[postquote quote=376096]
There are a lot of straw men in here that I feel compelled to knock down – I will try to be as gentle as I can, as it is the points, not the person making them, that I see issues with.
There is no whining involved, although points clearly are being missed. We harm no-one.
Cross dressing is not necessarily about introducing a new feminine personality.
This is a central straw man, so let’s knock it out of the park.
My wife goes to bed with the man/masculine personality she fell in love with and married.
Fact.
The wife’s “rights” are maintained – although the wedding vows state for better or worse, not for more masculine (whatever that means – does it mean more hunting and cars, less housework?) or feminine – this was never part of the contract.
I am who I am. Your rights do not extend to diminishing mine.
If what I do or who I am upsets you so much over the years that you can’t take any more, you made the wrong choice, or you can’t understand the concept of for better or worse.
“Not earned the basic right to be feminine??”
Seriously?
This whole line of argument is riddled with whining. Like men have fewer rights because men have had everything.
This is a straw man the size of the Empire State building, and should be burnt!
We are all equal human beings with equal rights.
The opportunities for all are not equal. This, sadly, will never change. People in situations that offer slim opportunity pickings can rarely break through the traps. Those who can, should. Carpe diem.
This is not the fault of either gender, but certainly, at the root you may find some particularly noxious men, with masculine types of personality that ought to be extinct.
Maybe it shouldn’t be called cross dressing. Maybe it should be called wearing clothes I like and want to wear.
Now where is the argument against it? Where are the insults?
There are none.
I will fight for and earn my right to dress as I please.
There.
I have earned it.
Wasn’t that silly?
If anyone feels insulted by how someone else is dressed, I quote a self help book I read a long time ago. “When you take offence, you give offence”.
Many Western folk seem to find burkas insulting, as well as nudity.
Some tribes, notably in the Amazon, still prefer nudity as their “uniform”, and in many countries, including the UK, public (Yes, public) nudity is not an offence – yet people get offended by it.
The police are advised not to get involved in cases of genuine Naturism. It’s in the online police library documentation, and the Court advice documentation.
Cross dressing is not offensive. There goes another straw man.
Religious factors – ah Deuteronomy again. Cross dressing, shellfish, pork, clothing not made of linen or wool – all abominations.
Rapists? Marry your victims. Build up a harem of abused women – who are second rate citizens.
Now that is offensive!
Moral arguments – there are none. Wearing clothes is not immoral. To say women’s clothing is solely the domain of women is both bigoted and sexist.
The social concern is reasonable to an extent, but only because people can be so very silly.
I guess it depends on how much importance you place on your social life above your own mental health and your relationship with the spouse you promised for better or worse.
Trust – well, again, the reasons for keeping this a secret with all the horrendous prejudice practiced against it must be obvious. If someone shares a secret like this, they are placing every last grain of trust in you. They have earned your trust to the nth degree.
Getting married doesn’t involve a rundown of every secret each partner has.
Keeping cross dressing a secret is very understandable – and it’s only a clothing preference – it’s not a betrayal of trust, let alone a really big betrayal!
No wedding vows state “Keep thee only to the clothing I dictate that thou shalt wear” – or anything approaching this sentiment.
There is no betrayal of trust.
Bang. Down falls another straw man.
Since at least the 1960s, people have fought for equilibrium between the sexes.
One famous near androgyne was David Bowie, back in the 1970s.
The gender benders of the 1980s had a huge impact on society.
The Western world has come a very long way, and the class of male entertainers who exaggerate the look of women has taken off via RuPaul’s drag race and such like.
FtM ladies from the past, like Ann Lister are having their secrets finally uncovered – women could be masculine and achieve things over 200 years ago.
It’s “society” which is at fault and requires correction, not individuals within it.
By being individuals, by expressing ourselves as fully as possible, we show others possibilities to become themselves, to realise more of their own potential by throwing off the imaginary manacles that tie them down.
Those who wish to cling to an outdated past, with crumbling foundations would be better advised to strengthen their own foundations, and build better lives.
And sometimes people need to be shown, not told, about better ways of being and becoming. Do we really want to be stereotyped clones?
Because becoming is more productive than being, standing out is better than hiding – opportunity doesn’t come to those who hide from it, and equality is about opportunity, not the current state.
Anyone can whine about their lot in life, cut out what they don’t like, or do something constructive to move forwards.
Love is the answer, whatever the question.
Inclusion is better than division.
I know this is long, and potentially controversial, but I felt compelled to respond this way, because I see dangerous ideas in the text I quoted – dangerous to mental health and even dangerous to society.
Should we all be clones, shut up and be content with what we have, or should we strive for better?
Whose better is better?
Should we shoot for our dreams or spend life in purgatory?
As a creative person, and dreamer, I know which way the wind is blowing me!
And I truly apologise for any offence I may cause – I do not mean to offend anyone, I only mean to relay the truths that I see.
Love Laura.
Recent Comments