John Paul, or Carmen Sense (I can't figure out who wrote it, to be honest) over at Gender Reality, wrote about "cross-dressers" and "transvestites". And from there concluded that transsexuals shouldn't be lumped in with transgendered folk. Or was it the other way around? Whatever.
Anyway, there was a quote from someone I'd never heard of, a Michael Gilbert of York University, Canada. I figured I'd ask who he was. So I did. I was told in fairly short order who he was. I still don't know who he is. I don't particularly care, either.
After that the conversation deteriorated. As might be expected. I was informed of the "facts" of transsexuality. And that it's not about the clothes if the person is transsexual, but John Paul thinks it's all about the clothes if the person isn't a self-avowed transsexual. Cognitive dissonance really is all the rage, these days. I tried pointing out that folk come in all shapes and sizes and why should gender be a switch? Apparently it is. Who knew? Not the many folk for whom it's a sliding rheostat, apparently.
Oh well. Why do people insist on demonstrating their complete lack of imagination? They always do when it comes to gender. I strongly suspect it's because they need gender to be a switch. It's a bit like arguing that gay men decide to become gay - there's no consideration for the fact that bisexual men exist, or for some men to realize they're gay (or not) later in life or whatever. It's a switch, see?
I should have guessed something was going to go awry. (Okay, I did.) Because John Paul moderates comments on a blog that sometimes indulges in superficially intelligent controversy, and that nearly always indicates a lack of courage over the potential comments.
Anyway, here's the comment that John Paul couldn't bring himself to publish:
Buddy yourself, pal.
I agree that only the wistful would consider transsexuals to be part of anything transgender – I don’t think I’ve *ever* said anything different. What I find sad is that there are, apparently, many transsexual folk who feel that part of their whole being is the denigration of others. An example of which is John Paul alleging that I “play dress up”.
While I certainly didn’t intend to challenge in the way I ended up doing, I did wonder if John Paul would consider the applicability of “it’s not about the clothes” outside of a very limited circle. (I wondered about that because of something he wrote on my blog*.) I now have my answer: Nope. Not at all. Not one bit.
Ah well. Whatcha gonna do? Folks is folks, and prejudice & denigration are easy. C’est la vie and all that. Have a wonderful day, *pal*.
Oh well. I'd like to say it was real, but John Paul's gender reality is a blinkered reality, and that's not real. It's a fiction. It really is about the clothes, the stereotypes and the superiority of the transsexual over all the "crossdressers" and "transvestites". Thought it might be.