What about female transvestites?
5:25 p.m. -- 2008-07-31
Stepfordtart asks, "Simple question: How common are female transvestites? I've only ever known men. Never met a woman with an urge for the Calvin Klein boxers. Not being flippant, just truthful. Aside from the occasional 'for effect' suit wearing, it just doesn't seem to happen so much. Care to comment? s x"
Simple question? Aren't they always the worst ones? Anyway, here's an attempt at an answer. We begin with an extract from 'True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism - For Families, Friends, Coworkers, and Helping Professionals' by Mildred Brown and Chloe Rounsley:
"Transvestism is far less prevalent among women than men - some researchers believe that there are thousands of male transvestites to every one female transvestite - but the reasons for this disparity are not entirely clear. Because of their scarce numbers, there has been far less research done on female transvestites and less information compiled about them than about their male counterparts. It has been speculated that women may have less reason to cross-dress. Because society is far less rigid about female clothing standards, women can wear masculine-looking clothes or actual male attire without attracting much attention."
I can't help wondering if the majority of them are hiding in plain sight, it being so much easier for a female to wear whatever she likes. And remember, I don't feel the urge to wear stockings or makeup every day. Would you really notice if one of your friends wore baggy jeans a couple of times a month? Or an item of clothing that formerly belonged to a boyfriend? And the rarity of female cross-dressing might be self-reinforcing. If you think you're the only person who feels a certain way, you're less likely to tell the world.
Here's an extract from 'Talking Points' on the Channel 4 website, on the subject of cross-dressing:
"It is often assumed that there are many more male than female cross-dressers. However, women who cross-dress are much less 'visible' than male cross-dressers, as it has long been acceptable in our society for women to wear trousers, shirts and other clothes traditionally associated with men. We've moved a long way from Biblical times, when women wearing men's clothing was referred to as an 'abomination' in the book of Deuteronomy (22:5)."
(Don't ever get a tranny started on the book of Deuteronomy.) Anyway, I'd also draw your attention to yesterday's entry, in which I attempted to explain that a garment is not going to satisfy any transvestic urges if society considers it to be 'okay'. Since women are allowed to wear so many items from a man's wardrobe, they may actually struggle to cross-dress at all. Even the Calvin Klein boxers could merely be seen as eccentric but cute. (Daryl Hannah in 'Splash', for example.)
The idea of there being no taboo clothes makes me wonder what trannies in China did, back in the Cultural Revolution, when everybody had to wear a blue boiler suit all the time. No possibility of cross-dressing! Then again, homosexuals were given lengthy prison sentences and in some cases executed, back then. There's nothing quite like a firing squad to cure you of the desire to try on your mother's underwear, I reckon. (Single child policy, don't forget, so they didn't generally have sisters.)
Let's get back to Brown and Rounsley - or Mildred and Chloe if you feel like you're getting to know them quite well, now:
"Female transvestites may wear one item of male clothing (for example, undershorts) or may don an entirely male outfit. Although they enjoy wearing male attire, they have a female gender identity and, like their male counterparts, have no desire to change their sex."
Yes... and I probably labour this point, but: most transvestites are straight, and they're not necessarily starting down a slippery slope towards hormones and surgery. Back to Millie and Chloe:
"The major difference between male and female transvestites is the underlying motivation for cross-dressing. Whereas male crossdressing is generally associated with fetishism - sexual arousal elicited by an inanimate object such as lingerie or shoes - this is not the case for female cross-dressing."
Some folks in the Tranny Mafia wouldn't agree with that. They treat the sexual aspect of cross-dressing as something immature, maybe a little bit nasty. They believe that cross-dressing often begins as an erotic act in childhood, but ends up being something quite different entirely, to do with giving voice to a softer, more caring persona. Which may all be bullshit. One of those 'thirty percent admit to masturbating, and seventy percent are liars' statistics...
M&C continue:
"Experts believe that because women almost never have fetishistic tendencies, there is little or no erotic component to cross-dressing for female transvestites. Instead, according to the female cross-dressers I've worked with, their crossdressing emanates from a desire to embrace and experience male power and status and what is perceived to be male privilege."
Um. "Women almost never have fetishistic tendencies"? I assume this means their cross-dressing almost never has a fetishistic component. Surely it can't mean there's no such thing as a female fetish? That's something that you are going to have to comment upon, dear readers. I'm not qualified here, what with my XY chromosomes, and all. (Strictly speaking, a fetish is an object - or body part excluding the genitalia - that arouses sexual desire, or may be necessary for sexual gratification.)
So... power and status. I would have hoped that the world is gradually getting to be a fairer place. Misogynists still exist, but laws are changing and the underlying culture in some societies is shifting as well. The world may not be quite the way you want it to be, but it used to be a whole lot worse. (In ancient Rome, the only way for a woman to participate in a sporting event... was to get fed to a lion.) There was a time when women had to masquerade as men in order to escape from poverty, tedium or motherhood - or just to follow certain dreams.
We still do a double-take when we see one of our brave girls in uniform, serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. We shouldn't, really; they make up nine percent of military personnel now. The history of girl soldiering began long before the 1990s, though. Deborah Sampson enlisted in the War of Independence, under the name 'Timothy Thayer' (and fought against us: boo!). Mary Dixon fought at Waterloo (on the right side), and dozens of women enlisted in the American Civil War (some by deception, and others with officers turning a blind eye) and they bore arms and wore the appropriate uniforms. Power and status? A private soldier has neither. Perhaps more freedom than most women back then, though.
If you want power and status, consider Pope John VIII who was the head honcho at the Vatican around 850AD. Pope John is said to have been female, being also known as Pope Joan. One can only hope she injected some common sense during her brief tenure... there was little enough of it in the millennium that followed, and women had a particularly shitty time of it.
While some barriers have been eroded, the 21st century isn't guaranteed to be fun for the girls. Womens' role models send them all kinds of conflicting messages, many of them having at their root the assumption of roles that have traditionally been requirements more commonly placed upon the male. And of course it's cool to show a girl breaking the mold... but the result is a profusion of mixed messages:
Be the hub of a perfect family, but hold down a fantastic career. Be the smart, sensible one... and also a party animal. Be somehow untouchable, but be an inventive little minx in bed so he won't get bored of you. Be adventurous and sporty, but always look as though you just stepped out of the salon. Be a great student, but always be ready to act the bimbo so he doesn't feel threatened.
Challenging! I think us part-time girls are getting a bargain.
previous - next
|
