From: an5234@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: Support, and anonymity
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.transgendered
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:53:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.181504.14097@fuug.fi> you write:
>
>'coming out' as a crossdresser is a major step.  Society seems to have
>accepted the fact that people's sexual attraction may vary from person
>to person, but not their sexual identity.  In _Fantastic Women_ Annie
>Woodhouse a UK sociologist describes the discomfort that occurs when
>approached by a person whose sex is indeterminate.  The first thing we
>notice about a person is what his/her sex is.  This determines how we
>relate to them, how we talk to them, our manners, potential courtship
>rituals, status, and on and on.
>
Even for the most understanding, this can pose an almost insurmountable
problem.  As one of my close friends told me (he is the only person who
has ever seen me dressed), the problem can be stated as "Do I react to you
as a woman?  But you aren't; some of the, err, social consequences don't
follow.  As a man?  But in putting on something feminine, you seem to be
signalling that *gender is important.*  So I can't ignore the dress."  He
amplified on this considerably (we talked for a good two hours--alas, not
with me dressed, since his discomfort at not having a pattern of social
interactions to follow was so great that he blurted out the only thing he
could think of "You look sorta frumpy."), but these, I think, were the
fundamental points.  Oh, add to that: if a man reacts to a TV as to a
woman, he might feel uncomfortably that he's expressing some sort of
latent homosexuality.

>Our society is simply not prepared to give up this basic
>differentiation.  There is also, as Virginia Prince, has written, the
>stigma of moving *down* rather than *up* in status when CD'd.  AS woman

This (which I thought I read in Woodhouse's book) always struck me as a
very cogent and telling observation.  An M->F TV, says she, is regarded as
"lowering" himself, and in fact there is some crossover into the B&D
crowd, where crossdressing a man is used for domination/humiliation (in
fact, I read a.s.b solely for the occasional TV stories, which seem to
show up there more frequently than in a.s.s.).

>Really, crossdressers need political clout, but do have to come out to
>get it.  The difficulty is we seem to be one of the few groups it is
>permissible to dump on.  In Toronto crossdressers were discouraged from
>entering a float into the Gay Pride Day parade because of lesbian
>dissent.  Gay men themselves often look down and are embarrased by
>'queens', and, superficially, a CDer looks like a queen, though is
>certainly not one.
>
This is not the first call to arms in this group.  In fact, it is often
compared with the situation of gays not so long ago.  May I respectfully
point out that there are some significant differences?  The main one that
I am thinking of is pure networking, and not in the electronic sense. 
Because every gay, by virtue of being so, is more than likely to know at
least one other (a lover, an so, a spouse), and because the likelihood is
that each will know several others, and these others will know others not
known to the first person in question, gays automatically have a sort of
built in lover network, which can be transformed politically, used as an
informal support group, and so forth.  On the other hand, I know no other
TVs or TSs personally, am sending this anonymously (I devoutly hope), and
in fact have very little interest in actually *being* with other TVs (as
opposed to talking to others and sharing information).  Paranoia.  On the
other hand, a few years ago I made a collection of nasty little cartoons
culled from the pages of all sorts of magazines, all poking fun at CDs. 
We *are* figures of fun, and were I to come out, I could anticipate all
sorts of nasty little professional problems (especially since I want to be
involved in education.  Watch those parents line up to protect their
innocent little darlings!)

>The more publicity there is,
>the more ordinary crossdressing becomes.  Who knows, maybe one day we
>won't even be fodder for the talk shows.
>
You're much more sanguine than I allow myself to be.  I can't see such a
change in my lifetime.  It demands too much social restructuring.  For one
thing, there would have to be more respect for women, in order to avoid
the status trap you mention above.  For another, it would mean socializing
people to treat CDs as another category (not-men/not-women), or to create
a category for social interaction that does not demand gender typing.  I
think the kinds of change necessary are profound, and I can't say I see
society moving in that direction.

aml
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.transgendered