A Dahl’s House

In “My Husband Betty” Helen Boyd makes an asute observation that cross-dressers often are envious of things genetic women take for granted: “They envy the easy friendship between women, the casual way women touch each other when they talk. Imagine a man gently brushing another man’s hair out of his eyes while they’re chatting! But women do that kind of thing all the time, even ones who aren’t especially feminine.”

I’ve always envied the way one my best friends can easily strike up a conversation with another woman she’s just met. Obviously, this isn’t dependent on gender. My friend is gregarious while I’ve always been social awkward around strangers. (Yes, despite being raised in California, I’m one of Garrison Keillor’s people.) But it does seem like there’s a big difference to the way two newly-introduced women interact compared to two guys.

The reverse is also true. I know many genetic women who envy men’s freedom to move in safety—something I didn’t truly understand until going out en femme.

Maybe this is one reason it’s difficult for women to understand why we do it. Partly, I think we’re not always able to clearly articulate some of these things precisely because they’re so “ordinary.” Partly, it’s when we do, women have a hard time seeing why these sorts of things might be special to us—I’ve often heard genetic women express puzzlement about our attraction to make-up. Of course, there’s also a big difference wanting to do something—like wearing skirts or make-up—and feeling obligated to do it.

Of course, like any other “grass is greener” feeling, it’s envying something that sometimes is illusionary, in part or in whole. My friend can be far cattier about other women—including those she just chatted merrily away with—than I would ever be. Likewise as any guy knows, thugs and bullies will happily beat up on a “weak” guy. And if they really want to prove they’re tough, they’ll start a fight with the biggest, baddest dude around. Transman Raven Kaldera relates how a fellow transman learned this the hard way. As a butch lesbian, she could get in guys’ faces and they’d back off because she was a woman. As a man she got decked immediately.

BTW, I intentionally used the word “envy,” which is a complex emotion. It’s both a grudging admiration and a painful desire for another’s advantages mixed with a simultaneous discontent and resentment at their advantages. In relationships it often involves love/hate. Love for your partner and hate for the power they have over you.

Years ago Nancy Friday wrote in her book “Jealousy” (which really focuses on envy and power relationships): “Today, many women don’t need men, either for their money or for their sperm, given society’s tolerance of women having children on their own. Men’s envy of our new found power may lessen as they get into women’s traditional areas of strength, namely beauty and the rearing of the children, but it hasn’t happened yet….We don’t yet have that new social structure. Returning to Patriarchy is out of the question, but as a new power structure emerges to replace it, we must understand more than ever the furies our dismantling of Patriarchy have released. Our fury at powerlessness—our envy—is stronger than ever, stronger than any feelings of love. The truth is that we cannot love until we understand envy and its relationship to jealousy.”

In that light, we crossdressers are at least open about our envies while in other men it often festers beneath the surface unacknowledged, even to themselves. We take those things we envy and make them our own—at least sort of our own, since we’re doing them en femme rather than en homme.

Sometimes it’s not pretty. As Kaldera says:

Sometimes when you drag out an opposite-sex persona – so to speak – you find that it’s been stashed in the same mental closet as all the things that you don’t like about the opposite gender, and they’ve become stuck all over it like barnacles, or growths. They won’t flake off until that persona has been exposed to the air for a while, and gotten a chance to rub up against real people and real circumstances. This may mean plowing through years of humiliating stereotypical behavior until that part of you evolves and grows into a fuller human being. I’ve seen it again and again, especially in people who are just starting to cross-dress or whose CD persona only gets out once in a while. Stereotypes abound: the trashy whore, the catty and manipulative upper-class bitch, the irresponsible little girl, the supported housewife who never has to work or deal with the outside world, the delicately passive – and utterly useless – ornament, and, of course, Mom. In the bedroom, the sexual stereotypes can be even more cartoon-like, from Sweet Gwen the Victim to the Dragon Lady, but is most commonly the passive, receptive do-me-queen that men don’t usually get to be. Sometimes their personas are clearly signposts pointing to the issues that they are bravely working through.

Women are often horrified and offended when men deliberately imitate women, whether it’s a female impersonator in a drag performance or a fetishistic cross-dresser in ratty nylons and a bad wig. They feel that these performances of female gender are a bad caricature, and don’t actually resemble the real experience of women. While it’s true that a performance, or even a persona, is by definition shallower than a person, there’s still a grain (or a sackful) of truth to these performances. For every one of these stereotypes being performed by men, I’ve met the same ones being performed by women, and in larger numbers. I’ve met the biologically female version of every one of these caricatures, and I’m sure that the women who complain about the guys in dresses probably have, too.

The one silver lining of envy is that by pointing out where we feel inadequate we can choose to address those perceived inadequacies. Instead of coveting the characteristics we wish we had, we can develop them for ourselves. Likewise, we can move from begrudged admiration to respectful appreciation when we see those qualities in others.

So what things taken for granted by the opposite sex do you envy?

To me, it’s significant that we refer to ourselves as “girls” not “women.” Women have responsibilities, girls just wanna have fun. (Interestingly there’s a “boi” subgroup within the lesbian community, who dress and act like young guys—who also don’t have mortgages to pay or kids to feed.) Every CDs has his own particular set of motivations, but I think escapism is often a motivation for many of us. In that sense it’s not that different from people who do Burning Man, or the Renaissance Faire or put on a Starfleet uniform for a chance to be someone else for awhile.

After also posting this on the Betty boards, some folks suggested I run through the pros and cons of telling Mom. Actually, I’m pretty good about cutting to the chase, i.e. figuring out what’s the worse that could happen and then deciding whether that something is something I can live with.

To be honest, I think it’s far more my own reluctance than my fear of her potential reaction. It’s been far easier to come out to the people I’m less close to. For example, it was a lot easier to tell my hair stylist, than one my best friends. Not sure why. Also I’m a little stressed with some work-related stuff, so I guess I’m just not feeling up to some of the inevitable discussions that would result. And part of it is that the trip is something she’s wanted to do for awhile, so I don’t want to preempt that. Some of that may just be rationalization, but then again, I’m not on any time table, so there’s not necessarily an urgency to disclosing.

Really it was more of a general reaction triggered by the act of literally compartmentalizing myself that set things off, rather than specifically the issue of whether I come out to her. As I mentioned, I only visit her a couple times a year so it’s usually no big deal—it’s just that this particular trip had the coincidence of also visiting someone en femme during the same trip (so I’ve got some wardrobe that would require some explaining) and Mom and I taking a trip together where we’re going to share a hotel room where certain things like shaved legs are harder to avoid being noticed. But all that just brought into relief the larger issue of needing to often put up a facade in my day-to-day life ad infinitum.

This is where I think the experience of part-time CDs differs from full-time TGs/TSs. OTOH, I can compartmentalize it. It’s really only a part of my life. I’m a weekend princess. OTOH, continued compartmentalizing has its own price to pay—one that’s not always appreciated. It may not be the knife at your heart, but it’s a stone in your shoe you can’t seem to get rid of. I’m lucky, I don’t feel shame or guilt about my crossdressing—although I realize it’s something society views as eccentric at best. It’s just there are times when I wish it didn’t….complicate….my life. (I can certainly understand why some folks choose to go deep stealth after GRS.)

It’s the counterpart to what Helen mentioned about “the sound of the other shoe not dropping.” I.e. for some, there’s an end to the road (even if getting there is hell). For me, there’s only the endless journey, and trying to find a middle path.

But anyway… recording my reactions is still a good idea.

Nettie mentioned she liked the analogy of the title—being a grown-up who have to squeeze into those little seats and act like a kid again. As mentioned, that wasn’t my intention—but upon reflection, yeah it’s quite apropos here.

I agree most people probably engage in a bit of role playing around their parents. In fact, I’ve used that as analogy to try to explain to people how about how I can be “different people” while still being “me.”

So here I am in my hotel room packing up to head over to my Mom’s house—and literally compartmentizing my life.

I took out the studs I normally wear in my ears. I removed the polish I normally wear on my toes.

I got a add-on to iPhoto that lets you have separate photo libraries—so I’m moving all my femme photos into one that’s separate from all the other photos she might want to see.

I met a friend en femme in LA, so I’m now putting my skirt and top into compartments of the suitcase where they won’t be noticeable. The breast forms, shoes and purse will have to go a shopping bag that I’ll let in the trunk and hope she won’t notice them during our trip to San Diego.

I’ve got to stop by the department store to pick up some long pajama bottoms, since we’ll be sharing a hotel room. The shaved arms may not be noticed, but I’m sure shaved legs would. Which why I also “forgot” to bring shorts. Hopefully it won’t be too hot…

The ironic thing is that if I told her, I’m sure she’d probably be accepting. But frankly, I don’t want her to worry—and I’m also sure she would. And since we live in different cities, I only see her in person a couple times a year, so compartmentalizing is possible. Who know maybe I’ll change my mind, maybe she’ll notice something and ask…

It’s obviously minor compared to the some of things others are dealing with, but there are times when riding the kiddie rollercoaster* ain’t fun—especially realizing that I’m going to be riding it for the rest of my life. Compartmentalizing who you are just sucks. And just… sometimes… it would be nice to be able to pass through the fire and move on. But then again, I suppose the grass is always greener….

Anyway, don’t worry, I’m heading to the beach so I’ll feel better in a bit. It’s just one of those passing moods.

*My friend, Michelle, once eloquently talked about how, compared to transitioning, the problems of being a crossdresser is the difference between jumping off a cliff and riding the kiddie roller coaster. But, as she said, who really wants to ride the kiddie coaster for the rest of their lives?

Sayth The Rev. Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Tex:

Progressive Christians tend to be nonjudgmental and to feel that challenging the intolerance of others is itself intolerant. For that reason we often sit by silently when Fundamentalist Christians criticize homosexual persons. We tend to think of this as being open minded.

Not that long ago, it was considered consistent to be a Christian, and yet, hold slaves. The day came when slavery was understood as an affront to the gospel itself. I want to suggest that the day has come when Christians must declare that gay bashing is an attack on the gospel and that real Christians do not participate in any form of discrimination.

Several years ago, I was asked to do the funeral of a gay man who had been beaten to death in a hate crime. At that time, I had never thought deeply about the danger many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people face in this culture. That week as I worked on the service, I kept hearing a local “Christian” radio station blaming gay and lesbian people for everything wrong in America. By the end of the week I understood the link between religious hate speech and the funeral I was performing.

I know that critics of homosexuality do not consider themselves to be hateful. They would say they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” If the shoe were on the other foot, however, and someone were attacking their families, trying to take their children away, and constantly working to pass legislation to deprive them of basic civil rights, at some point they would understand that “homophobia” is too mild a word for such harassment. “Hatred” is the only proper term.

I was raised in Dallas, Texas and had classmates who were in the Klan. I remember that they did not consider themselves to be attacking other people. They perceived themselves to be defenders of Christian America. Their “religion” consisted of an unrelenting attack on people who were black, Jewish or homosexual. If anyone challenged these views, these Klan members considered themselves under attack and believed that their right to free exercise of religion was being threatened. In other words, they felt that harassing other people was a protected expression of their own religious faith.

In the Gospel, biblical literalists and judgmental people were the negative example in many of the stories. The point of those stories was to teach us the hypocrisy of judgmental religion. When a woman was caught in adultery, the Biblical literalists lined up to protect family values. They pointed out that the Bible literally says that adulterers are to be stoned. If Jesus took the Bible seriously, they claimed, he would have to participate in the mandated biblical punishment of an adulteress.

Instead of following scripture, Jesus tells the woman to get her life together and tells everyone else to drop their stones of judgment. The only way to take this story seriously is to conclude that real Christians don’t use the bible to condemn other people.

It violates the teaching of Christ to say that God will get angry if America does not confront homosexuality as a sin. Jesus did not mention homosexuality and it is a lie to say he did. Furthermore, Jesus said “Judge not or you will be judged.” These false prophets are saying “Judge or else you will be judged.”

Jesus was kind and understanding, but he was not silent about those who abused the vulnerable. He called them “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Christians must follow the example of Jesus and confront those vicious predators who use the Christian religion as a camouflage for bullying. We must be as understanding and kind as we can be, but to be tolerant of the oppression of others is not true tolerance.

I believe the time has come to say that genuine followers of Jesus Christ do not participate in discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. Is it intolerant to challenge intolerance? Are we doing the same thing as those we are challenging?

Gay bashing is not just an opinion, it is an assault. Just as the Klan did, religious fundamentalists have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. They even have a right to preach a message of hate. But when they harass people in public, it is time for Christians to rise to challenge their intolerance. We have an obligation to protect our neighbors from harassment and slander, especially when it is done in our name.

It is time to say that gay bashing is not only wrong, it is unchristian. If Christianity is grace, then judgment is the ultimate apostasy. If Christianity is love, then cruelty is the ultimate heresy.

Patsy and I recently saw Ute Lemper (a singer who specializes in German cabaret) and I was reminded of Helen’s thoughts on wanting paper lanterns by part of the chorus in one of the songs Lemper sang—Friedrich Holländer’s “Münchausen.”

Truth is hard and tough as nails
That’s why we need fairy tales
I’m all through with logical conclusions
Why should I deny myself illusions?

Obviously, one doesn’t want to live solely in a fantasy world, but like Blanche DuBois sometimes we need a little time-out from the harsh, bare bulb of fact. And in fact the full chorus makes clear Hollander is really talking about trying to maintain hope admist disappointment.

Liar liar liar liar liar liar
I’m sick and tired of lies from you
But how I wish your lies were true
Liar liar liar liar liar liar
Truth is hard and tough as nails
That’s why we need fairy tales
I’m all through with logical conclusions
Why should I deny myself illusions?

In a way, being trans is a bit like being an actor, musician or writer. The odds of “making it” are such a long shot that it’s no surprise that many of them have titantic egos—you have to almost a willful ignorance of the realities in order to pursue your dream. The dream of many trans-folk is just being able to live a regular life like everyone else, which can be tough when all too often some people see us as freaks. (I wonder, how many of those who have stared and giggled at “that guy in a dress” would have the balls to go out in public knowing full well that they could face that sort of ridicule?) So sometimes we need illusions to keep ourselves going.

Now it turns out I’d actually misheard the lyrics initially, and (with apologies to Hollander) I actually prefer my mishearing:

Life is hard and tough as nails
That’s why we need fairy tales
I’ve reached a logical conclusion
Why should I deny myself illusions?

It’s not about a choice between harsh reality or illusions, it’s choosing that one can have both. Of course, mistaking one for the other can be problematic. But just because it can be a problem doesn’t mean it inherently is. To build on a thought from Helen: Sure it can make sense to tell a kid that a Superman costume won’t make him able to actually fly—especially if he’s standing next to the window. But if all he wants to do is lay on the top of the couch with his Superman costume on and insist he’s flying, what’s the harm in letting him indulge that illusion for awhile?

After all, while Baron von Münchhausen “acquired a reputation for his witty and exaggerated tales; at the same time, he was considered an honest man in business affairs.”

Donna related an experience of a woman coming up to her on the subway and telling her “I know what you are”—only to turn out the woman said, “That’s right! You’re Jewish, aren’t you! I can tell from your nose!” instead of that Donna was transsexual.

Which, as Helen noted, was an interesting illustration of how what you’re thinking might not match what someone else is thinking when you think you’re getting read.

Interestingly my Pilates instructor, C., had a similar thought along those lines. I’d been telling her about my weekend, including going to the mall and getting stared it. She wanted to know why I assuming the worse, saying she’d stared at trans people before (I’m the first one she knows personally) but that was because she was admiring the artistry and skill they showed in their presentation.

In a different forum, some of the women pointed out of that women generally get looked at more in public in men do—so it could be simply that instead of being read.

And the woman who helped me find my latest wig and otherwise improving my appearance warned me that being prettier meant I would probably catch more people’s eyes—and I needed to decide whether I was ready for that.

So as long as no one’s giggling, I can at least tell myself there are reasons I might be getting stared at that aren’t the ones I fear.

I have to say I’m a little irked by this op-ed piece.

I won’t discount the possibility that the “crisis of boys” is in part a backlash against the women’s movement, but the authors just seem to automatically assume dark forces are at work.

Sorry ladies, it’s not always about you. Read Michael Kimmel’s “Manhood in America” or Peter Stearns “Be a Man!” and you’ll discover that “manhood” has almost always been in “crisis” for well over two centuries, with much public lamentation and wringing of hands. (Which in fact the authors allude to at the beginning of her piece—and yes, I’m sure the latest spasm is overblown.) Public insecurity about “being a man” goes back waaaay further than that, arguably to the hunter-gather stage of civilization. But usually it’s been men being anxious about their masculinity regardless of what the women are up to.

Kimmel put it well:

There have been some attempts to tell the story of American manhood—by woman. But many feminist analyses failed to resonate with men’s own experiences. Not a surprise, since women theorized about masculinity from their point of view, from the way women experience masculinity. And women theorized that men’s relationships were the pivotal relationship in the lives of both women and men. Masculinity, we were told, was defined by the drive for power, for domination, for control….

But the historical record has revealed a somewhat different picture. Manhood is less about the drive for domination and more about the fear of others dominating us, having power or control over us. Throughout American history American men have been afraid that others will see us as less than manly, as week, timid, frightened. And me have been afraid of not measuring up to some vaguely defined notions of what it means to be a man, afraid of failure….

In large part, it’s other men who are important to American men; American men define their masculinity, not as much in relation to women, but in relation to each other. Masculinity is largely a homosocial enactment….

Such a bold claim does not mean that woman are incidental to men’s efforts to prove their manhood. Far from it. As I will show in the pages that follow, men often go to elaborate lengths and take extraordinary risks to prove their manhood in the eyes of women. Women are not incidental to masculinity, but they are not always its central feature either….

American men have been haunted by the fears that they are not powerful, strong, rich or successful enough. And many of our actions, on both the public and private stages, have been efforts to ward of these demons, to silence these fears. I argue that there have been certain patterns to these actions: American men try to control themselves; they project their fears onto others; and the feeling too pressured, they attempt an escape.

Incidently, it turns out the authors of the op-ed piece are the authors of “Same Differences,” which argues that men and women are essentially the same and that any differences are due to socialization. Now I’ll be the first to say the socialization plays a big part, but based on some critical reviews of the book, it sounds like the authors are more interested in tilting at straw-men then actually wrestling with the nature/nuture question. As one reviewer put it, they’re “confusing the sensible claim that men and women as a group tend to behave in particular ways, with the clearly false idea that each and every man and woman behaves in those gender-specific ways.”

Diane has a harsh, but evocative term for folks like John, who became BlondeJohn and contemplated feminization only to become John again once the “pink haze” wore off —“fantasy gendered.”

Today I heard a quote attributed to Philip K. Dick that’s worth keeping in mind:

Reality is that which, when we choose to ignore it, doesn’t go away.

John is an extreme example, but I’ve seen “fan-gendered” folks all too often go over the cliff like Wile E. Coyote still running as if there was ground under their feet until they look down and sudden realize there’s the long fall ahead. Unfortunately, unlike the cartoons, it’s a lot harder for them to rise up out of the resulting crater.

So yesterday I had my weekly work-out with C., my Pilates instructor to whom I came out to last week. As requested, I brought a half-dozen photos of myself en femme. C. said she thought I looked nice and complimented me on a couple of my wigs.

We talked about my crossdressing during the rest of the session—albeit it was a bit of fragmented conversation, since it was I was trying to talk and work-out at the same time. Her questions were what you might expect: Did my friends and family know? Where did I go out? What did I do when I was out? Did I ever want to be a woman? What about dating? Did I have a femme name? And so on. She did like my analogy of crossdressers taking a “gender vacation,” which seemed to resonate with her.

C. seemed genuinely curious and puzzled by how deeply in the closet we are or why partners might have such trouble with. “What’s the big deal?” she said. I’m sure she’s got more questions—and there’s a couple points I wanted raise—so I’m looking forward to our next session. The thing is… I’m sure she doesn’t fully “get” it, but she doesn’t need to. She’s OK with it regardless.
In a bit of apropos timing, during the drive home that evening, I heard Terry Gross on “Fresh Air” interview actor Peter Dinklage, best known for his starring role in “The Station Agent.” Much of interview dealt with Dinklage’s dwarfism, and I really liked a number Dinklage’s comments, which were to the effect that it’s something that he deals with from time to time as part of his life, but it doesn’t define him.