Transgenderism

[Magickman]

Here is another broad brush that is being used to tar and feather high heel wearing men.

It popped up in a story at the Traditional Values Coalition website, about a student at the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences who was told by the assistant principal that he must dress as a boy and not wear high heels to school.

The website said, "Homosexual activist organizations are working hard to normalize cross dressing, drag queens, and transsexualism. Transgenderism is the term used to describe all of these deviant sexual behaviors."

At transsexual.org, "Transgenderism" was defined as a recent term in usage, conjured up as a neutral label for any individual not conforming to common social rules of gender expression. Transgenderism can refer to those who crossdress, those who are intersexed, those who live in the opposite societal role of their physical sex, those who play with gender expression for any purpose whatsoever, and transsexuals as well.

Somewhere in that morass, I think, are guys who like to wear high heels. I always thought this was harmless fun, but now find that we are assigned status in the neighborhood of sexual deviancy and gender expression non-conformity. Quite a mouthful, that.

What it appears to boil down to is that if some folks push the boundaries of gender assigned footwear, then we are subject to labeling and name calling.

I protest the putative deviancy and gender non-conformity of which we stand accused. C'mon, these are just shoes and boots. Lots of people do worse stuff, and are paid the big bucks to do it.

Hey, do male heelers denounce mindless conformists and shoehorses of boring footwear? By and large, we don't give anyone any trouble. Not looking for a fight. Then along come these sanctimonious knuckleheads who lump us in with pervs and disturbed individuals.

What this is really about, I think, is small minded people, who cannot tolerate anyone whose shoe or clothing standards differ from their own, who lash out at the fashion forward.

[Firefox]

I'd tell them to stick their non conformist sexual deviancy up their fucking assholes to be quite honest. You are expressing a personal fashion preference in the same way women wear trousers. There's not a lot more to be said on the issue.

[dr1819]

It popped up in a story at the Traditional Values Coalition website, about a student at the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences who was told by the assistant principal that he must dress as a boy and not wear high heels to school.

The website said, "Homosexual activist organizations are working hard to normalize cross dressing, drag queens, and transsexualism. Transgenderism is the term used to describe all of these deviant sexual behaviors."

I wonder if the boy's parents know of this website, or the many resources that have been posted, such as the fact that heels have been worn by men for nearly 400 of the last 500 years since the invention of the "modern" heel?

Second, there's only one (repeat ONE, aka "1") behavior of the MANY behaviors (transvestic fetishism) that belong to the "transgenderism" category that is a part of the DSM-IV, which is the psychologist's bible when it comes to "deviant" behavior. All other transgender behaviors are NOT considered deviate by psychologists.

At transsexual.org, "Transgenderism" was defined as a recent term in usage, conjured up as a neutral label for any individual not conforming to common social rules of gender expression. Transgenderism can refer to those who crossdress, those who are intersexed, those who live in the opposite societal role of their physical sex, those who play with gender expression for any purpose whatsoever, and transsexuals as well.

I hope that the term "transgender" soon receives far more airtime with respect to the many non-homosexuals/transexuals/transvestites out there, as they actually comprise a far larger percentage of the population than does the homosexual/transexual/transvestite group.

Somewhere in that morass, I think, are guys who like to wear high heels. I always thought this was harmless fun, but now find that we are assigned status in the neighborhood of sexual deviancy and gender expression non-conformity. Quite a mouthful, that.

Wearing skirts or heels like what's on Hoverfly's avatar has absolutely nothing to do with "gender expression." It's merely a choice of clothing. If the heels are decidedly feminine, however, as in hot pink FMPs, it does move into that category, but only because of the strongly associated connotations with the feminine gender, and particularly the sexual overtones.

Hoverfly's boots, on the other hand, look remarkably similar to what men wore in the 70s, and for nearly 400 years between 1500 and the late 1800s.

What it appears to boil down to is that if some folks push the boundaries of gender assigned footwear, then we are subject to labeling and name calling.

Thankfully, modern psychology has already crossed the boundary between the enforcement of morals, and the identification of behaviors which are strongly associated with those who harm others in society. This is the reason that transvestic fetishism remains in the DSM-IV and homosexuality does not. TV-fetishism is strongly associated with those who commit abusive, uninvited, or unwanted acts, containing sexual overtones, with others. This includes voyerism, frottage, etc., not to mention the more intense ones like rape.

I protest the putative deviancy and gender non-conformity of which we stand accused. C'mon, these are just shoes and boots. Lots of people do worse stuff, and are paid the big bucks to do it.

I think it's astounding that the porn industry rakes in more money than Hollywood. I can't say I've seen any good come of it, either, but I have seen a lot of bad.

...along come these sanctimonious knuckleheads who lump us in with pervs and disturbed individuals.

Those knuckleheads are simply ill-informed. They're unaware of humanity's very long-term association of societally deviant behavior. Among all societies, provided the deviancy didn't harm the others, it's long been tolerated. Only in the thousand years or so have we humans come to believe, erroneously, that conformity is better.

Truth be told, the healthiest society is one where most people do conform, but there's a healthy group of non-conformists, and where those who conform and those who do not are at relative peace with one another.

Thankfully, by and large we're moving in that direction!

What this is really about, I think, is small minded people, who cannot tolerate anyone whose shoe or clothing standards differ from their own, who lash out at the fashion forward.

I think they fear difference. They've been lead to believe that difference is wrong. I wonder how many of those people have actually visited significantly different societies, such as those where God-fearing Christian men wear skirts, or bones through their noses?

They do exist, you know, and their behavior is no less acceptable in God's eyes than a woman wearing lipstick.

[kneehighs]

What a joke. While I want to go into entertainment, securities, or divorce law (I'm not even in law school yet, lol), I can't wait to do civil rights pro bono work like this if and when my future firm permits.

The notion that the state (in this case, school) can regulate one's personal appearance, unconfined by any constitutional strictures whatsoever, is fundamentally inconsistent with values of privacy, self-identity, autonomy and personal integrity that constitution was designed to protect.

In Kelley v. Johnson (1976), 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether one's choice of appearance was constitutionally protected from governmental infringement. At issue was an order promulgated by petitioner, the commissioner of police for Suffolk *530 County, New York, which order established hair-grooming standards for male members of the police force. The court acknowledged that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment "affords not only a procedural guarantee against deprivation of 'liberty,' but likewise protects substantive aspects of liberty against unconstitutional restrictions by the State."

You would think a similar standard would apply to the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences case.

Illinois has long recognized restrictions on the State's power to regulate matters pertinent to one's choice of a life-style which has not been demonstrated to be harmful to society's health, safety or welfare. E. g., People v. Fries (1969), 42 Ill.2d 446, 250 N.E.2d 149 (statute requiring the wearing of a motorcycle helmet held invalid); City of Chicago v. Drake Hotel Co. (1916), 274 Ill. 408, 113 N.E. 718 (ordinance prohibiting public dancing in restaurants held invalid); Town of Cortland v. Larson (1916), 273 Ill. 602, 113 N.E. 51 (ordinance prohibiting the private possession of liquor held invalid); City of Zion v. Behrens (1914), 262 Ill. 510, 104 N.E. 836 (ordinance prohibiting smoking in public parks and on public streets held invalid.

Again, the notion that the State can regulate one's personal appearance, unconfined by any constitutional strictures whatsoever, is fundamentally inconsistent with "values of privacy, self-identity, autonomy, and personal integrity that the Constitution was designed to protect." 532 Kelley v. Johnson (1976), 425 U.S. 238, 251, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1447, 47 L.Ed.2d 708, 718.

To determine the circumstances under which the students consitutional interests can be infringed is the difficult matter to be resolved. I wonder what Principal Hamilton's specific reasons were? That his wearing heels was harmful to the classroom?

Whatever, and sorry for the legal rant.

[tuckedintoboots]

well, I'd say that those "tradtional values coalition" idiots are as dumb as they get, to even THINK about lumping gays along freestyling dress choices! I just HAPPEN to be gay, & that I just HAPPEN to like wearing heeled boots, but these morons think that all men who wear heels ARE gay, & that ALL gays wear heels!! I mean to say GIVE ME A BREAK!! of all the stupid ideas, telling others that this is ALWAYS the case, where as it has been pointed out in this forum that MOST gays would NEVER think of wearing heels or ANY kind of cross dressing for that matter! just goes to show the level of ignorance out there in the general public (nurtured by these stupid TVC people to a large exent) I could have just well BEEN straight and STILL love to wear heeled boots, but gee folks, I'm NOT!! :rofl: proud to wear heels AND be gay!! (listen up you poor sheep out there- one does NOT equal the other in this case-I am the EXEPTION to the rule)

[JeffB]

It's a pity that annoying busybodies insist on placing labels on people to describe habits or behaviors they don't understand and therefore don't like. Speaking just for myself, I'm just an average, ordinary, heterosexual guy who likes to wear women's shoes. Nothing at all complicated about that. At least not in my mind. But others would consider my behavior bizarre and consider me a deviant which is just plain wrong. One would think that we, as a culture are more enlightened than that, but, sadly, that's not the case. Perhaps that enlightenment might never happen.

[barney15c]

Just as a small aside of this debate and an indication of the wide misconception of the "He must be gay if he wears heels" issue. Anyone looked at descriptions on Ebay when buying larger sized heels (UK and US) from private selers. On many occasions they are described as "Gay Interest", it does seem that there is still an ignorance to the fact that its mainly straight guys who buy them. On a couple of occasions I have encountered sellers who assume that I am gay for wanting to purchase their shoes and I have had to put them straight (pardon the pun) that I buy for the fashion rather than my sexual orientation. Anyone else encountered this?

[flavio]

I never find anything related to gay stuff when looking for heels. The things I noticed are about crossdressing or fetish. Some good stores with large sizes are respectful enough to just sale and omit opinions.

[wineanddine]

Regarding the original post about the Chicago school situation - - let's face it, the story would be laughable were it not actually happening. It is so wrong on so many levels that it doesn't warrant any further comment from me other than what's already been said. Whoever said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people" might have been thinking of situations like this. Wineanddine

[mskim61]

It is pretty amazing to read that educated people don't understand the meaning of transgenderism!

[tuckedintoboots]

well, that just about sums it up wineanddine! I feel that in America (@ least) people are somewhat "socially retarded" in that way & in others as well (like why is Europe making gay marrage legal whereas in the "free" country of the USA is such a controversy?!!) not very open if you ask me, with so-called freedoms if this is what you have to look forward to while living in the US!

[bluetango]

Lindsay said:

The last person to ask me if I was gay, I replied: "Why? Do you fancy me?"

Lindsay, that cracks me up. I will have to remember it.

It reminds me of the response I gave a construction worker who asked why I had long hair (this was year ago - it's short now). I replied, "I'd cut it short, but then I'd look like you."

Bluetango

[Dawn HH]

Very nice comebacks, Lindsay and Bluetango. I'll have to remember those for future use. Cheers--- Dawn HH

[dr1819]

Just as a small aside of this debate and an indication of the wide misconception of the "He must be gay if he wears heels" issue.

Anyone looked at descriptions on Ebay when buying larger sized heels (UK and US) from private selers. On many occasions they are described as "Gay Interest", it does seem that there is still an ignorance to the fact that its mainly straight guys who buy them. On a couple of occasions I have encountered sellers who assume that I am gay for wanting to purchase their shoes and I have had to put them straight (pardon the pun) that I buy for the fashion rather than my sexual orientation.

Anyone else encountered this?

JeffB - Definately a male's interest in heels is simply that - a male's interest in heels. Far to often the psych guys try to find out "why" only to wind up (at least the ones with some inegrity) that it's simply because style preferences vary and there's some overlap between "women's" styles and "men's" styles.

Problem is, they pay far less attention to the women buying the men's shoes than they do the men buying the women's shoes.

Shoes are shoes. Whatever fits your feet, that you like, and you feel good/comfortable wearing, are YOUR shoes, not shoes "belonging" to the opposite sex or denied access to you by some social rule.

Our forefathers wore heels ranging between 2.5 inches and 5 inches in height between 1500 and 1880.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with men wearing heels. We've done it for hundreds of years. Why stop now?

'Nuff said.

[dr1819]

Thank God for the internet. I've rewritten wikipedia articles on many subjects related to this post. Please keep the faith.

[Shafted]

My home state of Maine is one of those states that has an anti-descimination law on the books that protects transgendered people as well as others. Here is the link to that document:

http://www.mainewontdiscriminate.org/about/lawtext.cfm

[JeffB]

JeffB - Definately a male's interest in heels is simply that - a male's interest in heels. Far to often the psych guys try to find out "why" only to wind up (at least the ones with some inegrity) that it's simply because style preferences vary and there's some overlap between "women's" styles and "men's" styles.

Problem is, they pay far less attention to the women buying the men's shoes than they do the men buying the women's shoes.

Shoes are shoes. Whatever fits your feet, that you like, and you feel good/comfortable wearing, are YOUR shoes, not shoes "belonging" to the opposite sex or denied access to you by some social rule.

Our forefathers wore heels ranging between 2.5 inches and 5 inches in height between 1500 and 1880.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with men wearing heels. We've done it for hundreds of years. Why stop now?

'Nuff said.

I see it all as a problem of "Societal Conditioning" which says that only women can wear high heels and men can't without being seen as gay, deviant or just plain weird. By the way, the gay angle never made any sense to me since gay men avoid heels. This I know for a fact since I work with a gay man, and he told me he'd never wear heels because he doesn't want to be labeled as effeminate, something I never wory about.

Of course we don't see anything wrong with with wanting to wear heels, but to the rest of the world, conditioned (or rather, brainwashed) for decades into believing that only women wear heels, they see plenty wrong with what we do. While men did start the practice hundreds of years ago, it's only in the last century that gender tags were affixed to high heels, that it's now something only women indulge in, not men. And men, trapped in the web of their own foolish machismo would rather drink battery acid with ground glass than cross the lines of gender and wear shoes MEN brought into prominence.

Then there's the so-called "experts" who use twenty dollar words to rationalize what we do as some sort of problem when it's nothing more than a matter of personal choice, something we like doing. Naturally, the experts can't, or won't accept so simple an explanation, therefore, they view us as disturbed in one way or another. Like I said, it's all part of that societal conditioning. Even the experts aren't immune to it. All we can do is to continue presenting ourselves in public with class and style and let fate take us where it will.

[dr1819]

Magickman - Might you have a link to that particular article? I'd very much like to write them. One of their "higher ups" is an old friend of mine. Thanks. Gene'

[dr1819]

Of course we don't see anything wrong with with wanting to wear heels, but to the rest of the world, conditioned (or rather, brainwashed) for decades into believing that only women wear heels, they see plenty wrong with what we do. While men did start the practice hundreds of years ago, it's only in the last century that gender tags were affixed to high heels, that it's now something only women indulge in, not men.

What did women do to break the gender barrier with respect to getting out of skirts? They simply did it, and "damn the torpedoes!" Often they were lead by the likes of Katherine Hepburn, who, as a leading money-maker for the studies, thrived on the additional notoriety she garnered by wearing pants. In the thirties, her choice of style was denounced in churches throughout the land. Pastors forbid their flocks from seeing any of her movies. She caused an uproar. She could get away with wearing pants, but many other women couldn't. They'd be fired from their jobs, denounced in the community.

As a result, and also in part because of WWII, when women often took over their husband's factory jobs (and often in their husbands' uniforms) when the men went off to war, styles changed.

Men wearing heels causes a lot less uproar today than females who wore pants back in the '30s.

[chris100575]

Just as a small aside of this debate and an indication of the wide misconception of the "He must be gay if he wears heels" issue.

Anyone looked at descriptions on Ebay when buying larger sized heels (UK and US) from private selers. On many occasions they are described as "Gay Interest", it does seem that there is still an ignorance to the fact that its mainly straight guys who buy them. On a couple of occasions I have encountered sellers who assume that I am gay for wanting to purchase their shoes and I have had to put them straight (pardon the pun) that I buy for the fashion rather than my sexual orientation.

Anyone else encountered this?

I've seen "gay interest" next to larger sized heels on eBay a lot. It also tends to crop up next to handcuffs, so I guess all gay men must be into bondage too.

Chris

[Magickman]

Here Gene,

Is the URL for the article about the heel wearing Chicago high schooler.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=375

[gwl1]

With all apologies to our gay readers, for those of you who are not gay, if a homophobic guy confronts you or accuses you of being gay because of your choice of footwear, here's a good strategy. Just reply, "No, I'm not gay, but I have a friend who IS gay and he has a shirt just like the one YOU'RE wearing. Are YOU gay?" That seems to get the message through. GWL

[Dawn HH]

GWL1:-) It's an idea to try, but have you tried it with success yourself? Just curious! Cheers--- Dawn HH