues - we are not! Does that give us the right to be homophobic? I think not, but we are still human (gifted humans, but yet human) and within our universe we have those who can not, do not, or will not accept an "alternative lifestyle."

As for "bi" - well, the jury is still out on that one! That will take scientific research to develop any conclusions as to how many of "our sisters" are "bi" or even gay for that matter. I posed a question a couple of years ago here on this forum prior to my attending a formal dinner dance for the local Pride Group. The basic question was should I accept the opportunity to dance if asked? A simple question with deep, deep, algorithms. Does accepting a dance from a male (gay) make me "bi" or even gay?? If I decline, what does that say about not only me but "us," crossdressers? For what it's worth I was asked, I graciously accepted, and it was a wonderful experience. Given my place on our continuum, it was what I wanted to do and as a side bar - those gay guys can not only dance, they are exceedingly charming and treated me like a lady, as would be expected.

In my humble opinion we are still in our infancy, oh, we have been around since time in memorial but now we are LEARNING we are not freaks, we are not crazy, we come from ALL aspects of society, with some very unique experiences to share and we have untold bounty to offer.

So to cast dispersions on the entire spectrum or to take umbrage with a few comments or to "assume" (= makes an "backside" out of "u" and "me") is not providing positive reinforcement to those in our sorority that may be still struggling with their "gift."

Keep the faith,

Virginia

The gay vs straight issue has been discussed here a great deal. Often in the context of reassuring SOs that just because we share their taste in clothing that we don't neccesarily share their preferences in sexual partners.

So yes it is important to accept that many crossdressers are straight. In fact for many of us it is an expression of our heterosexuality. But many does not imply all, nor should it.

All that really needed to be done in this area of discussion is to dispell the notion that all crossdressers are drag queens. The reason that people think that is that it is the drag queens who are the most public, the most out, and thus provide the main frame of reference for many.

A statistic bandied about is that 1% of crossdressers will eventually decide they are pretty much trans sexual. IF that is true, it's not unreasonable to suppose that a few percentage points might be gay and a few more bi. Or more. I have to keep coming back to the fact that I know what I am. It's not neccesary that I have an opinion about very many other people in this regard.

Absaroka

I know protestants hate sex because it might lead to dancing. For myself, if you ask me to dance, its not like I have to marry you, so I will dance, and have danced with a lot of people. Heck I like to dance. Its a dance, not a life commitment. Yeesh.

I do not believe in some sort of "unwashed" society. I know just as many morons with PhDs as I do who never got out of high school, and the Hell's Angels here in the Bay Area have no trouble with me. That stuff is just discrimination based on class and social ranking. It is not valid in real life.

I have never been demeaned or degraded (if for no other reason than I will not let it happen) by any gay or lesbian I know. I do understand that they have a lot of contempt for the closet cases, TG and gay. They are right in that. It is a proper contempt. Those that fight against us every Sunday in church, vote against us in every election, and then demand that on Saturday night they get all the rights that being TG for a night gives them, well.....

Some people might be infants in this, but other are much further along the road. Laws have been written. Changes made. Baby steps for some might be in order, but don't deny those of us on the freeway in sports cars.

If the drag queens are more public, its only because you are more private. And I don't think its a few points, it's much more an order of magnitude. Not all will act on it, but the thoughts, dreams and feelings are there.