Shifting Sands

Although it's over a year since its release, I came across this amazing publication, and I wanted to give it wider recognition.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) is the medical college responsible for setting training standards for doctors specialising in the field of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Australasia. So it's a very large, prestigious, academic organisation.

As most medical colleges do, it publishes a flagship academic journal; but also a more informal publication, O&G Magazine, which I admit I had never come across until I saw a pile of them lying in my hospital. The top one caught my eye, because it was colourful, and because it looked like Tetris (which is one of my favourite games). When I looked closer, I saw that the theme of this particular issue was "LGBTQIA", so I picked it up to have a read. I was immediately captivated. Best of all, the entire issue is available free online here.

Let's start with the editorial, from incoming RANZCOG President Dr Vijay Roach:

Roach: This issue of O&G Magazine addresses an important aspect of social, cultural and clinical life in Australia and New Zealand. Members of the LGBTI community have experienced a long history of marginalisation and discrimination, often to the detriment of their physical and mental healthcare. While the College acknowledges a diversity of opinion in the community and among our members on many issues, on one thing we are united: RANZCOG believes that every person, independent of their sexual orientation, has the right to high-quality medical care. 

In 2017, the RANZCOG Board issued a statement on same-sex marriage which read, in part '… the Board affirms its support for marriage equality and calls upon the Australian Parliament to ensure equal opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians in same-sex relationships and their families …' I was proud to be a member of that Board and grateful to then-President Prof Steve Robson for his leadership.

In this issue, the O&G Magazine editors have assembled a diverse series of articles relevant to the care of the LGBTI community. It is compelling reading and relevant to everyone’s practice.

The list of articles is impressive:

Fertility options for gender and sexually diverse people (Bronwyn Devine)
Rainbow IVF (Sarah van der Wal)
Gender dysphoria (Simone Buzwell)
Gender dysphoria: a paediatric perspective (Noel Friesen)
Fertility preservation in the transgender child and adolescent (Tamara Hunter)
Intersex: variations in sex characteristics (Jennifer Beale)
What do intersex people need from doctors? (Morgan Carpenter)
Hormonal treatment of the transgender adult (Rosemary Jones)
Surgery for transgender individuals (Charlotte Elder)
LGBTQIA gynaecological screening (Kimberley Ivory)
Takatāpui (Elizabeth Kerekere)
Tekwabi Giz National LGBTI Health Alliance (Rebecca Johnson)
Glass closets and the hidden curriculum of medical school (Amy Coopes)
Australia's queer history (Robert French)

I read these articles with two sets of eyes. The first were my medical eyes: was this the sort of thing that, as a doctor, would be helpful for me to read? The answer is clearly yes. The second were my transgender eyes: was this the sort of thing that, as a trans person myself, I would want doctors to read and know? The answer is also a clear yes. There is no doubt that transgender people are becoming more and more visible; their care has been, in the main, not that great; most doctors have very little training in care of transgender people, and reliable resources for doctors to draw upon are few.

The various authors all have special expertise and interest in their various fields, which is commendable. But it's the range of subjects which strikes me as particularly noteworthy. I've sometimes felt that the T is kind of tacked on to the end of LGB as an afterthought. But here we are, right in the middle, with articles dealing with not just hormones and surgery but issues like fertility and childhood and emotional wellbeing. Amazing.

I was pleased to note that the tone of all the articles was spot on, from the acceptance of the individuals, to recognition that care matters but is frequently lacking, to pragmatic information and guidance for practitioners.

There are several points which are very much worth making about a publication of this type.

(1) First, it's great that a major medical college is being so overtly inclusive. That alone is magnificent. RANZCOG is setting an example for others to follow. There has been lots of Twitter support for the issue.

(2) Second, most medical colleges publish guidelines for the care of patients with X condition. What strikes me about this one is a subtle but powerful shift in tone: not "this is what these patients are like" but "this is us, and that's OK". As Amy Coopes points out in her article, there is still great stigma in medicine if you are gay or non-binary. So a publication like this is extremely affirming. As a transgender person with a medical degree myself, I immediately wanted to reach out and make contact, so I wrote to RANZCOG and congratulated them on their magazine (and I’m not the only one: there is a very heartfelt response from a gay obstetrician in the following issue here).

(3) I wouldn't have necessarily expected O&G to be the specialty which would deal with the care of transwomen. Post-transition, care could potentially be complex, since O&G specialists are more used to the care of people with a uterus and vagina than a prostate gland. But this issue seems to be saying to its readers: don't panic, you can do it! It's started me discussing these issues with some of my colleagues much more openly than previously.

Whether you are medical or not, it's well worth having a browse through this magazine. If you're aware of any other medical organisations being explicitly rainbow-inclusive, please let me know.

Women with Beards

My recent article on Conchita Wurst (and all of the discussion she has provoked) got me thinking in a more general way about women with beards. In fact there are many variations on this notion, which I hope to explore briefly below, and round up with a discussion at the end.

The History Books

La Mujer Barbuda

There are two bearded women which I am aware of from the history books. First, the semi-legendary Saint Wilgefortis, dating from the 14th century. I've actually written about Wilgefortis before in this blog. According to Wikipedia, no precise details of Wilgefortis' life can be verified. The legend is that, as a beautiful teenager, she was promised in marriage to a cruel nobleman. She prayed to God to deliver her from this fate, and promptly sprouted a beard. This angered her father and he had her crucified, and her traditional depiction is a crucified woman, with a beard (often with one shoe missing).

A more pragmatic (and to me, plausible) explanation is that some statues of the crucified Jesus were created, wearing a robe instead of the expected loincloth, and the legend of a crucified, bearded woman was cooked up to explain this away.

The next figure from history has been immortalised by the artist Jusepe de Ribera, in his 1631 portrait entitled La Mujer Barbuda (The Bearded Woman). Take a look at the painting. To me, it looks exactly like a portrait of a man; there is nothing feminine at all about the face, including the male pattern of hair at the forehead.

My first impression of this portrait was that Ribera had deliberately painted a man, dressed in a gown and suckling an infant. Then I started to read more. It turns out that the story of the figure in the painting is well-known and corroborated. She actually was a bearded woman; the miserable-looking guy in the background is her husband. Her name was Magdalena Ventura from Abruzzi, and at the time of the portrait, she was 52 years old. She bore her husband three sons before growing a beard at the age of 37. Some aspects of her life are recorded in Latin on the stone tablet at the bottom right of the picture.

Annie Jones

Some aspects of the painting are allegorical: at 52, she would be too old to bear a child or breast-feed, but Ribera has included this aspect to deliberately underline the female sex of the subject of the portrait. Ribera also had a reputation for deliberately painting accurate but cruel depictions of people with disfigurements, such as The Club-Footed Boy. What this says to me is that Ribera's depiction was probably reasonably accurate. Did he go out of his way to enhance the apparent masculinity of the image? It's hard to say for sure; I think probably not. It's clear, however, that he didn't make any effort to flatter the subject.

The Circus Freak

The next, and most widely-known, archetype of the bearded woman is the Circus Freak.

Freak shows entered their heyday in the 19th and early 20th centuries, exhibiting malformed, and disfigured humans as objects of scorn, ridicule and sometimes loathing. Dwarves, giants, conjoined twins and other rare anomalies (such as Joseph Merrick, the "Elephant Man") were staples of this form of popular entertainment. In this environment, bearded women were right at home, as this example Annie Jones, shows. I can't imagine what those performers were forced to do, in order to prove that they were actually women (and not simply men in frocks), but I suspect it was degrading and unpleasant in the extreme.

Jennifer Miller

A debate continues to this day over the role of such shows. Some showmen, such as Tom Norman, argued that his shows allowed people who were unable to work normally to provide a living for themselves. (Indeed, some people continue to deliberately exhibit themselves in this manner even today, such as the performer Black Scorpion). Critics argued that the shows were cruel, exploitative and inhuman. Eventually, of course, they were banned, but I see their echoes today in documentaries about conjoined twins, or people with morbid obesity. I think the public appetite for gawping at unfortunate people has not, in general, gone away.

Modern Examples

This brings me on to some modern examples. The first one I came across was Jennifer Miller, whom I saw in a TV documentary. Miller's beard started to slowly grow in in her early twenties. According to this interview, she has had an ambivalent relationship with it ever since.

Miller: I embraced the idea of it right away, and then had on-and-off relationships with it over the years. I basically believed that it was a good idea to keep it, but that it wasn’t always easy. I felt stronger and weaker about wearing it depending on what was happening. If at some point I were just feeling more vulnerable in general, that would make it harder. If I was worried about getting a job, I might feel some doubt about my commitment to keeping it.



Mariam with Harnam Kaur

Miller has worked as a circus performer, but also a writer and a university lecturer.

And then, more recently, a woman identified only as Mariam was interviewed on British television. Born in Germany, Mariam's beard started to grow after the birth of her son, 28 years ago. According to this article, she used to pluck out each hair every day with tweezers, but eventually decided to let it grow out.

Mariam keeps a blog of her own. She is quite open about how difficult it is to live as a woman with a beard. She writes:

Mariam: I remember, that when I was a child, I always wanted to be a boy. Boys had more freedom than girls. Could be more wild and climb on trees and do all these handycraft things that I liked.

In our family it was better to be a male, because then everybody believed in the success and intelligence of this person.

Meanwhile I appreciate myself as a woman and I see what I can do as a woman, and that I am not better or worse than a man. And I must say I am not all the time aware about being a woman. I feel like a being. And I would say some of my abilities you can name male others female. I do not like this labeling with male and female. I would wish we could just be ourselves and not to be fixed on any gender or sex.

Alex Drummond

Mariam describes unpleasant incidents in public places, such as people taking pictures or video of her on their phones, without permission. As a result, she (naturally) avoids very public places.

Genderqueer

Until now, I have considered only genetic women with beards. But I can't help finding an overlap with genderqueer: an expression of gender which is neither male nor female, but both, neither, or any variation you like. Is a woman who deliberately sports a beard genderqueer? Maybe, I guess.

Conchita Wurst has, without perhaps being genderqueer herself, driven that aesthetic into the public eye. But what about people who live that life all the time, and will continue to do so once Conchita's star has faded?

Photographer Alex Drummond is one such person.

Drummond: Being transgender gives me a unique perspective on my work. Born as ‘male’ but having always identified as female I nowadays embrace genderqueer as a way of living authentically as a trans-female.

Some people will live in a full time presentation of their preferred gender, others will live part-time. And a whole new movement is emerging of people who are living between genders, embracing the potentials of gender-queer and gender-fluidity.

Azis

Part of Drummond's website is given over to a blog, but as you could expect from a photographer, it's quite image-heavy. I wonder to myself whether Drummond experiences the same public reaction as Mariam? And is it a problem?

Some people seem to just like the deliberate androgyny, the deliberate mixture of male and female, that you get by combining an essentially feminine aesthetic, with an undeniable statement of masculinity: a beard. One example seems to be Bulgarian singer Azis, pictured here. Azis is apparently another Eurovision alumnus, having co-performed Bulgaria's entry in the 2006 competition, which finished a resounding 17th.

And I guess finally there is farce, the deliberate use of the beard with female costume as an instrument of amusement or comedy. As I have frequently mentioned on this blog, I don't think crossdressing as a vehicle for comedy is funny. Likewise, I find deliberate farce to do with crossdressing to be, at best, in poor taste, and at worst, hurtful.

Richard Branson: seriously?

Nonetheless, it's hard to get too steamed up by Richard Branson's performance. After losing a bet with Air Asia chief executive Tony Fernandez, Branson had himself made over as a Virgin stewardess, complete with uniform, high heels and fishnet stockings, and served drinks on a 6-hour flight from Australia to Kuala Lumpur. I can't say that he looks especially gorgeous, but I admire his courage and his sense of humour in agreeing to honour the bet (and no-one could accuse him of somehow not fulfilling his end of the bargain).

What do I think about all this?

My first thought, on seeing photographs of Jennifer Miller, Mariam and Harnam Kaur, is that they look very strange. Without doubt, the juxtaposition of a beard-- that most masculine characteristic-- on a woman, causes a slight jolt of surprise, which makes you look again. For whatever reasons: hormonal, or genetic or just plain bad luck, it is clear that women can also grow beards.

I am certain that the women who keep the beard represent the tip of the iceberg. (On Mariam's blog, some of the commentators admire her courage, while admitting that they rid themselves of their own heavy facial hair). I think therefore there are probably many hundreds of women out there who deal with the facial hair with wax, or electrolysis, or laborious plucking. I can completely understand this: the societal pressure must be huge.

That makes me think that for those women who embrace their beards, there must be something different that makes them willing to resist that societal pressure. Unlike Annie Jones a century or more ago, women in the 21st century have a choice about whether to have a beard. Having it permanently removed would be reasonably expensive, and reasonably uncomfortable, but certainly doable.

For bearded women, it must come to be their defining characteristic. It reminds me of the old joke about the two men in the pub overlooking the little village in Scotland. One laments to the other that, despite his lifetime of contribution to the life of the village, they still haven't honoured him with a decent nickname. "Do they call me Hamish the boat builder? Or Hamish the roofer? No! But you shag one sheep...!"

The same is true of bearded women. Do we know these women for their other accomplishments or qualities? No. The reason they are here for me to write about is their outlandishness. Is that what they like? The notoriety? Does that make up for the whispers and the stares and the rude picture-taking? Is that why they keep their beards?

And yet, Mariam speaks on her blog of simply wanting to live as herself. Isn't that exactly what I want? What other trans people want? Doesn't it bother us when people focus on why we cross-dress? Isn't it enough that we say that the why doesn't matter?

What Alex Drummond and other genderqueer people do is (from my perspective) a also bit weird-looking and a bit inexplicable. And yet, is what I do not a bit weird-looking and a bit inexplicable from someone else's perspective? How can I plead for sympathy and acceptance while not granting it (automatically!) to someone else?

Comments welcome, whether you are bearded or unbearded. If you are interested in women with big muscles, why not read my article about Female Bodybuilding? You might also be interested in the related, but different topics, Men in Skirts, and Men with Long Nails.

===
Addendum 17th July 2014

If you're going to Saaaan Francisco...

A local news website has reported that men with flowers in their beards are "the latest hipster trend".

Apparently "spreading like wildfire" across image-sharing websites, the website gives 10 examples, captioned with more than a hint of mockery.

Though it doesn't especially do it for me, I don't really see what the fuss is about.

Meanwhile, I have been discovering that one of the reasons Harnam Kaur (above) does not remove her beard is that her particular religion, Sikhism, mandates complete acceptance of the body in the way it was born, and forbids the cutting of hair for both men and women. I think that helps to explain her motivation. For some people, that must be a pretty tough commandment to live up to, and I salute Harnam Kaur for her adherence to it.

Wurst Case Scenario

For those of you who don't live in Europe, the Eurovision Song Contest is an annual tournament of pop music which involves most European nations (and a few which are not, strictly speaking, in Europe, such as Israel). The rules are that each country submits a brand new song by a chosen artist (often a newcomer act), which must be performed live on the night of the contest.


What's the Wurst that could happen?

The contest has given rise, over the years since 1956, to some very famous acts, such as ABBA, and even Celine Dion, singing for Switzerland in 1988. However, the tendency of some acts to compete in bizarre costume and with bizarre lyrics (who could forget the majestic poetry of Ding-a-Dong?), lends the entire contest an air of camp, verging at times on the farcical. It's screened live all over Europe, and it's a wonderful evening's entertainment, albeit pretty low-brow.

The other problem with the contest is the tendency of countries to vote for their political allies, regardless of the artistic merit of the songs. Each country, including the minnows like Malta, is allocated an equal weight of voting in the contest. This tends to make for some tension, as occasionally obviously good songs get gradually nudged downward in the rankings by political voting.

This year, of course, the winner was Austria, whose artist, Conchita Wurst, won by a comfortable margin. So far, so normal. What is different about this contest (and the reason I am writing about it) is that Conchita Wurst is a drag queen, with a beard. (I love that in German, wurst means sausage). Take a look:

Before Wurst even sang in the contest, she came under fire from Russia, Belarus and Armenia, who demanded she withdraw. Russian lawmaker Vitaly Milonov branded Eurovision a "hotbed of sodomy", while Armenian competitor Aram Mp3 described her as "not natural". Russia, in particular, has been institutionally homophobic for many years.

If the Wurst comes to the Wurst

Though I haven't listened to all the songs for this year, I don't think this one, Rise Like a Phoenix, is all that brilliant. Even allowing for the handful of songs by fishwives in knitted shawls with accordions, which we are usually treated to in Eurovision, I can't believe this one, though it's all well and good, is actually the best in the competition. (The second-place song, Calm After the Storm by the Netherlands' Common Linnets, is, I think, a much better song).

And that leads me to believe that something else is responsible for Wurst winning the contest.

The most obvious thing which strikes one about Wurst is her appearance. Conchita Wurst is the drag persona of Tom Neuwirth. As a woman (i.e. without the beard), she would be absolutely dazzling; a knockout. On the other hand, the beard looks very odd indeed, very disturbing and out of place (while everything else, from the exquisitely curved eyelashes to the lip gloss, to the flowing gowns and fabulous shoes, screams "gorgeous woman!").

But perhaps gorgeous drag queens are too common; too mainstream? Perhaps an "ordinary" drag queen wouldn't have captured everyone's attention. The beard, without doubt, is the hook. The beard is also cosmetically enhanced; it looks just too perfect. And yet, Wurst is beautiful, in a strange and unusual way. Like chilli pepper on fruit salad, the whole package kinda works. I think it may be because she reminds me of another figure, with long flowing hair, a light beard, and deep, soulful eyes.

Wurst bears an unmistakeable resemblance to popular depictions of Jesus. There is no evidence that this is intentional, but it is (at least to my eyes) inescapable. Before you deluge me with hate mail, I intend to draw no further parallels between those two figures (and other commentators have noted a resemblance to a much more secular figure, Kim Kardashian).

Wurst hasn't been the first gender-blurring competitor in Eurovision. Israeli transsexual Dana International won the competition in 1998, with her song, Diva. Wurst isn't even the first bearded woman in the contest: France's 2008 entrant, Sebastian Tellier, had a backing group of five women with false beards (to match his natural one), when he sang his song Divine.

Kim and Conchita. Which is Wurst?

When she won the competition, a delighted and emotional Wurst took the microphone:

Wurst: This night is dedicated to everyone who believes in a future of peace and freedom. You know who you are - we are unity and we are unstoppable.

I dream of a world where we don't have to talk about unnecessary things like sexuality, who you love. I felt like tonight Europe showed that we are a community of respect and tolerance.

Wurst's particular appearance is more in alignment with genderqueer than anything else I can think of. Nonetheless, from her personal website, it seems clear that tolerance is her most deliberate and explicit message. And for this, I think she deserves our congratulation and support. Though her motivations for wearing a frock may differ from my own, I think she is doing positive things to further acceptance of trans people in general.

And I think the reason that Wurst won Eurovision was the combination of those two things. First, that gimmick: an outrageous bearded drag queen, eye-catching and flamboyant, beautiful and proud. This might not have been enough to do it, but set against the background of Russian homophobia, it gave the more progressive Western nations the opportunity to poke one in the eye of those stuffy old Russkies; a chance which they couldn't pass up.

By competition rules, Austria will host the contest next year. At least one commentator is predicting a lot of false beards among the audience!

No sausages were harmed in the writing of this blog post, though some had the Wurst night of their lives. No more puns on the name: I promise!

===
Addendum 22nd May 2014

Some of my commentators, including Janice, below, have pointed out that Conchita Wurst's name, although it translates as sausage, was chosen because of the German phrase es ist mir Wurst, meaning it's all the same to me. Whilst I accept this argument, I can't help thinking that sausage is also an excellent drag queen name, because of it's suggestive nature. Mind you, in the context of drag queens, it's hard to find the name of any fruit, vegetable or foodstuff which is free of suggestive connotation!

But taking the name literally, one Austrian butcher has produced an actual Conchita Wurst, a sausage with her face on every slice. How wonderful is that?

Meanwhile, the trans blogosphere has been convulsed with debate about the exact place (if any) that Conchita Wurst occupies, and whether she is doing us good, or harm, by her antics.

One viewpoint seems to be that Conchita Wurst is the female drag persona of a male entertainer, and that therefore Wurst isn't trans at all. A second viewpoint seems to be that, as a man in a dress, Wurst is perceived as being trans by the general public, whoever they might be, and is (whether we like it or not) going to get lumped in alongside the rest of us crossdressers, transsexuals, and so on. A third viewpoint, from the trans community (and expressed by Tasi in the comment to this article) is that, by deliberately mashing together a beard and a beautiful woman, Wurst is doing harm to the trans community by furthering a popular perception that we are all a bunch of weirdos.

I have been struggling with my own feelings about Wurst, but nobody has put it better than my correspondent Janice Lacey. With her agreement, and building on her comment below, I am quoting her here:

Janice: Firstly let me state that I wasn’t at all impressed with the bearded lady thing and deleted nearly all the posts on the social group I follow referencing it. I personally felt threatened by someone dressing as I like to, and also sporting facial hair. That being said, I eventually put aside my own fears of this subject and dived in with both feet.

I read about a boy with a desire to dress as a girl. I can identify with that. He was restricted from doing so and I can identify with that too. He is teased because of his desires and I can identify with that. At some point, when he had gained the confidence and tough skin one needs to be dual-gendered he creates a character that goes beyond the envelopes of discrimination. Not just wearing a dress, but wearing fabulous dresses. And why not? Just add in the beard to really irritate those that hate him and discriminate against him. Conchita was born.

As Conchita, Tom is allowed to wear a dress. The little boy that only wanted to wear a dress is now allowed to dress as he pleases. The beard, in my opinion, represents the male child. Tom is a performer and loves to sing, and as a drag performer is able to earn a living singing while wearing a dress.

Lastly let me summarize my thoughts: Tom Neuwirth and Conchita Wurst are a threat to me as a trans-gendered person. So much is being said about her being “Trans” that people are going to be looking at me and wondering if I am like her.

I AM MOST DEFINITELY NOT! I stand for something deeper, more significant, more important, and more meaningful!

Whoa there! What did I just say? My statement could also be made by my coworkers, my friends, my parents, my wife, or perhaps your parents, friends, co-workers and wife that can’t accept you as you are completely. How can I be who I am, as both Janice and James, and expect the general populace to accept me while I stand in as judge and jury against someone so totally different from myself? Tom/Conchita is unique, but not all that different from me really.

I vote to support his cause, for in doing so I am released from my own fears.

One of my correspondents wrote of Wurst: She makes us look ridiculous. She's neither man nor woman but a half-assed caricature of both. And while I can completely understand this viewpoint, from someone who wants to look as feminine as possible, I can't help thinking that, actually, that same comment could equally be applied to me, or other crossdressers.

Janice's comment has crystallised it for me. I cannot demand acceptance for myself as a crossdresser, and refuse that same acceptance to someone else who has a different way of presenting themselves.

Seriously not helping - Part One

In this blog, as you know, I celebrate all sorts of human expression, particularly if it's to do with clothing or gender role. I am all for relaxation of societal attitudes and acceptance of men (in particular) who want to wear women's clothing in public. But a few items have lately caught my eye on the Internet, and reminded me that there are people out there who are seriously not helping.

Howard: seriously??

The first incident is this one. A grey-haired man wearing female heels, underwear, and basically nothing else, fronted up at an airport to board a plane for an internal flight across the US. Passengers complained about the man, but the airline (US Air) allowed him to board the aircraft because they "don't have a dress code policy".

The man, identified only as "Howard", says he is a business consultant, and "does it for fun". As can be seen here, he willingly poses for photos taken by other passengers. This incident is not isolated; it seems Howard, from Phoenix, likes to fly around the US wearing ridiculous female attire, and there are quite a few pictures and videos of him out there.

Howard asserts: "It has never been my intent to put people in a situation where they feel uncomfortable. I try to respect other people's opinions. As long as my dress is not indecent from a legal perspective, and so long as the airline does not object, I have the right to wear what I wear. And others have the right to wear what they want to wear. This is just something I do for fun. I don't mean any harm."

Seriously, though, what is he thinking? As a crossdresser myself, going out dressed in public is desirable and pleasurable. But only (and here is the important bit) if people behave decently. Howard may be having fun, and acting within the law or his rights-- perhaps only just-- but his behaviour is awful. This sort of thing is exactly why I don't want to be associated with crossdressing. He is setting out to deliberately provoke outrage, and by doing so, he is giving the rest of us a bad name. If I saw him dressed like that in an airport, I would protest, loudly.

Rob: seriously??

Okay, the next incident is a few years old now. Rob Moodie, a New Zealander, joins the police force as a young man, rises to the rank of inspector, retires, takes a law degree, and subsequently a PhD. He sounds like a man of irrepressible competence. Then he starts turning up to court wearing girly frocks, then officially changes his name to Miss Alice.

His motivation for this ridiculous behaviour was reported to be "a gender-bending protest against the male-dominated corruption of New Zealand's judicial system".

The NZ Police does mention him on its website, but is uncomfortably tight-lipped about his biography.

Even if New Zealand's judicial system is male dominated (aren't they all?) and even if he isn't the only lawyer in the world who likes to wear women's clothing, how could he possibly do anything other than undermine his own arguments, and attract scorn and contempt? I mean, would you take him seriously? Would you hire him to defend you against criminal charges, or to plead your case in the High Court? (Although just maybe, the judge would throw out the case on the grounds of insanity-- of the counsel, not the defendant!).

What Rob and Howard are doing is not harmless fun. It tarnishes the rest of us by reputation. Members of the public, looking at them, might conclude that all crossdressers are flagrant, disturbing and unrestrained. And I have to say, that would be a hard point to refute. Men like these may be few in number, but they have an influence out of proportion to their number, by their memorability and deliberate visibility.


Bradley: seriously??

The third incident is the most recent, and is very different in tone. Bradley Manning, the US Army soldier who leaked the largest cache of secret documents ever released to the public, to WikiLeaks, was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison for his trouble.

I know next to nothing about Bradley Manning, although he has been at the centre of a very, very large media storm.

As a young military officer, he must have surely known that if he violated his duties of secrecy, he would be severely punished. Was he amoral, treacherous, and malicious? Was he acting defiantly, out of an unshakeable moral sense that what he was doing was right? Or was he a disturbed and volatile young man who should never have been allowed anywhere near national secrets? (And I bet there has been a lot of uncomfortable discussion behind tightly-closed doors: "Okay, whose idea was it to give Manning the passwords?")

I can't answer those questions. All I can say is that it was brought up in the trial, in his defence, that Manning is a young man of uncertain sexual orientation, who has deliberately dressed as a woman. In fact, a photo was shown in support of this point. It's not a very good photo, but it makes the point.

Whatever you may make of Bradley's actions, or his punishment, the association between Manning's actions and his crossdressing carries extremely uncomfortable implications. For me at least, it seemed to be saying: of course this young man is unstable! He likes to dress as a woman! He must be crazy! Any man who dresses like that can't be OK.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter to me whether Manning is a transvestite or not (but see below!). What matters is the way this has been portrayed in the court, associating crossdressing with mental instability, moral weakness, and dangerous national disloyalty. In this case, it's not Manning himself who is not helping, but his defence. (Though I must admit I would clutch at any straws, even this one, if I thought it would keep me out of prison).

In any event, I suspect that Manning's next few years in prison at Fort Leavenworth will be uncomfortable. And I mean, seriously.

===
Addendum

Sometimes events can change pretty rapidly. In the last couple of days, Manning has released this statement:

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).

Just a couple of comments spring to mind. The use of the phrase "I am Chelsea Manning", not "My name is Chelsea Manning" is a powerful statement of identity. The statement "I am female" is less clear-cut, partly because it's hard to argue that it's true. Finally, Manning's remark about "except in official mail" seems to be an overt recognition that she can insist who she is, all she likes, but the Army will not recognise that insistence.

The Army's statement is as follows:

All inmates are considered soldiers and are treated as such with access to mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, social workers and behavioral science non-commissioned officers with experience in addressing the needs of military personnel in pre- and post-trial confinement. The army does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder.

So that's that, then. Paris Lees, herself a transwoman who has spent time in prison, comments that Manning hid her gender-identity disorder because she feared she would be treated more harshly by the military justice system. I admit, I can see this angle (but why then bring it up at the trial?). On the other hand, I am somewhat more cynical. I can see that a young man, facing 35 years of military detention, might try to do anything-- anything-- which would mitigate the unpleasantness of that experience to some degree. To announce a desire to change sex, right now, would seem to be a desperate plea to be treated a little more gently, by what is clearly going to be a very harsh and punitive prison environment.

My concern is that this strategy backfires, and that Manning ends up being treated even more harshly. I don't blame Manning for what she is trying to do, but I believe that she is nowhere near in the right place to be taking decisions of this magnitude.

===
Addendum 11th October 2013

For the detailed accounts and pictures of someone who regularly flies crossdressed, and does so responsibly and with circumspection, I suggest Kimberly Huddle's blog here.

===
Addendum 18th July 2014

Tyler: seriously??

The BBC has just reported that Chelsea Manning is to be allowed some "gender treatment" while incarcerated.

===
Addendum 9th May 2016

My thanks to Megan Martin for drawing my attention to the case of Tyler Grant, who identifies as genderqueer (and prefers gender-neutral pronouns), who was thrown out of their local fast food outlet in Texas by a police officer when they tried to get a burger wearing this leopardskin number, with stockings and heels. The whole thing was recorded on video, so we know it happened.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that it was transphobia driven,” Grant says. “I explained (to the manager) that… (my outfit) was no more revealing than yoga pants and a tank top.”

Grant's friend adds another layer: “Now I don’t know if there are dressing regulations at <burger outlet> or not, but the officer didn’t seem to intend on enforcing any (regulations) while under the assumption that Tyler was female. The fact that he suddenly had a problem with it after finding out that Tyler was a ‘dude’ is what I find to be discriminatory. It appeared that he was okay with a girl wearing such clothing, but for (Tyler) to wear such clothes was suddenly crossing the line.”

I have to say, Tyler looks a knockout in that outfit. I wish I looked half that good. But seriously, wearing that to go out for a burger? Megan points out that any woman might easily face difficulties going out in the evening wearing that outfit, and Grant's innocent denial seems hopelessly naïve at best. For this, Tyler Grant gets admitted to the Seriously Not Helping Hall of Fame. Ta-daaah!

Further applicants welcome!

===
Addendum: 15th September 2017

Chelsea Manning since release

Chelsea Manning was released from prison back in May 2017. She has left the army. Before she was jailed, it seemed that the only picture anyone had seen was the fuzzy monochrome selfie in the car. It's definitely not the most flattering picture in the world.

However, since release, Manning has appeared on TV and given interviews to several media sources. She looks a lot better, and I thought, in the interests of fairness, that I should put up a more recent picture of her, to set the record straight.

I think that selfie will be associated with Manning for ever more, but it's only a matter of time before much more flattering pictures of her become the accepted norm.

===

Addendum: For more people who are seriously not helping, take a look here.

Men in Skirts

Most of this blog is about men who want to appear as feminine as possible, including some who want to transition. It's only fair that we consider those at the other end of the spectrum.

Recently my friend Ralph (read his blog here) posted on his blog about Mike at Fashion Freestyler. I clicked on over, and from there clicked on some other links. It seems there is a whole community of men out there who are saying: "Hey, I'm a guy. I don't want a fem name. I don't want to wear makeup or false breasts, or a wig. I just like to wear skirts. Deal with it!"



Ralph channelling his inner kendo master

Ralph isn't the first such person I have come across, but he is the one I know best of all, from our email correspondence. I admire his wisdom and his relaxed attitude, but I struggle to comprehend his motivations. (I suppose someone might well say they struggle to comprehend mine!). By his own admission, Ralph is most comfortable wearing a dress or a skirt or a nightgown, so he does, pretty much all the time. He admits he treats his clothing as any man would: wads it up and leaves it lying around for next time. He doesn't do shoes, or cosmetics, or wigs, or hair removal. It seems to be just a comfort thing.

Even his online avatar is designed to mimic his real life appearance: a slightly bearded man wearing a dress.

Ralph's comment about Mike is "This dude gets it. He doesn’t want to be a girl; he doesn’t want to make clothing a part of his sex life… he just wants the barriers between “what women wear” and “what men wear” torn down and be free to wear what he finds comfortable from either side of the aisle."

For his part, Mike writes:

I started as most crossdressers start, by wanting to wear clothing that was typically associated with women. Everything from skirts to make-up to pink. But unlike other crossdressers I did not desire to be a female when wearing female garments. I’m happy to be a man. I just want to be able to express myself with greater fashion freedom and less societal pushback. I want men in general to have more choice than the same boring clothing options we always get.

I believe in the equality of the genders and I firmly believe that although women still struggle to make headway in society as full equals to men, men also need to make headway into areas that have typically been associated with females. One of those areas being fashion freedom. The genders are not truly equal until a man or a woman can walk down the street in their choice of pants or a dress without being looked at strangely or laughed at. 

Mike at Fashion Freestyler

Mike's blog has several pictures of him, and here he is. I see the dramatic masculine pose. I see the boots, the T-shirt, and the absence of other feminine features (even the skirt isn't especially feminine). In fact, the male barista in my local coffee shop wears an almost identical outfit every day (the "skirt" in his case is a long black apron, but it looks extremely similar), and it has never crossed my mind (nor, probably, his) that he could be considered to be a crossdresser, or a fashion freestyler. If I saw Mike wearing this in the street, I would assume the skirt was some kind of apron, rather than an attempt to break out of the fetters of male fashion.

In another of his posts, Mike is wearing a "kilt-like skirt", which has a vaguely tartan pattern. This makes me smile, since I have frequently worn a real kilt, and it has never crossed my mind that the kilt was in the least feminine. To put just one example, a woman wearing a skirt will deliberately sit with her knees together for modesty, where a man in a kilt will deliberately sit with his knees apart, using the weight of his sporran (the pouch) to keep the folds of the kilt down. (They do say that a "true" Scotsman goes commando under his kilt. Though I have indeed done that, it's not particularly special in any way, and probably a bit unhygienic). Add to that, the "traditional" Highland dress features a dagger in the sock; not exactly a feminine touch.

The kilt and accoutrements as we see them today are (as so many things) a romantic invention which caught on, like the popular image of the chivalrous cowboy. However, it is still an evolving style, and wearing a kilt casually (kilt, belt, boots, plain sporran, T-shirt or rugby shirt) is quite a common sight in Scotland, and not in the least worthy of comment. Kilts are traditionally made of wool patterned as tartan. However, some designers are making kilts out of unorthodox fabrics, such as denim. In addition, for formal wear, some designers are producing a plain black woollen kilt, which I happen to think looks fantastic.

Michael Spookshow

All this talk of kilts brings me on to Michael Spookshow of His Black Dress.com, a "freestyle fashion blog advocating fashion freedom for men. [It] is about men rocking skirts, dresses & heels as everyday attire."

 Michael's term for men who wear kilt-like garments is "Bravehearts", which also makes me smile, as I naturally associate this term with hairy men with woad-splattered faces chasing Mel Gibson across the fields.

The next step, Michael writes, is the "one item rule", where men wear one item of fem clothing amid a standard masculine getup. The purpose of doing this, Michael suggests, is for men as a whole to gain acceptance wearing skirts first, getting a toe in the door, so to speak, before opening it an inch at a time.

Michael regards the final point on his continuum to be complete androgyny. He writes:

As we approach androgyny we must first come into the area I fall into, men who ignore the gender label on clothing. This man will wear skirts, dresses, tights, heels, whatever, but will still keep his appearance male. He believes that clothing has no inherent gender, and that it's silly to put such restrictions on fabric. Speaking personally, to me it's about men having a full range of expression and experiences.

To be fair to Michael, his blog contains many essays describing his thoughts and points of view. It's not really possible or reasonable to summarise all of it here, and I commend you to take a look for yourself. But I don't see complete androgyny to be the end of the spectrum; I consider complete feminine emulation to be the other end of the spectrum from the Bravehearts.

When I look at Michael, I see something quite different. I chose this image as one typical of the many, many hundreds on his blog. I see a man with shaved legs, wearing dresses, skirts, fabulous heels, and deliberately posing in a feminine way (one knee slightly bent, one hand on the hip). To an objective observer, there seems to be something different going on. I wrote to Michael to ask him about this. He replied:

My answer is that I shave my legs because I like the feeling and aesthetics of it, and I don't really understand why such an act should even be reserved solely for women. The answer as to why I don't just "go all the way" when I've already chosen to wear a dress, tights, and heels, is because I don't want to and don't have to. Ironically, despite the fact I'm a makeup artist by trade, I don't like to wear makeup. I don't wear a wig because I don't really like having hair (my baldness is, at present, completely by choice). In making the sartorial choices that I make, my hope is that it challenges some of those preconceived gender stereotypes that have been preordained and foisted upon us. The question of "Why is that man wearing a dress?" will hopefully lead to "What makes a dress for women only anyhow?"

For me, I want to be as feminine as possible. I don't wear one item at a time, and I don't wear fem underwear under male clothing, because that doesn't "do it" enough for me. Not only do I want to look as feminine as possible, I want to look attractive too.



I promise this image is not a hoax!

What strikes me is that Ralph's kendo master, and Mike's aproned barista, don't look remotely feminine, which implies they are doing it for some other reason (though Michael is definitely doing it partly for the appearance). For Ralph it seems to be about comfort; for Mike and Michael, acceptance and freedom, but all of them hint at the tactile pleasures of skirted garments. Indeed, Grok has posted on Ralph's blog about the Skirt Cafe, an online forum devoted to the practice of men wearing skirted garments. Though I am not a member, I am indebted to Grok for bringing to my attention some of the terminology they employ, including skirtonian, a person of either sex who enjoys skirted garments, and the classification of bifurcated or unbifurcated garments. Phew! You know people are starting to take things seriously when they start inventing a whole new vocabulary to describe it!

Indeed the skirtonian inhabitants of Skirt Cafe seem also to have a preoccupation with other skirt-like garments for men, not just the kilt but the kaftan, the abaya, the changshan, and other unbifurcated garments. I don't suppose wearing any of those garments would press my buttons any more than a kilt does; but clearly there are plenty of people who think otherwise.

For myself, I have stumbled across this site, which is all about tights for men. It seems there is indeed a tangible groundswell of men who want the fashion freedom which women currently enjoy; certainly, if Michael Spookshow's hit counter is anything to go by, it's much more popular than discussing crossdressing as a scholarly subject.

Where do these men fit into the autogynephilia spectrum? Do they even fit at all? It's really hard to be sure. This is what makes me think the model maybe isn't as simple as it purports to be, though your comments here would be very welcome. There are other potential exceptions to the model as well, which I will blog about when I get the chance.

Overall, I entirely support the freedom of men to wear whatever they want (how could it be otherwise?). And anyone who does anything to further that cause is OK by me. Carry on, chaps!

You might be interested in the related, but different topics, Men with Long Nails, or Women with Beards, or that perennial question: what do men's underwear and Fight Club have in common?

===

Addendum: 23rd February 2014

Via Helen Boyd, I have just come across this article in the LA Weekly about Brian and Debbie McCloskey. Entitled Brian and Debbie McCloskey: He Wears a Dress. She's Fine With That and written by Gendy Alimurung, the article takes a sympathetic, matter-of-fact approach to an interview with the couple.

Alimurung: He isn't glamorous, like RuPaul. Or creepy, like some weird, bearded guy in a bikini. Or twisted, like the psychotic killer in The Silence of the Lambs. Brian is a slender, willowy brunet who dresses like a prim and proper lady out of a Talbots catalog: classy, conservative, covered. He favors A-line, knee-length dresses and tights, with a cardigan to hide his arms and "man shoulders." He's a modest sort of transvestite. He keeps his hair long. Debbie keeps hers shortish. Neither bothers with makeup, though Debbie has offered to help him figure out how to apply it if he wants.

Brian told his supervisor at work he wanted to wear dresses to work, and she was completely accepting. So he does. He doesn't have a fem name; he doesn't seek hormones or surgery; he doesn't use women's bathrooms, he doesn't even wear makeup. He just likes to wear women's clothing.

Alimurung: Though he doesn't necessarily feel more attractive dressed as a woman, there are certain times when he does feel "kind of pretty."

"It was the Ann Taylor," he says, turning to Debbie. "You know, the black-and-white one? When I wore that last month, I was walking to work and I was kind of skipping? Swinging my purse and skipping."

This and other clues in the article point to the suggestion that Brian is more of an "ordinary" transvestite (like me) than he might perhaps like to admit. Nonetheless, he is an extremely fortunate man, and I envy him.

Practical: Utilikilts

Brian maintains a blog about pop music, which you can read here.

Addendum: 7th March 2014

There is a further discussion of men in skirts here on Jonathan's blog, Male Femme.

Addendum: 10th November 2015

Thanks to Susie on Quora, I came across this company I had never heard of before. The Utilikilts company was established in the year 2000 and specialises in practical kilt garments for men, with an emphasis on ruggedness, practicality and masculinity.

Their website is absolutely stuffed full of men wearing their creations, hiking across hills, taking apart trucks, sawing up huge logs, and generally displaying the most masculine attributes imaginable.

I think it's quite an interesting idea. I am not sure why a kilt would seem to be more practical than a pair of canvas work trousers (except when working in very hot weather). Nonetheless, the garments seem to be very popular, and the website has a veritable plethora of fabrics and styles from which to choose.