A Time Has Come...

[genebujold]

A time has come to recognize all people, regardless of background, as human beings.

To that end I propose the following, that it be seriously considered for, and adopted into the DSM-IV, so as to cause serious and immediate reconsiderations within the appropriate bodies with respect to the issue of transgenderism at large.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/genebujold/23253.html

[Firefox]

Fascinating discourse Gene' but couldn't it all be summed up by the first sentence of your post? It strikes me that the psychotherapists are always trying to analyse people using this or that theory, or doing these tests, or stuffing them into some arbitary pigeon holes. Science can't work in these circumstances; that's why it isn't a science. But your first sentence capures the truth of the subject without all the psychobabble. Recognise the diversity of human nature and consider people with respect on an individual basis.

[Heelson]

Like Firefox, I'd agree with most of the sentiment, and his comment. But why is it lumped under the heading "Transgenderism"? Aren't we talking about just being individuals, being humans, accepting one another for what we are, disregarding some of the more imaginary (or imposed) social expectations?? Seems to me that the article / thoughts / essay would go down well as part of a Sociology University course, and I'm not knocking it in that environment. But do we want to get into that sort of environment? Aren't we just doing what we want to do, without causing harm or degradation to anyone else? Not sure what I'm trying to say here, so probably best to shut up and say no more!

[JeffM]

Edited out as inappropriate Jeff

[highheellover]

interesting article gene.

[RPMindy]

that was a long read. i couldn't make through the whole thing and i work in psych. what i will say is this, one sentence... people are people and need be treated as equals, period. with that said, JeffM, that maniac hasn't really read his bible... he's just that, a maniac! but i digress. RPM

[Bubba136]

GBJ wrote:

A time has come to recognize all people, regardless of background, as human beings.

While Gene's sentiments are admirable, humans aren't constructed for acceptance of all by all. The instinctive competitive nature of "homo sapiens" drive to find and ridicule differences is all encompassing. As intelligent and well educated as most of the "civilized" world has become, there is still someone out there that will call someone else a maniac because they don't believe exactly as we do. So, as is the case with a bad TV show, just turn them off and don't pay any attention to them. The more attention they get, the louder they become. The less attention given,he closer we will get to achieving "can't we all get along?'

[Firefox]

Well, if you are intelligent and well educated you don't call someone a maniac because they behave differently. But I wouldn't want the thread to get off topic, and instead concentrate on Gene's observations as in his link, or your views on his ideas...

[micha]

A time has come to recognize all people, regardless of background, as human beings.

To that end I propose the following, that it be seriously considered for, and adopted into the DSM-IV, so as to cause serious and immediate reconsiderations within the appropriate bodies with respect to the issue of transgenderism at large.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/genebujold/23253.html

Hi Genebujold,

I just worked my way through your long treatise. Here my criticism:

1. I don't understand your philosophy of discrete/continous and ordinal/cardinal numbers. Why is this distinction of relevance? Every computer is a discrete calculating finite automaton. Nevertheless it is used for the calculation of continuous processes. Is it of any importance in a psychological test if I could choose between the natural numbers 0, 1, 2 ... 10 or any rational number between 0 and 10? The difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers plays only a role in pure mathematics but not in real life. I would be glad if social scientists had at least a profound education in statistics. The big majority has not.

2. In Section VI ('treatment' - already conspicious) you are talking permanently about "patients" and "therapy". In section VII you are speaking about your "self therapy". We can't help being what we are - even psychotherapists I don't need any therapy and I'm no patient. I "simply" like wearing heels and other "female" outfit. My first impulsive reaction was similar as Firefox answered: "That's no science". I'm convinced that he's right. Even you can't explain really why you like heels. Don't deceive yourself.

A human being is infinitely more complicated than any physical system. I don't know any serious physicist proclaiming to have understood quantum physics really. In my opinion the psychologists and psychiatrists should become more modest. You know nearly nothing.

Please, don't be angry about me. That's my conviction.

micha

[genebujold]

I hear what you say Gene and agree with it.

Then we get some maniac saying stuff like this.

"Tsunami? No, you have just witnessed the Mighty Arm of God and his Glorious Justice.

(the remainder is paraphrased as "etc., blah blah, ad nauseum")

Jeff

You're absolutely right - it does sound manic, which only proves that zealotry (if not idiocy) knows no bounds of age, race, religion, sex, or creed!

While I can't help but ponder possibilies of a supernatural (God) cause, particularly given the region, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back on historical disasters to see that they are also no respector of age, race, religion, sex, or creed. These would include the Titanic (mostly Christians on board), the great San Francisco Earthquake in the early 1900s (mostly Christians), 9/11 (mostly Christians), Galveston, TX dockside explosion (mostly Christians), etc. I recall a few others than wiped out thousands, including a LPG explosion on a river barge many years ago that decimated the city on both sides of the river.

Bottom line, it can happen to anyone, and this isn't the first time geological activity has killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people in that region. When Krakatoa blew in August 27, 1883, the sound was heard more than 3,000 miles away - a record that stands to this day. Barograph readings confirm the pressure travelled 7 times around the world before finally dissipating. More than 30,000 people lost their lives, but those regions were far more sparsely populated back then. One expert estimates that if Krakatoa were to blow today, more than a million people would have lost their lives, compared to the 155,000 being reported for this event. The tsunamis were so powerful, in fact, that they were recorded in France!

And when a tsunami hit Hawaii shortly after it began to adopt Western practices, the Hawaians blamed it on their own gods, for leaving their old ways.

Naturaly disasters aren't the cause of any one god - they're just natural disasters, hence the term "natural," instead of "supernatural."

If the tsunamis had been generated without having been caused by geological or other activity - THEN I'd be thinking, "ok, God - what are you trying to tell us, here?"

[genebujold]

Hi Genebujold,

I just worked my way through your long treatise. Here my criticism:

1. I don't understand your philosophy of discrete/continous and ordinal/cardinal numbers. Why is this distinction of relevance?

The ability to properly categorize one's data must be driven by the data itself. It follows the principle that "data is self-describing." All too often psychologists and other non-math scientists attempt to develop tests without first understanding the information with which they're working, thereby invalidating their tests before they begin.

The difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers plays only a role in pure mathematics but not in real life. I would be glad if social scientists had at least a profound education in statistics. The big majority has not.

Actually, the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers plays a huge role in real life. When's the last time the bank gave you a check for $103.045324595773 after one year of 3% interest on $100, compounded daily?

More to the point with respect to my treatise, some variables, such as genetic sex, have a limited number of responses, while others, such as how one feels about their own psychological gender, has an unlimited number of responses. In order to best handle the data, however, we statisticians allow it to be represented on scales of either 1-5 (median 3), or 0-10 (median 5). Since most people work better with a 1-5 scale, that's suitable for most subjective situations.

2. In Section VI ('treatment' - already conspicious) you are talking permanently about "patients" and "therapy". In section VII you are speaking about your "self therapy". We can't help being what we are - even psychotherapists I don't need any therapy and I'm no patient.I "simply" like wearing heels and other "female" outfit.

Good for you! You're far better adapted to nonconformal living than most of my patients!

Seriously - the reason there's a need for my services is because most people aren't there, yet, and that's a result of the internal discord they experience between the way they are and the way they believe they should be or the way they feel society expects them to be.

An extreme example would be the 5'5", 120-lb female who thinks she's "too fat" because some model she's seen on TV weighs just 109 lbs. She's not too fat - but she's experiencing a lot of inner turmoil because she believes others might think she's too fat.

Result - liposuction (this is a true story) to remove what little fat she had left around her abdomen and thighs.

It didn't work - she was still unhappy, and would have spent another $50,000 that she didn't have trying to make her body look like what her brain was telling her that she believed society expected her to look like, which was a model who was 5 pounds below the minimum recommended weight for her height and bone structure.

When you're at the lower end of the healthy weight scale already, and in very good shape, both physically and visually, liposuction is the wrong answer because it's based on an out-of-focus internal viewpoint of one's self with respect to the world.

The right answer is twofold:

1. See one's self as the world truly sees you (shapely, sexy).

2. Take the world's viewpoint with a large block of salt - you're still entitled to be who you are, in all your varied splendor.

A human being is infinitely more complicated than any physical system.

Even a planeria is more complicated than any human-created physical system.

I don't know any serious physicist proclaiming to have understood quantum physics really.

I do - and they do understand it.

In my opinion the psychologists and psychiatrists should become more modest. You know nearly nothing.

Hmmm... Well, I'll take your opinion with that large block of salt I mentioned earlier.

Please, don't be angry about me. That's my conviction.

micha

Fair enough! And not angry at all. Although I believe I know a *bit* more than "nearly nothing," particularly with respect to statistical analysis and gender identity issues.

Please remember that my primary focus was to address the shortcomings in the DSM-IV and propose an alternative, and I believe signficantly improved approach, not to claim that my approach is the end-all, be-all on this issue!

[genebujold]

Wow. Is this it? Months of groundbreaking work and this post is sinking rapidly? Is this all people on this website really care about the issues surrounding the psycho-social factors with which they deal every single day? Or are we just content to let things slide gently into the night??? What about fighting for our rights, the right to dress as we see fit without having our governments trying to classify us as mentally ill? If it's worth fighting for, it's certainly worth comment! So, comment. Let's hear your two cents...

[joenj]

---January 7, 2005; 4:50pm--- Gene --- I gave your "treatise" ( ??? ) article the "once over" ( you have ''emotional distress" listed twice, btw ) . Recall how on this forum, elsewhere, I wrote how "wearing heels causes a body-mind" communication/dialogue, and it definitely changes your behaviour. I am sure my behaviour (and others as well) would change if I also wore a ankle-length skirt with my heels. Today, I wore my 3" boots to New York City ( Greenwich Village ) and *today* *SOME* people in my New Jersey city gave me looks in the train station, and also on the P.A.T.H. train from Newark to 14th st. NYC. These shoes caused more attention than my 2" heel-boots. Some people here are Gay, some are Bisexual, and some are Heterosexual. I think some men do wear heels to feel special; and indeed--a woman's 2" heel boot will feel different thana man's 2" heel boot ( so I believe ) . It will take a while for society to be accustomed to certain men wearing stilletto heels, or heel-boots with 3" heels ( excellent quality leather boots ). If the man has issues ( and desires to wear higher heel boots ), he may need to work that through in counselling. People are concerned about others safety, yet sometimes they don't want to be obligated ( potentially ) to be a "good Samaritan". It is the "Falling Flat on Your Face" factor. Some men ( Bi and Gay men ) *may* wear boots to feel more comfortable with themselves as they face a life role transition. I am just a 42 yr. old man; with a Learning Disability history ( Dysgraphia) and a tough life, and I am *not* heterosexual; *and* I *AM* in psychotherapy. Thanks Gene, folks. Folks may "PM" me at this ( hhplace ) site. ----- end -----

[j-turbo2002]

Here is my two cents worth:

Gender Identity Disorder (transexualism) is probably one of the most fascinating psychological disorders related to sexuality. I read of lot of psychological publications and the debate over Gender Identity Disorder is a hotly debated issue among both psychiatrists, psychologists, and biologists.

From Comer – Gender Identity Disorders:

Various psychological theories have been proposed to explain this disorder, but research in this area has been limited and generally weak. Some clinicians suspect that the disorder has largely biological causes (Orlebeke et al., 1992): but most studies of hormonal, EEG, and other physiological measures have not found any differences between transsexual persons and nontranssexual persons.

From Comer – Dangers of Diagnosing and Labeling:

Classification is intended to help clinicians understand, predict, and change abnormal behavior, but it can have some unfortunate and unintended consequences. As we saw in Chapter 2, some theorists believe that diagnostic labels may be self-fulfilling prophecies (Rosenhan, 1973; Szasz, 1961; Scheff, 1975). According to this notion, when a person is diagnosed as mentally disturbed, that label is often interpreted as a statement about the person's general behavior and potential. The person may therefore be viewed and treated in stereotyped ways, reacted to as sick or deficient, and expected to take on a sick role. In the Rosenhan (1973) study, for example, staff members spent limited time interacting with those labeled as patients, gave only brief responses to their questions, tended to be authoritarian in their dealings with the patients, and often made them feel invisible. In response to such attitudes and treatment, patients may increasingly consider themselves sick and deficient and eventually come to play the role that is expected of them. As the prophecy fulfills itself, the label "patient" seems justified.

Furthermore, our society attaches a stigma to abnormality, and as a result people labeled mentally ill may find it difficult to get a job, especially a position of responsibility, or to enter into social relationships. Indeed, they themselves may assume that they are incapable, irresponsible, or undesirable because of their emotional difficulties and may shy away from jobs or social interactions that they actually could handle perfectly well. These problems persist despite massive, concerted efforts by various mental health organizations to educate the public.

Similarly, once people receive a clinical diagnosis, it may stick to them for a long time. Clinicians, friends, relatives, and the people themselves may all continue to apply the label long after the disorder has disappeared.

Because of these problems, some clinicians would like to do away with the clinicians field’s reliance on diagnosis. Others disagree. Although they too recognize the limitations and negative consequences of classifying and labeling, they believe that the best remedy is to work toward increasing what is known about the various disorders and improving the means of diagnosing them (Akiskal, 1989). They hold that classification and diagnosis can yield valuable information that greatly advances the understanding and treatment of people in distress. To throw the information away would be too drastic a measure, one that would create more problems than it might solve.

References:

Akiskal, H. S. (1989). The classification of mental disorders. In H. I. Kaplan & B. J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (Vol. 1, 5th ed.) Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1992. Pp. 134 - 135

Orlebeke, J. F., Boomsma, D. L., Gooren, L. J. G., Verschoor, A. M., Van Den Bree, M. J. M. (1992). Elevated sinistrality in transsexuals. Neuropsychology, 6(4), Pp. 351 – 355.

Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), Pp. 250 – 258

Scheff, T. J. (1975). Labeling madness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Szasz, T. S. (1961). The myth of mental illness: Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. New York: Hoeber – Harper.

[stripperjonn]

I've read several (educated) sources who have the opinion that the majority of "professionals" in the social sciences/psychology arena got there as the result of their own insecurity (about themselves &/or society at large). Dr. heal thyself, so to speak. In my experience, I've found the observation generally true. It seems to be human nature that if we can simply "label" something and attempt to understand it.....then we have it under control. We can "live with it." For many years I thought I was so different. The longer I dwelled on MY behaviors, tried to figure them out, and meanwhile hid in the closet, the less I was aware of the wondrous world of people around me. We ALL have our obsessions, addictions, and fantasies. Albert Einstein: "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." Stripperjonn: "I am not so concerned about the behaviors of others, as long as I am free to indulge my own. Mutual respect. Quite simple."

[BobHH]

I mostly agree with Stripperjohn. Throughout my career of working with and managing people, I have tried to maximize the development and use of their positive capabilities and characteristics, and minimize criticism of oddities, etc. that don't interfere with the work we were doing. I have been through therapy years ago - did it help? - I don't know. I have known enough odd characters over the years, in behavior and appearance, and am uncritical. I don't believe in mass conformity to dress codes, etc. Yes, we need to fight for the right to be different. It is harder now with the police state attitude emanating from DC and reinforcing those who hate anyone different. There are still a few good signs, though, and hopefully we will prevail.

[Bubba136]

It's not that I disagree with the "professionals" on the subject of "deviant behavior," or transgenderism. Quite frankly, I am tired of trying to "unravel" all of the mysteries about their or my behavior. Goodness only knows how many hours I've spent trying to figure out why I like to wear high heels and womans shoes. There's this theory, that theory and the theory that hasn't been thought of yet. So, when I was about 15 years old, at the end of a long period of trying to change my behavior and stop wearing heels, I analyzed my feelings and came to the conclusion that I would never be able to quit "liking" woman's shoes - yet alone ever stop wearing them. So, I made a decision then and there that I was never going to try to stop again. And, that I would tell any girl I might develop a relationship with, that was more than a normal boyfriend-girlfriend attraction, and give her the opportunity to drop out or accept me the way I am, heels and all. And, I would never again lose any sleep over trying to figure out why I was different. I no longer cared. Now I am 48. I've never tried to stop wearing heels since I made that decision. I told my wife as soon as it became obvious that we were going to be more than just good friends. Our marriage has lasted 28 years and is rock solid. And, in the 28 years we've been married we've managed to raise and educate two daughters and a son that are among the most unassuming, down to earth, socially well adjusted and least pretentious adults on the face of this planet. And, I still don't care to understand why I am different. I'll leve the "shrink" stuff to people that are interested in that kind of thing, like Gene and some of the other members here. They can toss the theories up against the bathroom walls and see which ones stick. Life's too short. I don't even care to think about it. So, think on, my friends, think on. And when you get to the part where you can say with all honesty:"Bubba, it's simple. You love to wear high heels because you love the way they look and make you feel." Until then, I don't want to waste my little"gray cells" worrying about something I can't do a damn thing about. .

[j-turbo2002]

Psychology deals mainly with the concept of understanding. The best way to cope with the “issues” that we have is to learn as much as we can about our conditions/situations and then learn how to deal/cope with them and live with them on a daily basis. How you accomplish this is up to you. Be who you want to be. If you are a man who wants to wear heels in public then do it in your own way. Believe me - life is just to damn short! Remember, you may not be here tomorrow.

[Lisa]

I will write five sentences here, this is the first. In the DSM-IV-TR, Gender Identity Disorder, as a diagnosis for transsexualism is listed in the DSM at all because GID manifests itself as a psychological issue, even though it is purely physical in origin. That was the second sentence, this is the third. For the original poster I'm not exactly sure what it is you are trying to get at in your LiveJournal post, why not clarify. If you're suggesting that society be more tolerant to people as a diverse group just say so.

[genebujold]

joenj: Thanks for sharing from the heart. That takes a lot. I agree with you that some people are x, others are y, some are z, and that all people are still people, regardless of personal choices. j-Turbo2002: You began with, "Gender Identity Disorder (transexualism)," when in fact, TS is but a very small subset of GID, and even fewer people resolve TS with SRS. Most either continue CD or simply accept themselves for who they are, resolving the dichotomy/discord internally rather than externally. I liked your reference to Comer, however, and agree that labels stink. Diagnoses, however, particularly those which correctly assess an individual's characteristics on several levels, are invaluable in terms of how best to proceed. I strongly support, however, the ideal that no patient's diagnosis would, or even could, be used against them unless historical data clearly demonstrates the patient has an immediate and high potential (30%? 50% or more?) probability of causing moderate physical or severe mental/emotional injury to themselves or another individual. For example, I fully support recovering alcoholics remain with their families, even though many of them tend to snap at their loved ones. In the long run, both they and the families do better when they recover together, as a family. BobHH - I too see a police state eminating from DC, yet I still voted for the man (for other reasons). Mandating "morality" from on high has never worked for any civilization, historically. Just ask the Taliban. The problem is that while some things are absolute (murder, etc.), many things in our society that God-fearing Christians would call "absolute" are actually quite relative. For example, one day we had friends over from church, and I wore a jeans skirt and Tevas (sandals). At one point, after his wife had prompted him to mention it (to either exhort or rebuke me), I responded by asking him, "What would Jesus do?" His response, in earshot of my wife and his, was, "Well, he certainly wouldn't wear a skirt, that's for sure!", to which I responded, "or a dress?" "Certainly not!" was his answer, then I directed their attention to the picture of Jesus holding a lamb in the field. He was wearing a robe (dress), just he did in real life. I said, "are you sure? Or are you simply reverting to modern-day western civilization standards?" We degenerated into a discussion on how men would never wear skirts, so I showed them the MUGs page from Bravehearts, and a few plates from a historical fashion website. I thought they'd have gone away enlightened, but instead, they went away confused, unable to reconcile historical fact with what they've been taught, namely, that men wearing skirts is "wrong." Bubba: "So, think on, my friends, think on. And when you get to the part where you can say with all honesty:"Bubba, it's simple. You love to wear high heels because you love the way they look and make you feel." Fair enough! I do hope you realize my intent is to get the self-proclaimed "genius" psych folks off our collective backs so we can go about doing what comes natural? Hope so! Lisa: "For the original poster I'm not exactly sure what it is you are trying to get at in your LiveJournal post, why not clarify. If you're suggesting that society be more tolerant to people as a diverse group just say so." My main beef is that the original and subsequent iterations of the whole issue of gender identity is ridiculously inadequate, and because of this, the DSM-IV (psych bible) does our society serious harm by trying to pigeon-hole us into "morally" acceptable niches. It's my personal opinion the real problem involves society's unwillingness to accept deviations from some mythical "norm," when the statistical definition of "norm" is merely the geometric mean, not a marker of perfection. For example, the norm of all numbers 1 to 99 is 50. That doesn't mean that the numbers 1 and 99 are wrong, nor does it mean that all numbers should be rehabilitated to move closer to the "norm!" The norm is simply a measure, and what the psych guys forget is that it has absolutely no inherent value with respect to right or wrong, morality, etc., in and of itself. That's all.

[blackslide]

Responding to Bubba and Gene, I too have spent many hours wondering why it is I prefer women's shoes, and why just shoes? In my case, it took many years to come to the same place Bubba did when he was 15 and just accept it and move on. I think I am closer to that now, but the fact that I spend time at this site says that I am still thinking about my shoe wearing more than the guy next door who is probably watching football on TV. What is interesting about Gene's article is the idea that some chemical is the cause for these feelings. In my family, I like to wear women's shoes (since 3 or 4 years old), my brother had a sex change, and my sister was unable to have children. My mom lost 3 babies before she had me and lost several between the other siblings. She was taking some kind of drug that was common in the 40's and 50's ( I was born in 1948). She was contacted in the early 70's about after effects of taking the drug. I know the feelings I have I have no choice about, which conicides with something else Gene said, that whatever is wrong creates an inner conflict. I am a male genetically, but prefer female shoes. To resolve the inner conflict, I simply wear women's shoes, but then there is the external conflict that men in our society do not "normally" wear women's shoes or anything feminine for that matter. It ruins the football player, Rambo, Marlboro Man, Bruce Willis image that society has for "real men". Then comes all the assumed crap like "you must be gay", or whatever other stupid label people use. So one has a choice between resolving the inner conflict and accepting the outer one, or succombing to what society thinks is normal, and putting up with the inner conflict. I look at my side of the closet and see very dark, masculine colors of shoes, mostly black or shades of brown, with one or two red. The wife's side of the closet has pinks, whites, pastel colors and lots of flowery prints. She has almost no high heels, I have mostly high heels. Even though I have mostly high heels, my side of the closet still looks masculine. I have no desire to wear pink pumps, or white satin strappy sandals. I prefer the leather look. At a party, I would rather talk with the women than talk with the guys about boring football statistics. When the women's converasation comes around to child birth and babies, that is where I leave - no interest in that. I am caught in some space between the two sexes, and that may explain why I in business for myself in a one person office, and am quite content with it. All this tells me I have not resolved the inner conflict/external conflict dilema, but am caught somewhere in between. I would venture that most of us on this site are also caught somewhere in between or else we would not be talking about it, even Bubba. If males wearing female shoes were perfectly "normal", that is accepted by society in general, there would be no reason for this site.

[Bubba136]

wonderful comment, blackslide. An awful lot of what you say is true and I want to respond. However, I've really got to think it over before I say anything.

[genebujold]

I'm with you Bubba. Blackslide, your comment was very insightful, and mirrors much of what I've learned as a lay counselor over the last couple of years, namely, that there's often no substantially different upbringing that may be causing preferential departures from what's previously considered "normal," and I use that term very loosely, particular with respect to styles I've seen elsewhere in the world! I think there's always been those of us who identify in one way or another with characteristics of the opposite sex, but until recently, were fairly constrained by society against indulging in our choices of style. Most of those restrictions, stated in writing or merely implied, have been relaxed, if not actually removed, and most of us are far more free to indulge than we were even a decade ago. Some, however, like Heelfan, have been indulging for years, regardless of what society says!

[micha]

For example, the norm of all numbers 1 to 99 is 50. That doesn't mean that the numbers 1 and 99 are wrong, nor does it mean that all numbers should be rehabilitated to move closer to the "norm!" The norm is simply a measure, and what the psych guys forget is that it has absolutely no inherent value with respect to right or wrong, morality, etc., in and of itself.

That's all.

Your last sentence contains a deep truth. Science should never rate experimental results by moral values or even accept a common opinion. This would be the end of the age of enlightment.

[genebujold]

Thank you, Micha. As for what's considered "normal" these days, there's two more things I'd like to address. The first is the variation from the norm, which I believe has increased signficantly over the last 100 years, and as much over the last 20 as over the previous 80. The second is society's tolerance for variation, which I believe has significantly exceeded actual variation. Case in point: A quarter of a decade ago, I spotted a man wearing heels in New Orleans as he bravely walked down Chartres (just west of Jackson Square). He was derided, even to the point of one person spitting on him - and that was during the "Age of Aquarius," when most of the people frequenting New Orleans were lovers of art, music, and history, and generally more accepting of fashionable trends. Last week, however, I spent three days in New Orleans, wearing either my Franco Sartos (icon, left) or my Harley Davidson boots with a 3-1/2 heel. For pants I wore either black slacks, khaki slacks, or ordinary blue jeans. I received a number of looks, and a couple of comments and questions, but that was all. Times have indeed changed!

[Dawn HH]

Genebujold:-) What kinds of looks, inquiries, and comments did you receive? Cheers--- Dawn HH

[Bubba136]

Take all of the comments members have posted concerning reactions they've gotten while wearing women's shoes in public (my comments included) and they all point to the fact that while we've made great "strides" in closing the gap, we've still a long way to go.

[Dawn HH]

OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!! Cheers--- Dawn HH

[highheellover]

I think we have considerably closed the gap but have more to go.

[Bubba136]

It may appear that we've "closed the gap," because we communicate with each other here, we've not even made a dent in some locations. Just take a look at the length of time it's taken for society to accept men wearing ear rings -- and now, double it because high heels provoke sexual images and thus, are more closely associated with "pure female" fashion."