From the May issue of TG Community News


When I write these columns, I have to assume that someone is reading them. But beyond simply reading them, I assume everyone will understand what I'm saying. Every once in a while, I find out that I'm dead wrong on the latter issue.

A couple of issues ago, I wrote two pieces in which I tried to relate the push for TG- inclusive anti-discrimination legislation with a second item about a Tri-Ess meeting that fell into controversy. I made what I thought was an ironic comment about the Tri-Ess meeting, referring back to my remarks about anti-discrimination. I was trying to agree with the Tri-Ess point of view.

In the newsletter of a completely different Tri-Ess chapter newsletter, their president took me to task for criticizing them. The author had me completely backwards! Now some people will tell you that is the best angle from which to view me. But the point to remember here is that all the nuggets of information in my columns are pure gold. They may use irony, alliteration, and all the other literary forms, including onomatopoeia. (Let's hear it for sophomore English.)

But if you're gonna attack me, don't turn me backwards. Unless you're wearing protection!

 

"LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR"

The Erie Sisters group in Erie, Pennsylvania publish the "Mirror Images" newsletter and it has undergone a vast improvement in design and content recently. But I saw an interesting and disturbing item in their February '99 issue.

The Sisters' president, Lisa Kelly, wrote "The Erie Sisters Dress Code", which is always dangerous water to tread in our community. Lisa wrote that she was reluctant to write The Code because, she said, "I would not want to be accused of being a Dictator." But in the spirit of all great dictators... she got over it.

The Erie girls are free to wear "anything you want as long as it's in good taste, no fetish stuff except on designated meetings, but minis and micro dresses are defiantly [sic?] OK." Fetish meetings? Hey, now that's cool. Continuing, she wrote: "Heels should be limited to six inches." Now, seriously, does anyone really wear 6" heels to meetings? And if you do... drop me a line, hot stuff. "When it comes to cleavage... and are justifiably proud of your breasts, good for you!," Lisa encouraged the group. So far, so good. Skyscraper heels, occasional fetish nights, and low cut decolletage is giving me a whole new perspective on our neighbors to the northwest.

But then Lisa makes a mistake that I've read about in other groups. "If you have a beard or a mustache and wish to wear a dress and makeup, please! Stay Home." Uh-oh. I knew in anything titled a Dress Code, there had to be a faux pas, and this is certainly a doozy. I can agree that a bearded or mustachioed crossdresser is unusual but what's so horrible about it that someone can't be welcomed by a group of men wearing micro mini's and false boobies?

This is an issue that's been raised before in other groups and has been commented on by myself and others in the community. The sight of a man crossdressed with facial hair seems to freak some other crossdressers. My thought is that when they see a crossdresser with facial hair, it makes them realize just how tenuous is their own grasp on femininity. It's like a walking billboard reminding them that we're just a bunch of guys in drag. The truth hurts some people.

The thing we must remember is that many crossdressers are constrained by their personal situations and cannot go to the same lengths as some others in expressing their femininity. If you are a man who has always worn a beard or mustache, and has lately discovered your crossdressing side, it may not be easy to simply shave it off for the luxury of infrequent visits to the crossdresser's "support" group meetings. One would like to think that others would be more understanding. And if that argument doesn't do it for you, consider the courage it takes for someone to show up in a group of crossdressed strangers while trying to hold your own in drag with facial hair. These individuals should be admired - not scorned.

In the film "The Laughing Policeman", there is a fleeting glimpse of two San Francisco drag queens at an outdoor cafe, both of whom are sporting mustaches and glamorous makeup. And they are the two most attractive drag queens I've ever seen in films. Maybe they wouldn't be welcome at the Erie Sisters... unless they were wearing 6" heels and micro-minis with spilling cleavage.

CLASS STRUGGLE

The Emerald City group in Seattle, Washington publishes a fine newsletter named simply "The Emerald City News." Judy Osborne writes a monthly column titled "The Art of Politics" which usually tackles big issues on the national scene. In the March '99 issue, Judy stays closer to home and reports on a controversy raging in their own ranks.

Emerald City has recently leased meeting space at a Seattle building called The Inkwell. I didn't see the discussion of this topic in prior EC newsletters but apparently it was undertaken by the new leadership of that group, and it's proposal and board vote is itself a subject of controversy in some quarters of Emerald City.

Judy describes the new meeting facility as being in a warehousing district, in a "sinister-looking" part of town. She feels that the location and physical layout of the building will be too intimidating for some newcomers who may feel uncomfortable at surveying the scene. From her description of The Inkwell building, it sounds as if an empty warehouse property located between hulking manufacturing plants in a non- residential area has been converted to small offices and personal storage facilities. Some members of the Emerald City board, who have storage and changing space rented for themselves thought it would be a good idea to move the club's headquarters to this location. One advantage cited by the board in opting for the new location is that there are limited spaces available for those who also wish to rent space for storage and changing.

That is an understandable advantage but Judy sees a different problem arising out of it. Namely, that the members who are able to pool together to rent space will become a clique, leaving out the less fortunate members who are unable to enjoy the comforts that others have. Since the meeting space is only down the hall from the rented rooms, the "A" crowd can withdraw to their own private quarters and leave the great unwashed behind to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, newcomers who drive up and don't like the looks of the neighborhood will be afraid to come inside and simply turn around and go back home, never to be seen again.

Judy makes some good points, going into two pages of detail about the machinations behind the move to the new facilities, as well as her critique of the social implications of the new location. She subtitled her column, "The Soul of Emerald City," referring to her fear that there will arise two classes of membership: the have's and the have not's, and also the unknowable effect it will have on new members looking for support in such an intimidating building.

The intimidation factor should be a real concern. Even in Renaissance, with our excellent location choices for meetings and social functions, we have seen newcomers who were too afraid to get out of their cars after having driven within feet of our door. A deserted industrial neighborhood can seem even more forbidding to crossdressers venturing out for the first time. The concern over the class structure within the group is equally important. Newcomers and veterans alike are often critical of what they see as a clique mentality within groups all over the country. Good leaders need to be visionaries and foresee the effects of their actions on the future of their groups, not merely the present advantages when making a decision. That having been said, you can't please everyone all the time and that too must be weighed by the critics.

Emerald City is one of the flagship groups of our TG community and I hope they make it work for everyone, including the members who are yet to come.

DAMN GUMMINT

The newsletter of the Philadelphia Chapter of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) reprinted a fascinating list from the Denver PFLAG Newsletter in their March '99 issue. The list was broken into four sections: "States that Still have Sodomy Laws"; "States that Ban Gay Marriages"; "States that Include Sexual Orientation in Hate Crime Law"; and "States that Protect Sexual Orientation in Employment."

The list was fascinating because there were so many instances of contradiction in some states. For example: Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Minnesota still have sodomy laws on the books, yet those states also have legislation including homosexuals in hate crime legislation. Massachusetts and Minnesota also protect sexual orientation in employment law. Maine still has a sodomy law but includes homosexuals in a hate crime statute. Delaware, Florida, and Iowa include homosexuals in hate crime legislation but all have banned gay marriages. Alabama, Maryland, and New York all have sodomy laws on the books, but haven't (yet, anyway) taken the active step to ban gay marriages.

Minnesota was the most schizophrenic of the states, appearing in all four categories. They outlaw gay sex and marriage but protect homosexuals from discrimination in employment and against violent crime. I'm sure Jesse Ventura will get this all straightened out, for the good or the bad. Consistency, people, is that too much to ask?

I always get a kick out of the conservatives who want to turn everything legislative back to the state governments Well, here you have it. They don't know what the hell they're doing from one day to the next.

This emphasis on getting government to legislate tolerance is also shown to be a chimera. Today, you get a favorable hate crime vote, tomorrow they ban homosexual marriages; today they include transgender people in employment protection, tomorrow they say we can't use the damn ladies' room. The real activist emphasis for tolerance should be towards the public consciousness and conscience. Legislation cannot make people love and understand one another. Forty years of racial civil rights legislation should have pointed that out by now.

PANTYHOSE PRO AND CON

IXE is the Tri-Ess sorority (Ed. Note: Dina's wrong about that. They just liked the letters, but are not affliated with Tri-Ess) in Indianapolis, Indiana, and their eponymous newsletter of February '99 reprinted an article on pantyhose from the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram." The gist of the piece was that pantyhose are slipping (perhaps we should say rolling down the waistline) in popularity with real women.

The reasons for this are two-fold, according to the uncredited author of the article. First, the recent move to "business casual" in the workplace means that less women are wearing dresses and skirts, making any form of stocking less necessary; and secondly, that women more often opt for bare-legged looks in the warmer weather when they do show their legs. In 1994, according to the source, pantyhose sales were at 1.6 billion pairs. By 1997, it had dropped to 1.3 billion. That's still a helluva lot of pantyhose but a 300 million unit decline might make any bean counter sit up and take notice.

The women interviewed for the article had much the same complaint. They are uncomfortable and not very durable. Kaycee Shane (now there's a Texas chick name!) said that they "rip regularly... wear them once and throw them away." Must be married to an oil tycoon. Christina Jackson "admits to taking off her nylons while her boss is at lunch." Jackson "points to a pair of sheer black thigh highs and says she buys these for her husband." You go, girl. Take 'em off while the boss isn't looking and put on the sexy thigh highs for dear ol' hubby back home. Mary Alice Smith is the dissenting voice in the crowd. "I just loooooove pantyhose," she told the paper. "I think I was born wearing them." Does that show up in the ultra sound of your mother's womb? Mrs. Smith, you have a beautiful female embryo with a lovely pair of Silk Illusion Sheer to the Waist.

I suppose that every crossdresser first got turned on by the sight of stockings held up by garters. The difference between us and other men is that we wanted to try them on ourselves. But the stockings and garters scene is a pain in the fanny for everyday crossdressing, although some crossdressers still swear by them almost exclusively. (Michelle Lynn, I'm talking to you.) So we opt for the old reliable pantyhose, the same great look without wondering whether you just snapped your left rear garter. And the advent of the Control Top is a help to both the real girls and the faux girls, who need all the help we can get.

My own personal complaint about pantyhose is that the waistbands are too tight and cinch right in the stomach where I don't want to have a crease beneath my spandex minidress. The solution for this came from a most unexpected place. Kathie Lee Gifford's WalMart brand of pantyhose are well-made, sheer and silky, and the waistband is relaxed enough to stay in place without that ugly tummy crease. Now there's an endorsement that she never dreamed of!


HomeOur Mascot