Was that supposed to be some sort of joke? :dubious:
Transsexual men are men. Transsexual women are women. They don’t get treated as an oddity, they get treated the same as anyone else. To treat them differently from others is a serious breach of manners, by today’s standards.
One never questions the gender decisions of the individual. Whatever gender they say they are is what they are for all etiquette questions. Now, how to ask. . . ?!?
There are many traditions built around this - also that if it’s given as a Christmas or Birthday present she keeps it regardless. But if you base it around the orginal rule: “No gifts of precious stones from anyone other than her Father or her husband” the rule was really meant to prevent any semblance of payment for services rendered. Keeping the ring by the olde fashioned standards would have reduced their time together to (at best) a paid escort service, rather than a true romance.
The rules just seemed so ridiculously specific, I wondered if there wasn’t a separate clause for something like this.
Depends on what gender ey’re presenting as.
Yes, but it’s not easy to tell. A cross-dressing man might prefer the male role, whereas a transgender male->female would identify in the female role. Pre-op it can be very difficult to tell the difference. If you don’t know them very well, you’d be flummoxed.
One of many reasons that gender-based etiquette should be a thing of the past. That person whose gender you’re trying to figure out? It’s really none of your business.
Wow. Is there something you’d like to share with the class? We’re all just discussing how to be polite here. How does that - of all things - engender vitriol?
That was meant to be a general you, not you in particular. No vitriol intended, and I apologize for being unclear!
OK then. Thanks for setting me straight.
I agree with MegaBee. Gender-based etiquette, to the extent that it still exists, needs to go in the rubbish bin.
No, the idea is that the ring is a gift, so if he calls it off, she could keep it (unless the ring is a family hierloom, in which case she should return it to the family).
If she calls off the wedding she should return it (IMO, anyway), but I think the fact that it’s still a gift could be make a reasonable case for her to keep it if she thinks she must. I don’t know why she’d want to in either case, but…
Under the common law an engagement ring is a conditional gift that must be returned if the wedding doesn’t happen.
In terms of non-legal considerations, however, I think the idea was that a broken engagement might “ruin” a woman for life, so keeping the ring would offer her some kind of monetary compensation for the loss of future wealth resulting from marriage.
Well, if it wasn’t already apparent, these rules were devised during an era when pre-op transsexuality likely was not a concept in the common paradigm. I have no idea how people like Georges Sand, who was not transsexual but did not adhere to contemporary gender norms (and is the only person I can think of off the top of my head from ye olde days who lived like this, so probably not the best example), were accommodated according to the rules of etiquette. I imagine people who wanted to be mannerly would think, if you dress and behave like a man, I’m going to treat you like a man, and vice versa.
The rule regarding who precedes whom on the stairs was also created during a time when women wore long skirts, so no one would be able to look up them while going up the stairs in the first place.
I wonder what the rule was for going up ladders, because you would be able to see under a skirt, and Victorian women wore crotchless bloomers.
I’m guessing, but I’ll bet anything that the rule in those times, and probably up until relatively recently, was that ladies should not ever need to use a ladder.
From what I understand it is not meant to be a gift. It is part of a contract that should be returned if the contract is broken. I believe court cases have found that this is true no matter who broke the engagement.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stuck steadfastly to the no-fault reasoning and decreed that the donor should always get the ring back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why. Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1999). Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Wisconsin have the same rule.
This post raises doubt about your understanding what the term pre-op means. It has nothing to do with one’s comportment in social settings, being an extremely private matter for an individual. It does not come within the scope of the etiquette being discussed here.
From what little I know about the world of cross-dressing men, I don’t think any of them are interested in playing a male social role while cross-dressed. For that matter, if you’re not one of them, your social circles are not likely to ever intersect theirs. They tend to keep to themselves while cross-dressed, but when interacting with society at large they resume an unambiguously male role.
As for transsexual people, male or female, their social selves and gender identities are consistent with each other, so no issue of “flummoxing” ever arises. As far as you’re concerned, it’s much simpler than you’re imagining. They’re the same as any other men or women, and to publicly call attention to their being trans, without their explicit permission to do so, may be very distressing to them, and by any definition of etiquette, that’s poor etiquette. Their private medical history is no one else’s business in social settings and should never arise in any way.
Yeah every wedding I’ve been to among my friends you give gifts at the wedding/bridal shower where they are registered and give cash at the wedding. These are all ethnic-Canadian weddings mind you. Where my friends are first generation Canadian. (Italian, Chinese Jamaican, Pakistani, Indian, Portuguese, Chinese). I would never think it would be rude to give cash at a wedding. I guess it depends on the location and ethnicity.
I was at a wedding a while back and one of the guests was from Germany. (business associate, happened to be in town)
So I asked her about German traditions and instead of a ‘dollar dance’ the bride and groom may sell ‘something’ at the reception. Going from table to table, generally getting more than fair market value for said item. Usually it would be something like roses but younger couples have been selling lingerie. (there was also some sort of kidnap the bride thing)
But back to American customs
I think that’s another one that’s fading. As with most gender-based “manners” that are based on the notion that women are delicate, incapable flowers, it seems that committing felony battery to defend a young woman’s “honor” just isn’t something ones sees much any more, at least not in educated circles.
I’m not sure if this one counts or how it works, but I got the impression that my paternal grandparents felt that one was not fully and properly dressed unless one put shoes on. I’m not talking about going out barefoot; this was for just lounging about the house. Once you got out of your sleep attire, you put shoes on; walking around the house in your socks was just sloppy and was like leaving your pjs on all day. This was never fully articulated, so I don’t fully know how they felt on the matter.