Vivienne in Drag!

For some time now I've been considering the subject of drag. I'm still not sure about the relationship between drag and trans. I've asked quite a lot of people, without coming to any firm conclusions.

One thing is certain. Drag, as a form of entertainment, has really hit the big time, and become much more mainstream lately. I'm certain it's due, more or less completely, to RuPaul (which, I just discovered, is actually his birth name) and his various shows, which have become popular all around the world (even here in New Zealand).

Condragulations!

But my main discussion of drag will need to wait for another article (or twelve!). I'd been wondering for a while whether drag would have something useful to offer me, to improve my presentation. In particular, I have quite oily skin, and I find that, no matter how much primer and setting powder I use, my face starts to look shiny after only a couple of hours when I'm out--especially when it's warm! Meanwhile, drag queens do dance routines under hot stage lights, and they seem to still look fine. Secondly, I wanted to see if perhaps drag queen shapewear could improve my fem shape (that's for another time!).

So I was quite pleased when a NZ drag queen, Piper Blaster, was offering a Drag Makeup Workshop in a (very cold and draughty) local theatre, and I duly signed up and went along with a friend. Piper took us through the whole makeup routine, in a workshop lasting about three hours. And this is the result!

There were some makeup techniques that I already knew about, such as applying glue to your eyebrows to conceal the brow hairs completely against the skin, so that you can paint new brows in more dramatic places. But most of it was completely new to me, including the many, many layers of makeup you need to apply (I basically lost count of them!). The makeup was also heavy and theatrical--as Piper says, you're putting on a face which has to be seen from the back of the room. So the contouring is deliberately emphasised to maximise contrast.

I have to say the finished outcome wasn't quite what I expected. I'd hoped to find some tricks to look more feminine, more passable, but instead I found the look too overcooked. But what did I expect? I went to a Drag Makeup Workshop and came away looking like a drag queen! This isn't, in any way, a criticism of Piper--or her excellent workshop.

Miss Vivi Section?

Piper says that for her, the drag character emerges once the false eyelashes are in place. That's the moment when the look becomes real for her. I didn't really experience the emergence of my inner drag diva. Although I had fun striking poses with the other people there, I didn't feel dressed for the part (since I'd come in wearing a pair of jeans and a pullover!).

Would I do it again? I'm not sure I would. First, drag is about over-the-top, flamboyant performance. I'm definitely not the sort of person to strut into the centre of a room and greet friends and strangers alike with a shrill cry of "Eat it, bitches!" That persona, whether genuine, or merely a performance, just isn't me!

Secondly, I didn't especially like the look, although with time and practice, and learning new techniques, and a bit of costume, it could definitely be improved, and perhaps personalised--obviously the drag queens we see on television have spent years honing their appearance. From a personal point of view, I seem to have discovered that drag queen makeup stays put because there is just so damn much of it!

A little digital magic from FaceApp has let me polish up one of the pictures into something a bit nicer, but I don't think RuPaul is going to be beating down my door to get me to come on the show any time soon!

Prohibition Party!

It’s one of my favourite things to get an invitation where the person says “Vivienne is welcome too”. A few weeks ago I got an invitation to a friend’s birthday party. It was to be fancy dress, with a Prohibition theme. While I could use this article as an opportunity to show more pictures of myself (and I will!), there are actually other aspects to it which I’ve been reflecting on since.

How do I look?

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t normally enjoy “dressing up”. It feels like pretending to be something I’m not, while dressing as Vivienne feels like doing something that I am. But this was an opportunity to do the latter while pretending to do the former—I don’t know if that makes any sense at all!

There were several obvious problems. I don’t possess the elegant willowy figure of the 1920’s flapper—or the gangster’s moll. But secondly I had no idea where I would come up with any sort of costume to wear.

Missy’s mum came to the rescue and had very nearly everything. She’s extremely fond of rummaging in flea markets, op shops and charity shops, and has a huge collection of all sorts of amazing stuff. She provided the dress, the wig, the fascinator, the feather boa, the pearls and rings and necklace. Even a vintage black clutch bag (foreground).

The white gloves and choker came from a dress-up shop, and the tights and shoes (which you can’t see) were model’s own. I had to take the gloves off for the mirror selfie because my phone screen wouldn’t register my touch when I had them on!

I spent ages getting ready. Among other things, I had never worn stick-on false eyelashes before. I took an hour to put them on in any sort of reasonable position, and I had to take them off and reposition them several times!

Meanwhile Missy decided to go as the gangster: the fedora, the black shirt and white tie, and a plastic gun from the dress-up shop. It was a great outfit and she looked fantastic. In fact, everyone did; it was like walking around in a scene from Bugsy Malone.

Flapper girl in a Gatsby world.

As we walked in, I realised, for the first time, that aside from a few people that we know, most people would be strangers--and not necessarily expecting to see me turn up in a frock. There were a couple of dozen people there, including teenagers, and everyone seemed to react positively. One or two of the men looked slightly taken aback when I introduced myself, but after that nobody showed the slightest discomfort. One of the women asked me where I got my tights, and I asked her where she got her corset. (Interestingly, two of the women were also dressed in male gangster gear, and looked fantastic).

The house had been done up beautifully as a speakeasy with darkened windows, decorations and soft lighting. There was a very well-stocked drinks table, and plenty of nibbles. There was even someone "on the door" and we had to pretend to give the password. But the most impressive feature was a full-on gambling den, with a full-sized roulette wheel, a blackjack table, and a professional croupier to run the whole thing. No money was won or lost--we played only for chips, though there were prizes for the biggest winners.

The croupier kept referring to me as "the gentleman with the green chips". I wasn't in the least bothered about this; I really just found it funny. In fact I joked with him: "What have I got to do here to get treated like a lady?!"

The chat and the company were outstanding. We mingled and met some lovely new people. We played roulette and blackjack. We enjoyed the nibbles and drinks. I felt wonderful. From time to time, I was suddenly struck by the realisation--all over again!--that I was out, dressed, and feeling fabulous.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

Looking back on this splendid evening, my first impression is how far I have come. An evening like this one--glamorously dressed and having a wonderful time with a group of lovely people--would have been pie in the sky only a few short years ago. Every time I've looked back on it, it's given me a little emotional boost.

My second reflection is that, perhaps in some sense I was also being an ambassador for trans people in company. Perhaps the people at the party hadn't come across someone like me before, and perhaps having a laugh and a chat with me might make them feel more comfortable encountering other trans people in their lives.

But the third boost it gave me is that I had told quite a lot of people, including people at work, that I was going to be going to a party "in drag". And naturally they wanted to see the photos afterward. And so I've had the experience of showing people who don't know about Vivienne some photos of Vivienne! I've had nothing but positive comments from them; many of them said they thought they were looking at a woman in the photos, although they obviously recognised it was me.

All of this makes me feel just that little more confident in myself, a little more confident about coming out to more people (slowly does it!), and a little less nervous of future encounters. How can any of this be a bad thing?

Now, let's blouse. I gotta go iron my shoelaces. Don't take any wooden nickels!

Transgender Actors

Here's a question. You want to make a film where a transgender character is the lead. Do you need to cast a transgender actor or actress in the role?

Victor Polster in Girl (2018)

For mainstream cinema at least, the choice is easy: you pick a cisgender actor or actress and cast them. That has been true over many years, from Felicity Huffman in Transamerica to Cillian Murphy in Breakfast on Pluto, to Terence Stamp in Priscilla, right up to Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl and most recently Victor Polster in Girl.

For some trans people, this is definitely a problem. The film Girl, which I haven't yet seen, has stirred up quite a lot of protest, in particular because there seems to be a lot of depiction of genitalia. Several questions about transgender actors have been debated on Quora, and some of the answers and comments are very interesting. All of the quotes come from Quora and are unchanged from the original authors' text, though they are not all in response to the same question.

The first comment people make is that there are plenty of trans actors out there now.

Elliott Mason: There are hundreds of working trans actors, of all stripes and appearances. If none of them are considered "bankable" it's because productions won't cast them to play cis, but won't let them play trans either.

Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl (2015)

This is a very fair point: if you are a trans actor, then you might find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place: no trans roles-- and no cis ones either!

The next point is that it’s not acceptable to have black or Asian parts played by white actors in makeup—and for the same reason we should have trans actors playing trans characters.

Joanne C Wittstock: There was a time when women were not allowed on stage. Then a time when no suitable black actors were available and the roles went to whites. For decades there were apparently no Asians with theatrical skills. The frontier is slowly moving. To a large extent trans people are the visible minority of this moment.

I completely take this point. One of the things which spoils what would otherwise be one of my favourite ever movies, Breakfast at Tiffany's, is the dreadful "comic relief" turn of Mickey Rooney in yellowface as Mr. Yunioshi. And one of the best of the classic Doctor Who stories, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, features John Bennet in the role of the villainous Li H'Sen Chang. This time, it's not played for laughs, but the show still manages to throw in some dreadful Chinese stereotypes. The few actual Asian actors in the production are relegated to non-speaking parts.

Another common theme is the failure of Hollywood to recognise the legitimacy of trans people themselves; instead making them out to be a pretence.

Helena Almagest: The persistent practice of Hollywood to have cis men portray trans women and cis women trans men promotes the misconception that transgender is merely a disguise, and that trans women are merely men dressing up, and trans men, women dressing up. A misconception that gets us killed. (her emphasis).

A trans woman should be portrayed by a woman. It needn’t even be a trans woman (although suitable trans actresses are out there and desperately seeking jobs), it could also be a cis woman. Just not a man.

Likewise, a trans man should be portrayed by a man, trans or cis.

Tara Nitka: Hollywood has made me quite skeptical about the ability of cis people to write and portray trans characters, but that might only be true of Hollywood.

But ultimately, casting cis men and boys to play trans women and girls sends the message that we’re men pretending to be women. If you can’t cast a trans girl, at least cast a girl.

Felicity Huffman in Transamerica

From the (short) list of famous movies at the start of this article, only Transamerica would meet with approval here, with Felicity Huffman cast as a transwoman.

Sara Clarke: When we cast a cis person to play a trans person, we’re at the mercy of that person (and their most likely cis director and writer) to tell us what trans people look and act like, how they feel about things, what choices they would make, etc. Considering how ignorant most cis people are of the trans experience, that’s not doing anybody any favors: either other cis people learning about trans issues through the lens of other cis people who may or may not know what they’re talking about, or other trans people who want to see authentic versions of their lives represented in the media.

These are powerful points. The criticism is that the films don't depict trans people, or how they feel, but only what cisgender people think trans people are like, and how they feel. I definitely share this point of view: several times during The Danish Girl, I found myself thinking that elements of the plot didn't strike me as real.

Chrystal Andros: My issue is what is called agency. With women it used to be (and still is in some aspects) that men define what is good for them. They cannot speak for themselves, so they have to have someone else speaking for them.

In the same way in Hollywood, managers and focus groups define what is good for the audience and define their selection of actors.

With trans-actors and trans-actresses they fit into a certain category - they are becoming more mainstream, but they are considered like women from 1950s who go out and become professionals - the freaks of today.

Three of the films I have mentioned have received very positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, Priscilla has a 96% approval rating; Girl has achieved 84% and Transamerica has 76%.  Meanwhile, The Danish Girl managed only 67% and Breakfast on Pluto achieved 57%. So the filmmakers are doing something right (if not exactly breaking box-office records with any of them). But of course, if these are films made by cisgender film-makers, pitched for a (predominantly) cisgender audience, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean they please transgender people.

Cillian Murphy in Breakfast on Pluto

But not everyone agrees with the sentiments above. Some commentators reported that, as long as the actor does a decent job, it shouldn't matter whether they are cisgender or transgender.

Mark Grinstein-Camacho: Actors play different characters all the time. It is their job. You can find actors who play straight people, gay people, billionaires, emperors of the galaxy, penniless street urchins, genius computer programmers, or zombies hungry for human flesh.

Studying for those roles and preparing for them is a big part of an actor’s work. Maybe it means watching Hitler’s speeches, or spending a day at a boot camp, or attending a conference. Maybe it means learning to play the violin for a year. Maybe it means watching other movies. Maybe it means interviewing people who were there. Any good actor can do this.

Karissa Cook: One point that most people seem to miss with these questions is that an actor acts. That is what they do.

Would it be a good thing for more transgender actors to get cast? Absolutely! Should we get bent out of shape about who is portraying trans characters? Not unless they are doing a poor job.

Look folks. If you want only trans actors to have trans roles then you aren't really looking for actors, you are looking for representatives.

Actors play a part. Their job is to make us believe that they really are the characters they portray. Stop worrying about who is playing the role, just pay attention to how well or poorly they did.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing

This is also a point I have some sympathy with, although my own point of view comes from a different angle. Film-making is driven by economics. Film-makers make films because they want people to pay money to see them. Along the way, they may inspire, entertain, or inform--they may even achieve art--but those are very secondary considerations.

In The Imitation Game, Benedict Cumberbatch plays cryptanalyst Alan Turing (who happens to be one of my heroes). Turing was gay, but Cumberbatch isn’t; nonetheless Cumberbatch gives an extraordinary performance.

People have criticised the considerable liberties with historical events which the director took. But the director Morten Tyldrum has said that the film was really about using the medium of film to give the audience a flavour of what Turing was really like (rather than to just make a historical documentary). In this, I think he succeeds. The role of the tortured genius has been done dozens of times, but Cumberbatch manages to bring a nuanced performance which includes the awkwardness, the vulnerability and the arrogance of the character, without ever feeling forced or unnatural. Though we sympathise deeply with Cumberbatch's portrayal of Turing, he doesn't make the character necessarily likeable.

By casting a star like Cumberbatch in the role of Alan Turing, I believe people will watch the film who otherwise wouldn’t. And I believe that, unless they have hearts of stone, they will come away feeling sympathy for Turing and how he was treated, perhaps in a way they haven’t sympathised with gay people before. Other recent films which show gay men in a very positive light are Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody.

Jeffrey Tambor in Transparent

I think that we are in this place right now. I believe it’s more important for the public to see us, and to sympathise with and accept us, (even using the medium of fiction and the artifice of film) than it is for trans actors to be cast in those roles. Some cisgender actors have also done a wonderful job, such as Jeffrey Tambor in Transparent.

I hope that the day will come when trans actors are just actors. We are not there yet. Meanwhile, cisgender actors playing transgender parts is fine by me. What I want, right now, is awareness and exposure, and for people to view us with sympathy rather than scorn or discomfort. I think overall that we should be pleased that films with a transgender theme are being made and released. While they may not be perfect, I think that the casting of cisgender actors in transgender parts is doing more good than harm.

In Search of Beauty

Hallowe'en is a time of year when a lot of closeted cross-dressers feel safe to dress in public. It's acceptable to put on a face and a costume you wouldn't normally wear, and show yourself off. I've read quite a few descriptions of this online. It tends to be more marked in the US, where Hallowe'en is an enormously popular occasion, and where people seem to spend a lot more time and effort on the whole business than the rest of the world, though what I see is that, year on year, Hallowe'en is growing, everywhere.

One leg to rule them all...

So imagine my discomfort when I was invited to a very large and "authentic" Hallowe'en party last year. The party was hosted by a woman I work with. Unfortunately my partner couldn't attend, so it was up to me to go along, with the kids.

I very quickly dismissed the idea that I would go dressed as a woman. First, I'm not out to this woman. Second, I didn't know who else from work might be invited and show up. Third, the irony is not lost on me that Hallowe'en costumes are supposed to be a costume; as I've mentioned before, putting on a costume feels like pretending to be something I'm not, while getting dressed as a woman feels like becoming something I am (even if not every day). I definitely didn't want to do some sort of costume version of Vivienne; I couldn't imagine something less comfortable than turning up dressed as a pantomime dame. While if I dressed nicely, it could be a dead giveaway that this wasn't a once-in-a-year costume, but something I do much more frequently.

Mind you this Gandalf outfit, by Melbourne student Tjitske van Vark, might possibly work for this year. Gandalf the Pink, anyone?

But there was a further catch, which is that the hostess herself is extremely good at both makeup and costume. I've seen some of her work before, in pictures, and it's dazzling. So I knew she was going to set the bar very high, which in turn meant I didn't feel I could just cut two holes in a sheet, put it over my head, and call myself a ghost. In the end, I got a decent fantasy swordsman costume, and some decent props, and I didn't disgrace myself. But that's not what this post is about.

Lex Fleming from MadeYewLook

The hostess had indeed gone to great lengths. Her house was lavishly decorated, inside and out, with skulls and spiders and pumpkins and gravestones. But her own makeup was simply extraordinary; it was clearly professional-quality work. In addition, she had spent a lot of time getting her costume just right. It must have taken weeks of planning to put the whole thing together. While I am not going to include any photographs of the hostess herself, here is a comparable image of a young woman doing something similar, and let me say, the hostess was every bit as striking as this image here; not just her face, but also her costume.

Understandably there were a lot of photographs. The hostess took photos of all the guests; in groups, posed and unposed. And she was also in lots of photos, including photos of me. Standing beside her while those photos were taken made me feel uncomfortable, and I've been reflecting for some time on why this should be.

First, I am extremely conscious of beauty around me. When people talk about beauty privilege, I completely understand exactly what they mean. I cannot help paying attention to beautiful people, and it's almost always female beauty that I am talking about here. So when there is someone beautiful near me, and I want to just have a normal conversation (with someone else, about something else), I can sometimes find it difficult to concentrate unless I sit where I cannot be distracted by the view.

Has anyone got a pen I could borrow?

For me (at least) beauty doesn't necessarily have to be the sort of thing you would put on a magazine cover. There are a thousand things which women around me do which I think are beautiful. It can be as simple as a particular smile, a turn of phrase, or an endearing gesture (such as putting your pencil into your bun, which I think is gorgeous), while others might see nothing particularly special.

Second, beauty is something I really aspire to. Perhaps it's because I had a rough time at school (as a sensitive child I was commonly picked on), I tend to equate beauty with popularity, and I am envious of people who are beautiful.

This is something which I have really struggled with. As I've mentioned before on this blog, it's not enough to look feminine: I really want to look pretty. I don't think that the camera is anywhere near as flattering as the mirror, but I also think the camera comes a lot closer to showing me what other people see when they look at me. I love to take photos when I'm dressed, and I can feel very flat afterward when I look at the photos and don't feel great about what I see.

Meanwhile it's hard not to feel even more dejected when I look at the Internet and see what seem to be thousands of gorgeous images of trans women, and I think that, in a month of Sundays, I could never look that good. I know I am not alone in feeling this. Even Hannah McKnight (whom I admire for many reasons) has posted lately about feeling this way, and I've had conversations with some of my Facebook friends about it. Sometimes I think: why should I even bother? What would be the point?

The third thing which I really noticed about my Hallowe'en friend is that she wasn't just looking spectacular, she was also acting differently. She was definitely acting more flirty, more sexy, especially in front of the camera. She was owning it. She was doing beauty.

So there I was, feeling awkward and foolish in my own costume, seeing my friend completely owning the Hallowe'en femme fatale thing, and knowing I will never look remotely as good. That was a potent stew of emotions indeed. My costume was no disgrace, and I could have been strutting around and posing like Conan the Barbarian--but honestly I just wanted to get it over with and go home.

I know that these feelings are temporary; that there will be times when I feel fantastic--both pretty and feminine--again. I am also enough of a realist to recognise that probably everyone feels a bit like this, when they try to compare themselves to others. And of course the people on the Internet post their best photos--of course they do!-- and they don't show you their mascara malfunctions or their bad hair days or their photos taken at unflattering angles.

Mind you, it's interesting to consider: if I were an attractive man, would I be less bothered about trying to look pretty as a woman? Would I be able to get some of that beauty "fix" in my male persona? It's impossible to know. If Timberland decides to pick up my modelling contract again, perhaps I will be able to let you know.

Transgender superheroes

If you haven't read the original novel Watchmen, which planet have you been living on? It's one of the finest pieces of fiction I've ever read. But don't take my word for it: it made it to Time magazine's 100 greatest novels list. Not graphic novels. Novels.

Did the costumes make it good?

There is a powerful scene where Laurie Juspeczyk and Dan Dreiberg (both costumed heroes) attempt to make love in Dan's apartment, but Dan is unable to perform. They go down to the basement, where they don their costumes and take Dan's "owlship" out for a flight. As it happens, they end up rescuing some people from a building on fire. Afterwards, with the owlship hovering over the city, they make love again in the owlship, with the illustrated result. That's supposed to be a flamethrower, by the way.

A presumably somewhat breathless Laurie remarks: "Did the costumes make it good? Dan...?"

Wow! Where to begin with this? Watchmen has been described as the moment comics came of age, and this is the sort of thing which reminds people of that. The main plot involves a villain, and a group of costumed heroes in pursuit. But that's where the novel departs from the cliches. It tackles head-on the ideas we have all had about costumed crimefighters: doesn't it make you feel silly? What happens when you get old? What happens if the public turns against you? What makes someone want to put on a costume and fight bad guys? This scene is one which hints at the notion that it's sometimes about the costume, though there are other parts of the book which give different interpretations.

Princess Koriand'r

The subtlety and sophistication of the story is just dazzling. Among many brilliant aspects of it is the utter abandonment of moral certainty. In the old days, the good guys were good, and the bad guys were bad. End of. Why were the bad guys bad? Who cares? They were just there to give the good guys something to do. Watchmen shows us good guys which are not quite as good as we might wish; and bad guys... well, you'll just have to read it. Incidentally, the film is also excellent, being as it is basically a love-letter to the book (though the dialogue in the owlship scene is different).

As someone who is very interested in the power of costumes (and was really into comics for a while there), I can't help drawing a parallel between costumed heroes and crossdressing. Crossdressing makes me feel different on a fundamental level. It allows me access to a range of emotional expression which is usually denied me. I have discussed elsewhere that perhaps costume, the temporary assumption of some other identity, is powerfully alluring all of its own, even aside from crossdressing.

Superheroes (at least as they are drawn in comics) are inherently profoundly sexist. Comics basically exist to provide eye candy for nerdy geeks (like me). Comics can illustrate anything; special effects are no object. There is a tendency to depict both male and female heroes as athletes at the pinnacle of human achievement (for the purposes of this discussion, let's stick to human beings!). Nonetheless, where male heroes tend to wear whole-body costumes (think of Batman, Spiderman, Superman), female heroes tend to wear next to nothing, and be displayed in alluring poses. One of my favourites (though there is no shortage of other examples) was for a while Princess Koriand'r, shown here. Maybe it was the green eyes.

So the women are all drawn, more or less, the same: beautiful, incredibly buxom and curvaceous, with long flowing hair (impractical though this may be when fighting crime), and with some sort of revealing, bikini-like costume (where do you keep your gadgets? Your keys?), and in poses which accentuate the inherent sexuality of their costumes.

Batgirl, issue 19.

Male heroes, on the other hand, are ridiculously well-muscled. Square of jaw, steely of gaze, tousled of hair. There isn't a hint, from any of them, that they are anything less than uber-masculine. The occasional slim wiry one may be allowed, rather than the brute. For an amusing take on the sexism inherent in comic illustration, I refer you to The Hawkeye Initiative, where artists, some professional, and some amateur, redraw published comic illustrations of female heroes with a male figure, Hawkeye, in the same pose. There's even a dude out there taking photos of himself, with the same intent.

So where are the transgender superheroes? The answer is: it's pretty hard to find any. Quite understandably, they don't really belong, in a universe of such powerful male or female archetypes. And in addition, open depictions of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism were overtly banned in the USA (which means the world, in comic book terms), until 1989. And yet, among comic-reading audiences, there is a powerful mix of people of all stripes, and since 1989 there has been a bit of catching up to do for comic book writers, incorporating LGBT characters into their storylines. Some well-known characters have been updated to incorporate same-sex relationships; for example, Batwoman is now depicted as a lesbian.

But don't get mixed up between Batwoman and Batgirl. Batgirl, whose mild-mannered alter-ego is Barbara Gordon, daughter of Commissioner James Gordon. It's here we find the first mainstream transgender comic character, Batgirl's flatmate, Alysia Yeoh. What's the background to Alysia? No idea. From the little I have read, she seems to be a full-time male-to-female character, but beyond that, there seems to be nothing solid. She seems also to have no super powers, but of course, they are only a zap with some novel kind of radiation away. The character has only existed for a few months, and it remains to be seen how she will develop. Will she end up looking like Princess Koriand'r? Or perhaps like The Thing? It's impossible to tell.

Maidman

Let me say now that I welcome this development. It's an acknowledgement that trans people exist, even in the uber-sexist world of comics. For them to be accepted openly (as Batgirl does), is a powerful statement of welcome. Alysia weeps at Batgirl's immediate acceptance of her.

But how about transgender superheroes? The character of Maidman can be found in the pages of Empowered, a comic-book series which has been going since 2007, authored by Adam Warren. Part of the theme of Empowered is to deconstruct comic book stereotypes in a humorous manner, so Maidman, a costumed hero whose superpowered costume is a French Maid outfit, is deliberately poking in the eye of the traditional costumed hero:

Maidman: I'd be far more embarrassed to dress up like, say, an animal. Now that would be silly. Face it. The hundreds of would-be badass capes who practice species crossdressing as various theoretically intimidating animals? That's one step removed from being a furry. Talk about embarrassing.

Maidman is depicted as clearly a man (including his blue chin and muscly physique) but wearing a ridiculous frilly maid outfit, and carrying a feather duster and broom (which are of course supergadgets in their own right). Check out those shaved legs and combat stilettoes. Does Maidman count as a transgender superhero? I don't think so. Although in the Empowered universe, Maidman is depicted as a powerful hero, whom the bad guys clearly fear, it is clear in the real universe that Maidman is a caricature, designed to look ridiculous as a means of poking fun at costumed superheroes in general. The pink speech bubbles which he has, suggest that he affects a sexy feminine voice too. Does he poke fun at crossdressers? I personally don't find it in the least offensive, although perhaps you have different views. For me, the point (as expressed eloquently by Maidman himself) is that it's no more weird for a man to dress as a maid to fight crime than it is for him to dress as a bat, or a spider, or any one of a hundred other odd themes.

SheZow!

No, for a real transgender superhero, we need to turn to the world of children's entertainment. I am indebted to Ralph for drawing my attention to this character, the superhero SheZow!

SheZow is a Canadian-Australian co-production, a series of (so far) 26 short cartoon episodes aimed at kids between the ages of 6 and 11. The basic premise of the story is that Guy(!) Hamdon, a typical 12-year old boy, finds a magic ring which turns him into the superhero SheZow. In the universe, the character is well-known, admired and popular. Guy is initially reluctant, but after discovering the supercool car (the "She-hicle"), and the hi-tech underground batcave, with its supercomputer, "Sheila", he comes to embrace the role. Nobody knows his secret identity except his sister and best (male) friend.

SheZow has the hair, the eyeshadow, the costume (thankfully non-revealing, but nonetheless pink and sparkly) and the heels. She also has super-strength, and a light-sabre-like weapon, laser lipstick. She is resolutely pink, girly and uber-feminine. This, I suppose, is one of the essential points of the show: making SheZow as feminine as possible to highlight Guy's discomfort at assuming the role. The show is essentially light-hearted and comic in tone. To drive up the femininity, the dialogue is full of excruciating puns, such as "she-vitalised", "she-riffic", "she-S-P" (SheZow's "spider sense"), and even "she you later!". Guy can assume the identity of SheZow by reciting the magic phrase "You go girl!".

SheZow seems naturally invulnerable. Her kryptonite is her hair: for her hair to become disarrayed leads to loss of her super powers, though they can be restored by the use of "she-lac" hair spray from her utility belt.

SheZow, mighty SheZow!

My two youngest kids are between 6 and 11, and so I sat them down to watch it with me. We watched for over an hour, which was about half a dozen episodes. As a fairly conservative parent myself (believe it or not!), there was nothing in it to trouble me. There is nothing overtly sexual or suggestive. Beyond the basic premise, there is nothing untoward: the good guys are resolutely good, the villains resolutely dastardly, the predicaments humorous, and the outcomes predictably favourable. I enjoyed it very much. A special mention to the actress who voices the computer Sheila, in a very sexy, British accent. Hell-low!

I think from the point of view of a child, it’s no more bizarre than any other superhero cartoon. In many ways, it echoes other fiction I have come across. The novel Boy2Girl, by Terence Blacker, and the comic strip Cuckoo in the Nest (from an obsolete girls’ comic) both explore the situation of a boy, reluctantly compelled by circumstance to adopt the role of a girl, who is initially unwilling but ultimately finds unexpected advantages or insights in doing so. Both of those are aimed at children (and are explored more here on my blog). SheZow is very faithful to that trope.

So then, is it good? Does it do our sons good to consider aspects of femininity to be positive? I suppose so, although I don’t really think it does any better than She-Ra (or my personal favourites, Jana of the Jungle, and Cheetara). Girls can be superheroes too, but I’ve known this since childhood anyway. Does it give confidence or esteem to girls? I don’t really think so. Does it make children more trans-friendly? I guess so, though one cartoon will not be enough to overcome their own upbringing, whether hostile or accepting.

Does it do harm? I can’t honestly see how. If it’s OK for kids to watch Batman punch the villain’s lights out, then it surely should be OK to watch a boy putting on a magic ring and becoming a girl. Is it going to make our sons grow up gay, or camp, or effeminate? Gracious me, no!

What did my kids think of it? My youngest son watched it with interest, although he hasn't been bothered about it since. My youngest daughter enjoyed it more, and has since spoken about it, and asked to see more of it. I asked her: How do you like the show? "It's cool". Is it OK for girls to be superheroes? "Yes." Is it OK for a boy to be a girl superhero? She paused: "I don't know". I get the impression that, from her point of view, SheZow is just a cool girl. The fact that SheZow is a boy seems to be incidental.

However, almost inevitably, the show has attracted criticism from the usual suspects, people who are convinced this show will institute moral collapse on a national, perhaps global, scale. I suspect (as is usual in these sorts of instances), just about everyone who protests hasn't even sat down and watched the show.

So, for a fairly thorough trawl through the potential places to find transgender superheroes, we come up pretty short. SheZow gets the prize: cool, powerful, and unavoidably transgendered. But surely we can do better? Surely trans people can be powerful and cool too?

Addendum: 18th October 2013

I came across this article from journalist Kasey Edwards, discussing SheZow. The article is interesting and provocative, written as it is by a woman, and a mother. Overall, Edwards seems to basically agree with my angle.

My thanks also to Grok, for drawing my attention to Captain Cross-Dresser, an amusing (and sadly one-off) animated short. I wasn't able to follow Grok's link, but I was able to find the whole ten minutes on YouTube, split up into three parts. It has some very clever and amusing points to make, although (unlike SheZow) I wouldn't try showing it to young kids. I quote:

This is just what our city needs: a superhero for the 21st century!

 Addendum: 2nd October 2015

I came across this excellent article by Cindi May in Scientific American. Entitled The Problem With Female Superheroes, it points out that female superheroes have gone "from helpless damsel to powerful heroine, but [are] still hypersexualised". Well worth a read.

Why Men Wear Frocks - Part Three

In case you are wondering, I am carving up Grayson Perry's documentary, Why Men Wear Frocks, into arbitrary, bite-sized chunks. In this next segment, Perry meets transsexual Charlotte, and later considers the history of crossdressing.

Perry: Although I've been dressing up as a woman all my life, it's never made me feel any less a man. But some men feel so alienated from the whole business that they don't see themselves as men any more. I was on my way to meet Charlotte, who is a transsexual, or TS. He's been taking female hormones which he buys over the internet, and is contemplating gender reassignment surgery-- the chop. Transvestites and transsexuals don't always see eye to eye.

Charlotte

Throughout this documentary, Perry has met with all sorts of people, and been comfortable and relaxed in their presence. In this interview, there is a noticeable tension hanging in the air; it's hard to know whether that comes from Charlotte, or from Perry himself. Rather than laughing about shared viewpoints, they slightly bicker. And notice his somewhat impolite use of pronouns in the intro above. Charlotte is a young slim person with long hair, earrings, breasts and minimal makeup. She is wearing a T-shirt and jeans. Watching Charlotte is like watching one of those optical illusions where the image looks first one way, then the other.

Applying the autogynephilia template, I consider that Charlotte is an autogynephilic. That means that Perry is right in all of the conversation which follows, and I can understand Charlotte's irritation with his line of reasoning. (If you speak American, read "hood" where Perry says "bonnet").

Charlotte: I wouldn't feel that aggrieved not to have a penis.
Perry: Really? I would be horrified.
Charlotte: It's not the be-all and end-all of things though.
Perry: (pauses) No.
Charlotte: It's a case of having the balls, or lack of them, to go further.
Perry: So you think it's quite a macho thing to do then, to have a sex change?
Charlotte: No, I said "or lack of them". It's a very brave decision. You're assimilating being brave with being a man.
Perry: (pauses) Often I feel with the whole transsexual phenomenon, that it's a problem principally with men, that most transsexuals I think are men (pauses)... and it seems that they're dealing with their problems in a very male way.
Charlotte: (hesitates). Erm... Explain a male way for me.
Perry: Quite a mechanical way, quite a rational way. It's like, lift up the bonnet, change the wiring, slam down the bonnet, off you go.
Charlotte: What if it's not the bonnet end of things, what if it's the black box that controls everything else?
Perry: You do strike me as quite a typical male in many ways. The way you talk is quite forthrightly...
Charlotte: (interrupts) I'm just being assertive. Don't attach that to being a man.
Perry: So would you say that transsexuals then are, instead of putting on the clothes, they're using the surgery in the same ways that a transvestite uses the clothes?
Charlotte: I'd have said it was an interesting split between the two, but sort of, yeah. It's not the be-all and end-all of things, but generally it makes them happy. Me being sort of down that road, it would make me happy as well.

Just a couple of comments. First, taking hormones which you buy from the Internet is madness. You don't know whether you're getting pure drugs or stuff cut with talcum powder; real hormones, or worming tablets for camels. The endocrine system is like an orchestra: if you start messing with one part of the orchestra, soon you will ruin the whole symphony. If you want hormones, see a doctor! Second, I have no idea what happened to Charlotte, and it would be interesting to find out if she ever completed her transition, or what she is up to now.

Perry: Oh dear! Here come all the difficult questions. Does a bloke really have to chop off his penis to truly feel like a woman? And is it all a bit old-fashioned and sexist to make such a big deal of the differences between men and women in any case? Is the transgender community a glimpse of the future? Or a bit of a blast from the past?

Perry: To know whether transvestism has a future, you need to know a bit about its past. Until the later part of the 19th century, crossdressing in ordinary life was an overwhelmingly female to male activity. Typically it tended to be a woman just trying to get on in a man's world. But in the Victorian age, the traffic started to switch direction. Since then transvestism has become an overwhelmingly male to female behaviour. So what was it about the Victorian age which led to the flowering of transvestism? Peter [Farrer, historian] had talked about the intoxicating rustle of silks and taffetas, but it had to be about something more. It had to be about the emotions the clothes gave you access to. Dr. Oriole Cullen showed me round the Victorian costume collection at the Museum of London. For her, it's a vital scholarly resource; for me it was an erotic treasure trove.

Fanny and Stella, Victorian entertainers

Throughout this segment, we are shown dozens of photographs of Victorian transvestites. All of them have taken great care with their appearance, their hair, their clothing, their posture. And then they have their picture taken, professionally. And some of them are dazzling; their pictures made all the more extraordinary by being over a century old. These people are just like me! Someone must have found those photos and collected them all together.

And it's interesting that, once again, Perry links clothes with the emotional impact they create.

Perry: The growing gender distinctions of the clothes reflected what was going on in society generally. As the Victorians increasingly corralled all the softer emotions, vulnerability, innocence, gentleness, beauty into an exclusively feminine realm, men were cast as stoical, butch, practical providers, and dressed accordingly. Is it any wonder that some men started to want to cross over? For me, what the Victorians wore is the most striking example of how clothes can come to symbolise complex emotions. But from a transvestite point of view, it's been downhill all the way since then. Walk down any high street in Britain, and you'll be hard pushed to find visions of femininity to latch onto. Perhaps transvestites are the last Victorians, the last people to believe in the symbolic dimension of women's clothes.

I find it interesting that Perry should link transvestism to Victoriana in this way. One day I found myself listening to this BBC podcast, created by comedian Phil Jupitus, who explores the theme of Steampunk. If you haven't heard of Steampunk, where have you been for the last 200 years? It's a combination of the Victorian aesthetic with modern technology; imagine your computer as a thinking engine powered by steam, and you get the idea. Steampunks hark back to the Victorian era, in terms of engineering, civilisation, scientific inquiry... and clothing.



Kaeldra-1. Do ya feel steamy, Punk?

I have always loved Steampunk, even before it had a name. As a student, I spent hours in an old corner of the University library poring through real Victorian science and medicine texts. In those days, a scientist could reasonably hope to master more than one discipline, and many did, making contributions to several fields. (These days, it is sometimes said, scientific expertise is divided finer and finer. We will all go on knowing more and more about less and less, until we all eventually know everything about nothing at all). I used to imagine myself sitting in on meetings of the Royal Society, puzzling over some ancient fossil bone, or peering down a microscope at some fascinating beetle.

In Victorian times, science and engineering and mathematics were expanding enormously, and they built great cathedrals of science: museums and universities and observatories, in all the major cities of the Empire. Scientific instruments were not merely purposeful, they were beautiful: craftsman-made of brass and mahogany. For the first time ever, science was exciting, and sexy. I suspect for many scientists, like me, it has never been quite the same, and I suspect I am not the only one who would love to trade in his laptop for a slide-rule; his biro for a quill pen and a bottle of iron-gall ink; and his car for a coach and four-- at least for a short time.

Of course, this is all a rose-tinted illusion. The Victorian era was riddled with disease, squalor, poverty, misery, slavery and enormous human suffering, on a scale never before seen. But still it grips us.

The Steampunk movement encompasses people of all ages and stripes; it is not confined to the young, or the alienated. Jupitus finds one Steampunk who talks about drugs: "Do we have drugs in Steampunk? I don't think so. Tea, perhaps. Or snuff!" For many Steampunks, it is about the costume play; for others, it's about the history; for others (like me), the science. If you browse through the forum at Brass Goggles here, you find many examples of Steampunks crossdressing. Interestingly, as Perry remarks above, many of the girls seem to enjoy dressing up in male attire, though not unexpectedly, there seem to be a fair few boys who want to dress up in female attire too. Phil Jupitus interviewed one in his documentary; though since it was radio, we couldn't see the costume!

Though I adore Victoriana, I am not really a Steampunk. I've never been to a gathering; never worn a pair of goggles. Though I have once driven a mainline steam locomotive, and I did once strip down a magnificent brass Victorian microscope, clean it, polish the lenses, and reassemble it. So I suppose I do have some credentials. If being a crossdresser makes me one of the last of the Victorians, put me down for that! God save the Queen!

For the final in this series, click here.

Tracie's Story

This is something I had heard about at least a couple of years ago, when the story came out that Sean Bean, a British actor traditionally known for playing hard men and villains, was cast to play the part of a transvestite in an upcoming drama. (I wonder if they auditioned Vinnie Jones for the role?) You might know Bean from Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, or even James Bond. So naturally I couldn't wait to see it. However, down here in the bottom right hand corner of the map it's just been screened for the first time on terrestrial TV.

The drama in question is part of a UK serial, Accused, created for the BBC by screenwriter Jimmy McGovern. More specifically, it is the first episode of season 2. I haven't seen any of the other episodes, but I was so taken with the subtlety and brilliance of this one that I will be sure to take a look.

Sean Bean as Tracie

Let me say right up front that I think this is one of the best pieces of television featuring a crossdressing character that I have ever seen. It is clever, fresh, compelling and sympathetic. The dialogue sizzles (every one of Tracie's one-liners is a gem), and the characters are rounded and complex. It tackles all the issues you would expect, head on, but in ways you wouldn't expect. I am not going to spoil it for you, because I think it's just too good, but there are some points which are worthy of comment.

Tony: You get that a lot, do you? Aggro?
Tracie: Unfortunately.
Tony: So why do it?
Tracie: Because it's who I am, darlin'!

We join the action as Bean's character, Tracie Tremarco, gets all dolled up for a night on the town (Manchester), in what I wincingly regard as over-the-top drag: the long blonde hair, the short skirt, the sparkly dress, the long nails. But then we see Tracie expertly (if a little wearily) deflect the critical and mocking abuse she gets from the taxi driver and from some drunken lads in the pub. Later she picks up an apparently straight man, Tony (Stephen Graham), and they go back to Tracie's flat where they have sex.

Tony: What do you do for a living?
Tracie: Nothing, doll. Tracie's a good time girl.
Tony: So who pays for this place?
Tracie: Simon, love. The most boring man in the world.

A crossdressing academic, you say? Whatever next?

By day, Tracie is Simon, a bored and lonely English teacher, plodding through his lacklustre life, trying to interest his disengaged students in poetry. The writer makes a reasonable effort to weave the poetry into the narrative, particularly the Lady of Shalott, Tennyson's romantic ballad of a lonely and beautiful lady who looks out of her tower window and falls in love with "bold Sir Lancelot".

Tracie is surprised and delighted when Tony turns up at her flat unexpectedly, and the two embark on a relationship, somewhat hesitantly at first. Gradually, Tracie begins to fall in love with Tony, and wants him to take her out:

Tony: I haven't got the balls to be seen out with you. But shall I tell you why? It's because you make no bleedin' effort to look like a woman. A real woman!
Tracie: I never claimed to be Cheryl bloody Cole!
Tony: I never expected you to turn into Cheryl Cole. But you're going to have to do a lot better than Old King fucking Cole if you want to be seen out in public with me. So just have a go. Eh?
Tracie: What, and you'll take me out?

As the relationship deepens, Simon gradually rediscovers his zest for life. His students look up in surprise as he reads the poetry with fire and passion. Later there is a powerful scene where Simon, walking along the street, sees Tony coming the other way, and realises Tony does not recognise him. Simon's distress is played out perfectly by Bean, without a word of dialogue being spoken.

Did anyone ever tell you you look a bit like Cheryl Cole?

Later still, Tracie visits a shopping mall for a makeover. A beautiful young woman leans in close to apply the makeup, and we follow Tracie's eyes looking at each feature of this young woman: her pearl earring, her eyes, her lips, her figure. Though we, the audience, know what's really going on in Tracie's mind, the expression on her face mirrors a recurring feeling I have often had when I compare myself to real women: how could I ever possibly hope to look half as good as that?

The theme of the series Accused is legal drama. In each episode, there is a different lead character, and we see scenes from their life as they become involved in something illegal, interspersed with tense courtroom scenes. So I am not letting any cats out of any bags by letting it slip that Bean's character ends up in court. But here is where my revelations end: if you want more, you will need to see it for yourself! It seems to be available on YouTube here. Trust me, though. You won't see all the subtlety on a single viewing.

Reviews have been extremely favourable. The Huffington Post said "Bean has rarely been better, showing a vulnerability and complexity many miles away from his usual tough-man". Metro said the show "could have played out like a cliché but thanks to a gritty, chip-on-the-shoulderpad turn from Bean, matched every uneasy flirt of the way by Stephen Graham as the tightly wound Tony, these characters worked their way under the skin. It was a little heavy on the melodrama but these emotional wounds were palpable".

Bean's performance is a triumph, especially given his background playing hard men and villains. The British tabloid press breathlessly reported that Bean had gone out dressed as a woman to research the role, as if this was somehow a surprise. However, the broadsheet press was a little more enlightened in its reporting. The Independent interviewed Bean and quoted him:

Bean: I got pretty good at [walking in high heels], walking on cobblestones and all sorts. I had a full body wax, the high heels, short skirts, bras – everything – it was proper full-on. I became totally absorbed: it was wonderful being involved in it, I just didn't want to leave it, the character. I became very close to Tracie. It's a brilliant script: very moving, very dark humour.
Who would have thought I'd have been dressing up as a woman and embracing that? It just came out of the blue and it was one of the most enjoyable things I've ever done, one of the things I'm most proud of. I just think I could never have invented that.

I congratulate Bean on his courage taking on this role, and for his ability to bring it to life. He manages to avoid the obvious farcical elements and provides us with a character which is portrayed sensitively and with subtlety, but with moments of wry comedy nonetheless. His performance won him the title of Best Actor at the Royal Television Society Awards.

I mean, do I look like a man in a dress?

So finally, what do I think? First, this programme is seriously bleak. Manchester is dull and grey and hostile. The only places which have light, colour and warmth seem (perhaps deliberately) to feature cosmetics, clothing, or transvestites. The character of Simon-Tracie is sordid and pathetic: a transvestite who looks ridiculous and brings home a series of men for sex. In a very real sense, Tracie had to look grotesque: we, the audience, just wouldn't have bought it if they had cast a pretty man (or a less accomplished actor) in the part. It speaks tremendously of the production team that they were able to bring this off and make us sympathise with the characters.

Second, there are aspects to the character of Tracie which don't quite sit comfortably with me, though it is plain that the writer has tried extremely hard to do his homework on the subject (hitting several nails squarely on the head with powerful lines about married men who are "curious" about transvestites). There is an odd separation between Simon and Tracie: each talks of the other in the third person, as if they were separate people. For some crossdressers, this might indeed be how they compartmentalise their lives; for me, I know it isn't.

Thirdly, Simon dresses as Tracie because he is a gay man.

Tracie: Young Simon... realised he had to tell his parents he was gay, or kill himself. So he decided having a dead son was slightly worse than having a gay one, so that's why he told them.

One of the main themes of this blog is that crossdressers are not gay, and there is plenty of justification for this view. On the other hand, I have a DVD of a 2002 documentary filmed in Manchester's gay community called The Queen's Wedding. The crew interviews several gay crossdressers, some very attractive, and some very unattractive, and the documentary culminates in the wedding of two men, one of whom wears a bridal dress for the occasion. In any case, a theme of that documentary is that some gay men do crossdress for the purposes of amusement and sex. So Tracie certainly seems to fit into that mould.

Finally, by bringing the character of Tracie to a mainstream audience, the writers are belting out a powerful and welcome message: you might find them repellent, but transvestites are human beings too.

Leah True

In the last day or so, my blog counter has passed the 10,000 mark. That's a thousand times more successful than I ever thought this blog would be, so many thanks to all of you who have dropped by, and I hope you will keep on visiting!

Time to post about another transgendered "celebrity", Leah True.

Leah first came to my attention in 2007, on a documentary in the UK (also screened in other countries) entitled Mr Miss Pageant. The whole documentary is available on YouTube, and you can find Part 1 here.

It was originally entitled Mr Miss World, but apparently the real Miss World people objected (and I guess I can see why). In any case, the competition Leah actually entered is called Miss International Queen, an annual beauty contest in Thailand for transgendered male-to-female people (pre-op and post-op), and is still going. Apparently about 10 million people in Thailand watch it every year, making it approximately one million times more popular than the Eurovision Song Contest. You can see the website here. Leah was Britain's first entrant to the competition, but since then there have been two more (but none for the last two competitions! Come on, you chaps! Where's your sense of British spirit?)

Leah True

The documentary follows Leah (real name Gavin), a then 41-yr old man who runs his own company designing power tools.

Gavin: I've never liked this ambiguity thing. If I'm dressed like a guy, I like to look like a guy. If I'm dressed like a woman then I like to look like a woman.

At the time of the documentary, neither his family nor his workmates knew anything about his double life. He lived in the North East of England, but travelled to London at weekends to keep his dressing a secret, where at one point he won the crown of Miss Alternative London. The reviewer of the documentary in the Sydney Morning Herald wrote: "Gavin likes dressing as a woman. No surprise there - he's English."

Gavin: I look at the results as a work of art. Basically, Gavin is the canvas, and Leah is painted on top, and that's what I'm looking at. When I'm all made up, the hair and all the rest of it, what I create, I find very erotic.

Early in the documentary, we meet Sue, a cardiac nurse from London. At the time of filming, Gavin and Sue had been together for six years. Sue describes how they met in a nightclub:

Sue: It was my first experience of a tranny club. Leah was wearing a fantastic black rubber outfit and I had just been out to a gig with my friends, and they said: What do you think of this person, do you think they're a real girl or a boy? And I said wow! Who cares? They look so fantastic.

What struck me about Leah while watching the documentary (a bit like Sue) was how fantastically beautiful she looked. I found myself riveted to the screen. As a trained observer, I look closely at crossdressers, and just about everybody has some "tells" (or in my own case, "screams"). Leah seemed to have nothing: the hair was convincing, the face was convincing, the figure and the cleavage were convincing; and not just convincing but fabulous. I was deeply envious, especially (and I couldn't quite believe it) when there was a short segment showing Sue and Leah, dressed more or less identically, sitting close in bed. In case you haven't watched it, Sue is blonde and slim and extremely attractive.

Interviewer: So who are you most turned on by? Yourself, or Sue?
Leah: If I was really honest... myself. (Sue nods).
Interviewer: Do you masturbate dressed as Leah?
Leah: Yes, I do.

In the next scene we see them shopping together. "We are the same size," Gavin explains, and this makes it easy for Sue to try on clothing or shoes which are actually for Leah.

The documentary also introduces Darlene, who lives in Sydney, Australia, but represents Egypt in the competition. Darlene was banished from her family when she came out to them at the age of 18, but was aware she was differently gendered from the age of 6. She hadn't seen her family for 4 years.

Darlene: You have to understand. Just because I have a penis, doesn't make me any less of a woman than any other woman.

Darlene in a different competition

Darlene has a website here, and you can see a lot more of her here on her YouTube channel.

Darlene: I'm not here to promote Thailand tourism. I'm here to join Miss International Queen. To compete. To see where I stand.

Darlene's brother was getting married at the time, and Darlene was invited to attend, but only if she attended as a boy. This was clearly very painful for her. She has had some surgery to appear more feminine, but hadn't had sex-reassignment surgery at the time of filming; this may have changed.

At the time Leah entered the competition, there were 26 competitors in the competition. Most of the competitors were transsexuals, and professional performers to boot, used to working a crowd. Leah is described as the only "full-time man" in the competition. Gavin has to work "twice as hard" as the other competitors. He takes deportment lessons, complete with the classical walking with a book balanced on his head.

As the competition progresses, the relationship with Sue becomes visibly strained. Like a prima donna, Leah becomes irritable, petulant, snappy and demanding. Sue weeps, and Leah admits she wishes it was over because it was so stressful. After the first round, a 4-minute "talent act", where he misreads his audience completely, Gavin's confidence droops even lower.

Gavin: If you want to be put off a dress for the rest of your life, this is the way to do it. I'm not really getting a huge amount of enjoyment about dressing up every morning, for a purpose. At home, I feel quite special. In the tranny world I usually stand head and shoulders, you know, near the top of the tree. I don't feel like that here.

Gavin uses his engineering skills to design a national costume for Leah, one which is "feminine and visually exciting", and "a bit more technical round the back". In a moment of national pride, his costume extends two Union Jack flags, but at the last minute he is told that he cannot extend it on stage because it takes up too much room. He defies the instructions and extends the costume anyway, but fails to win. Darlene's costume is a Nefertiti-Queen of the Nile thing, with swooping wings.

Neither Leah nor Darlene do well in the competition, and the eventual winner is Miss Mexico.

Darlene: I'll do whatever it takes to find love. Even if it's coming from a different avenue, a different type of love. I found a few friends that love me, that care about me. Now that I found that, you know, I want to find someone that can love me, and be with me. And that is so hard to find.

Why did Leah enter that competition? Without doubt, Leah looks fantastic. But she was competing against competitors who had had hormones, surgery, practice, and (in most cases) were a lot younger than her. What made Gavin think that he could pull it off? Was it confidence? Arrogance even? Afterwards Gavin is seen reviewing the tapes of the competition and expressing some bitterness about being treated unfairly. But, objectively, I think Leah True's talent act was lifeless, and I think winning that competition is not just about looking fantastic in a frock, but about personality and sparkle. I don't think Leah was ever in with a chance of winning.

Of the two competitors, Leah gets (I estimate) 75% of the camera's time (it was a British production, after all), and yet Darlene is the more entertaining. Darlene said she was entering the competition to win, but I really think she was looking to prove something: perhaps prove to her family, perhaps prove to herself, perhaps prove to a future husband, that she is accepted for who she is. Not just accepted, but adored, desired, worshipped. Loved?

Darlene: If suddenly you see I'm not there? That means I've stolen the crown and the chair, and run for Bangkok.

Given the choice of which of them to take out to dinner, I would take Darlene any day of the week. She just comes across as being more fun. The decision is (for me) nothing to do with who seems the more beautiful to look at.

On a completely different note, a point which is made is that, when you crossdress for pleasure, it's wonderful; but when you crossdress for a purpose, it becomes hard work. I suppose lots of crossdressers would quite value a valid excuse to dress more frequently, but when it becomes a chore, it loses a lot of its shine. Here's Helen Boyd from My Husband Betty:

Helen Boyd: Ali says he knew he was "just a crossdresser" when he agreed to be in a documentary film about tranvestism in his native England. After three days of putting on nylons it was no fun any more, and he knew he didn't want to crossdress every day.

Photo credit: Sally Payne / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

And yet, compared to what most crossdressers have got, what does Gavin have to complain about? He has a gorgeous partner who loves him (and deserves a gold medal for putting up with some of his selfish antics); he can dress freely in front of her (and she even admits she quite fancies Leah- phew!) He looks absolutely dazzling when he puts the gear on. It must be pretty close to crossdressing Nirvana.

Gavin: I'm very very good at what I do. I'm probably one of the best in the world at what I do.

But the documentary doesn't end with the end of the competition. It follows Gavin's journey back to Britain, and where he finally "with [his] new-found confidence" comes out to his astonished parents, showing them large glossy prints of Leah. And it seems that the competition was, for Gavin, about validation too.

Gavin's Mum: I always wanted a daughter. They're [the photographs] absolutely incredible. That's wonderful, that one.

Gavin's mum seems unexpectedly unfazed, indeed somewhat impressed, by Leah. There follows a tearful hug between Gavin and his mum. It would be a nice moment to end on, but instead we end with a weeping Darlene, expressing a wish to be hugged and accepted by her own mother.

Leah and Sue were interviewed a few years later on the popular This Morning show in the UK. Unfortunately the website won't give me access from outside the UK, so I can't tell you what was said. Answers on a postcard please. If you want to see more photos of Leah, you can check out her Facebook profile photos. Leah doesn't have a website; at least not one that I have come across, so there is no way to know what she is currently doing.

I didn't figure this out when I first watched this documentary, but it seems abundantly clear that Gavin has autogynephilia: show me a box he doesn't tick! And in turn, I think that Darlene is probably an early-transitioning transsexual; what Cloudy would call an HSTS. But you might disagree! Please post your comments below.

I consider several of the people I have blogged about to be heroes: people whose achievements or behaviour are inspirational to me in one form or another. Though I think Leah looks fantastic and I wish her nothing but the best, I haven't accorded her this accolade: I don't consider her to be an example I seek to follow.

My final point is this one. This blog, for me, is at least partly about my own validation. It's about trying to make something positive out of crossdressing. About me trying to point out to the world that I am not a pervert or a freak, but a nice sensitive guy who happens to like wearing a dress. And 10,000 hits is a pretty resounding validation. When you look at either Leah or Darlene they each seem so successful, so beautiful, that you would think that they wouldn't need validation (surely a case of res ipsa loquitur!). But it's really interesting that they both do; as I suspect quite a few of us do, and I don't know whether to be pleased I am in that company, or disheartened that no level of beauty will make my deep inner insecurities go away.