Lamia wrote:
Ah. That makes more sense.
I guess inaccuracies like this are what you get by letting a lesbian direct a movie about a transsexual. Lesbians are just so much more mainstream than transsexuals are these days 
.
Most of Brandon’s girlfriends did find out that he was not physically male, and most were okay with that. They believed that Brandon was gendered male even if his body did not (yet) match.
Again, most of them found out eventually. Sure, Brandon didn’t announce that he had female genitals on the first date, but what was he to do? You don’t seem to understand that Brandon did not see himself as a lesbian pretending to be a man, but as a man who by some accident of nature ended up in a female body. From his own point of view at least he was being honest by dressing and acting like a man.
Brandon knew exactly what he was doing he picked girls who had very little sexual experience with men. He did that because it made fooling them that much easier. He wasn't being honest with himself let alone with the girls he dated. He bound his chest to make it smaller and put a bulge in his pants. At the very least he was aware of his "gender identity crises." It is **wrong** to enter into a sexual relationship with someone without making them aware.
Marc
I really don’t know what you’re looking to prove with the above. Brandon knew that he did not have a man’s body, but did his best to make the body he had look like the body he thought he should have. Brandon believed that he was meant to be a man. He was not going to go around telling people that he was a woman because, despite his body, he did not think that he really was a woman. There is a lot about transsexuals that I do not and perhaps never will understand, but I do know that they are not simply homosexuals who are out to trick heterosexuals into sleeping with them. If you can’t understand that much then I don’t see that there’s any point in discussing it at all.
Mustn’t forget Billy Tipton.
There is a lot about transsexuals that I do not and perhaps never will understand, but I do know that they are not simply homosexuals who are out to trick heterosexuals into sleeping with them. If you can’t understand that much then I don’t see that there’s any point in discussing it at all.
**
[/QUOTE]
I understand that there's a difference between a transexual and a homosexual. In fact I've made no claims or suggestions otherwise. I just happen to think that Brandon was fully aware of the deception he was pulling off.
Marc
Of course he was aware - duh. But there was a point where he came clean, and evidence seems to suggest that he wasn’t categorically spurned when he did. Eventually, though, it got him murdered.
Bottom line, though, is that none of us have ever been in his shoes, and could never know what was going on in his head (Hollywood’s attempts to do so aside). To broadly label him a deceitful liar is patently unfair. Transsexualism is far too complex to write off as “screwed up.”
Esprix
The trouble seems to be that sex/gender is really two things—your plumbing and your personal gender identification—but (most of) our society doesn’t accept that these two aspects can be different. There are men and there are women, but (especially in the conservative culture Brandon was living in) there’s no such thing as a man in a woman’s body or vice versa. So Brandon was more or less stuck with the necessity of lying about one of the aspects of his gender, and he chose to lie about the plumbing part. Probably it seemed to him like more of a lie to go around with visible breasts and a feminine name than to hide his female body in living as a man.
Kimstu
[QUOTE]
**
Of course he was aware - duh. But there was a point where he came clean, and evidence seems to suggest that he wasn’t categorically spurned when he did. Eventually, though, it got him murdered.
[quote]
/b]
I don’t think that’s what got him murdered. I think if he hand’t been deceitful then he wouldn’t have been raped and beaten. And he wouldn’t have been murdered had the police actually done their job. And before you come to any odd conclusions, no, they were in no way justified in any of their criminal actions against Brandon.
I didn’t broadly label him as a deceitful liar so please don’t come to any hysterical conclusions. Witin the context of his romantic relationships I would certainly call him deceitful and very unfair to the girls he was dating.
Marc
MGibson wrote:
It wasn’t his girlfriend that murdered him, it was a bunch of bigots who murdered them both (plus another person). From Zeitgeist Films: The Brandon Teena Story (the documentary of the murders):
(Of course all this is finally egging me to rent the documentary and watch it.)
It seems to me you’re suggesting that prior to getting sex reassignment surgery Brandon never should have left the house dressed as a man. If not, then was he supposed to wear a sign around his neck that said, “Really a woman”? Should he have told his potential girlfriends the moment he met them? On their first date? Third? After a week? Should every person be expected to spill every secret, especially the most painful and difficult ones, the moment they meet someone? We’re talking about probably the most complicated sexual identity issue out there, and here’s a very young, very troubled, very confused person trying to eke out a life for himself. It’s audacious that you should impose your standards on his life, a life none of us really will ever understand. (And you’ll notice that in my emphasis, his girlfriend was not deceived, or at least not by the end of their relationship.)
Agreed here. Here’s another quote:
Some of the reports I’ve heard about that interview are chilling.
OK, I’ll include this quote as well:
OK, so it seems some of his former girlfriends felt deceived, but as I have no idea as to whether or not these were long-lasting relationships, or meaningful to either party, or if they had sex, or whatever the circumstances might have been. Still, it seems that Lana was his most significant relationship, if for no other reason she accepted his transexualism and still loved him.
I find it distasteful to even be discussing this. I wouldn’t presume to think any of his actions, including lying to people, were inherently wrong on their face - no issue, especially one as complicated as this one, is so black and white. When I walk a mile in his shoes, then maybe I’ll feel more comfortable condemning his actions.
Esprix
MGibson said:
I wish I could share your confidence on this one, Marc. People get raped and beaten (and worse) all the time merely for having what is perceived as an “abnormal” sexual existence, even if they’re totally upfront about it. You think that if Brandon had said to his buddies, “Actually, dudes, I gotta be honest with you, I’m a man like you but I’ve got a woman’s body,” he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble? As I said, I wish I could agree with you.
Kimstu
Here’s why I asked this question:
I’m a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women who are feminine. It’s really been bothering me that, in recent years, women are dressing less and less feminine. At first I felt like a chauvinist pig, but then I tried to imagine a reversal of the situation. I thought, “What if, around 20 years ago, heterosexual men started to dress more feminine: wearing skirts, hose, heels, makeup, etc. Would women be attracted to men like that? Probably not. Does that mean that I’m surrounded by female cross-dressers? What is a female cross-dresser?”
I’m generalizing, of course: speaking about the general populous (of which I am a member). It really bothers me. If I were attracted to masculine people, then I’d just decide to pursue homosexuality and start going out with other men. But that’s not the case, and it really bothers me that there are so many female cross-dressers every where I go.
c-man
c-man, I think you’ve got it a little backwards: it isn’t that more and more women are seeking to transgress society’s gender stereotypes, it’s that society’s gender stereotypes themselves are shifting. Women don’t wear jeans and sneakers because they’re trying to look like men; jeans and sneakers have just become part of looking like a woman. As several posters have pointed out, to be a true “female cross-dresser” these days you’d probably have to wear facial hair and padded underwear. Many women will be offended to hear currently conventional female casual clothing styles described as “cross-dressing,” so if I were you I wouldn’t try that line out on the chicks you know in the hopes of scaring them into skirts and stockings.
As for your assumption that women wouldn’t accept it if male appearance stereotypes started shifting towards what’s currently called “feminine”: don’t be too sure! How many (heterosexual) guys do you know who now wear one or more earrings without any fear of appearing “sissy”? I can tell you that lots of my male friends do, and as for the ones who don’t, it’s not because I haven’t tried to talk them into it! 
Kimstu
“I’m a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women who are feminine. It’s really been bothering me that, in recent years, women are dressing less and less feminine.”
Kind of forces you to read the book instead of just looking at the covers, huh? A bit too much work?
[QUOTEI am attracted to women who are feminine. It’s really been bothering me that, in recent years, women are dressing less and less feminine…
If I were attracted to masculine people, then I’d just decide to pursue homosexuality and start going out with other men. But that’s not the case, and it really bothers me that there are so many female cross-dressers every where I go.[/QUOTE]
On the one hand, you can’t help what you’re attracted to.
On the other hand, try using your backbone.
A woman (for that matter, a person) is what she is. As Centerline said, is it too much work to start looking beyond the surface? Sheesh. Some people are what society says they ought to be, some aren’t. usually the ones that aren’t are far more interesting.
And liking less-feminine women doesn’t mean you’re supposed to “turn gay.” Such a statement makes you look even more ignorant.
Esprix
Kimstu: On your first point, if what you’re saying is true, then basically women can wear <b>any</b> clothing and it’s considered feminine? I guess that, since I don’t feel that way, I’m considered ‘old-fashioned’.
Your second point was very valid.
Centerline: and Esprix I’m talking about how people are publicly dressed. Just talking about ‘people-watching’. I’m not talking about what people are like inside. Perhaps the next time I go to the mall, I’ll stop each person and get to know them better before I determine whether or not I like the way they’re dressed?
I’m not trying to find a date. I’ve been happily married for 4 years and I believe that strong relationships are founded on deeper issues.
I never said that “liking less-feminine women means you’re supposed to ‘turn gay’.’” You’re putting words in my mouth, and the jabs at me are unwarranted. Stick to the discussion.
Besides, I am always surprised as to how many people, men or women would look like movie stars if they spent as much time as the stars do on their looks. Go beyond the cover, and there may be a surprising gem! And they are down to earth, and not vain to boot!
“Stick to the discussion.”
OK. I think that the OP is implying that there is a need to label a person that you see on the street. “She’s a cross-dresser”. “She’s a transvestite”. Perhaps this makes us more comfortable in settling in our own minds a seeming disconnect based on our own biases. These labels are wrong most of the time, indeed they can be self-destructive, or down-right destructive. I would believe that a woman is a cross-dresser is she says something like “I really get turned-on (or whatever) by wearing men’s clothes”! Or a transvestite tells me “Hi, call me Dave”!
Does that mean it’s wrong for me to try to find a definition of a female cd/tv? I’m not supposed to ask that question?
BTW - a cross-dresser doesn’t have to get “turned-on by wearing men’s clothing”. I could be a simple lifestyle change, and non-sexual in nature.
Why is it that there’s a clearer definition for a cross-dressing man then there is for a cross-dressing woman?
Okay, sounds like it’s time to define some terms. Here is
what seems to be a reasonably well-accepted definition of the term “cross-dresser/transvestite” from a glossary at the OutProud site:
So cross-dressing specifically implies the goal of “relieving gender discomfort,” that is, of trying to “pass” (whether in society at large or just before one’s mirror) as a member of a different sex. This seems to be more common among men than among women, which may be why we have a clearer cultural image of a male CD/TV than of a female one.
Note also the specification that a CD/TV “wears what is currently considered the clothes of the other sex(es).” Jeans, blazers, flannel shirts, hiking boots, baseball caps may not look very feminine, but they are emphatically not currently considered to be “men’s clothes,” as you can see from their appearance in countless women’s clothing catalogues and stores. Women who wear them are (usually) not trying to look like males or avoid being identified as female, and therefore should not be called “cross-dressers.”
You may not find the look thrillingly attractive, but it is not a form of transgendering.
(Have you considered, by the way, that many women these days don’t want to look thrillingly attractive at all times as they go about their daily lives? Many of us just want to throw on some clothes and get a job done, and save the “ultra-feminine” stuff for when we’re really trying to make an impression. This doesn’t make us cross-dressers.)
Kimstu