Has a year really gone by!

It seems that it is just over one year ago that I last posted to this Blog. That's not very good! I must -and I shall- do better.

So what did happen in the past 12 months. 

What have I been doing?

Gosh, can it really be so long since I posted on this Blog?  Apparently, Yes, it is!

I won't bore you with all that I've done, not done and wished that I'd done but instead I'll focus on my visit to Sparkle in the Summer in July.

Sparkle takes place in the Trans-friendly city of Manchester (UK) on the first or second weekend in July each year.  It is billed as a major TG event and over time the number of girls attending has increased significantly.  While there are a few organised events that take place in a local park it is not so much about those events as the opportunity to meet up with friends while strolling around what the locals call the Gay Village.

I went to Sparkle in 2013 but the UK and Ireland had a very unexpected heatwave and I found it difficult enough to breathe let alone dress.  This year I decided to go again -on the basis that one heatwave in a decade is all you can expect in the British Isles.

I saw it as an opportunity to meet up with some (Flickr) friends and so it proved.

We arrived too late on Thursday for me to dress and that annoyed me but then I'm easily annoyed.

On Friday night, I went to a Vanity Club dinner –yes, you read that correctly!  I am not a member of VC but I was kindly invited to dinner by two of its members.  It was an enjoyable experience –Jaimie Pearl, Amanda Parnell and Emma Ross were in attendance and they, like the rest of the attendees, were gorgeously glamorous.

Later that night, I met someone that I have admired for a long time –none other than Princess Helen Turner and she really is a Beautiful Princess.  Earlier in the evening, I met the delightful duo of Kelly Helm and Erin Julia but we sadly didn't have time to chat for long.

On Saturday, Jaimie Pearl and I met the Karen Joanne Smith for lunch and we basically hung around together for the rest of the day chatting about everything and nothing and enjoying the sights.  I should mention that it rained most of the day so every TGirl not only had the obligatory camera but also the essential umbrella.  Definitely no heatwave this year!

On Sunday, I met Jaimie and her lovely friend Trixie for dinner.

Now, by this stage, you are probably yawning and wondering what all the fuss is about Sparkle (assuming, of course, that you ever heard of Sparkle in the first place).  As I said earlier, Sparkle no longer means anything concrete.  It’s a flag of convenience for TGirls to come to Manchester and have a good time (unless they meet me, of course).  However, from what I saw, a good time will only be had if you already know other girls who are attending.  It’s not a place to come to make new friends and I saw many girls sitting forlornly on their own which was very sad.  It made me question the alleged "community" element again.  

In truth, it’s actually much more fun to amble around Manchester itself rather than confine oneself to the Village and the TG scene.  That probably makes me sound rather elitist which I'm not or at least I hope I'm not.  It's just that the Village does seem a little limiting.

I’ve re-read the above and wondered if I could add some more positive spin to the narrative.  The answer is No.   Sparkle is a safe place to meet friends if you already have  them –nothing else. Obviously, the Manchester Tourist Board won’t be asking me to open next year’s Sparkle but I, like so many others, will go back to meet friends and that reality will ensure that Sparkle continues.

Exploring themes of femininity

I like to explore themes of femininity and aspects of womanhood.  In doing so, I love to venture outside the box of conventional wisdom.  With seven billion people on the planet, one would think that trying to fit everyone neatly and conveniently into two gender categories would be seen as unduly diversity restrictive.  On the other, some might think two genders an unnecessary luxury borne of self indulgence.  After all, too many religions has caused nothing but trouble throughout history.  

A single gender world might also prove a welcome cure for that most troubling of societal evils: namely, transgenderism -where the individuals involved are not content to be one gender but have the impertinence to want to express both and be accepted for it!

Would transgenderism exist if there was only one gender?  We could still have the two biological sexes but the sociological construct that is gender would be reformulated to remove the wasteful distinctions between masculine and feminine.

No more pink for girls and blue for boys: but yellow for everyone.  Skirts and trousers would be abolished to be replaced by something inspired by Amelia Bloomer but not so pretty.  Names would be gender neutral: Ron and Rita would be Ronita (to ensure parity of esteem for the previous names) and Frances and Francis would be no longer be differentiated by the "i" and the "e" but brought together by the "o".  All nurses would wear scrubs......hang on -they already do.

Would it work?  Probably, if it was done with sufficient vigour by a sufficient number of zealots and never underestimate the number of zealots ready to pursue a noble cause or any cause for that matter.  However, the world would be a poorer place because the positives of gender diversity that bring colour to life would be swallowed up in the shallowness of a new uniformity that somehow seems eerily similar to the philosophies of 1984.

Until that day, then, when everyone is equal with perhaps some more equal than others (and I know that I am moving between Orwell books), here's some photos of me being gender diverse in fun way that will make the uniformists mad -well. madder than they already are!!!

Are they Pantaloons, Pantalettes, Drawers, or Bloomers?

What lies thereunder!

In the complex world of today, there are many questions of life, death and taxes to be pondered but for me, as a lover of Victorian fashions, the distinction, if any, between Victorian pantaloons, pantalettes, drawers and bloomers is one that has always intrigued me.  Now, I think I have finally figured it out.  I know exactly what to call those "unmentionables".

Pantaloons: According to costume historian, Elizabeth Clark, "pantaloons are actually men's clothing".  They were "an earlier style of roomy men's trousers, no longer worn in the mid-19th century". 

Pantalettes:  Pantalettes are female clothing.   “They are a much earlier term for underdrawers (1800-1830-ish)" according to Ms Clark.   Over the first few decades of the 19th century, they evolved mainly into long legged underwear for young girls which were visible (and, therefore, femininely frilled) below the hem of their dresses.

Bloomers: Bloomers in Victorian times referred to a style of 'reform' dress worn by Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, rather than to undergarments. The Bloomer Costume consists of a short (knee to mid-calf) length dress, worn over corded or quilted stays and some petticoats, with long trousers of the same fabric beneath them.

Drawers:  Elizabeth Clark says "drawers are the term used at mid-century to describe a cotton or linen bifurcated undergarment for men, women, or children. It's by far my favorite term for that portion of undergarments, because it shows up so often in period sources, including in clothing diagrams and wardrobe notes from period magazines and workbooks, as well as in private letters and diaries, and advertisements. The frequency of the term 'drawers' leads me to believe it is the most common term at mid-century, and therefore, the one I feel people ought to use, for greater clarity in communication."

Certainty and conviction..........and the road to Hell

I recently re-discovered an article called "Understanding the Transvestite" which I first read about 20 years ago at a time in my life when I was still searching for answers to questions that I no longer really care about.  That's why the article has languished under a figurative mountain of other accumulated papers until its rediscovery.  (I should admit at the outset that I very much dislike the term transvestite and much prefer TGrl but since the term was used in the article I will use it it here to avoid confusion.)

On reading it again, I was struck by its certainty and conviction and thought I would share it with you because we all love certainty and conviction........don't we?  

“Transvestism is not just deviant behaviour, it is wrong. TVism is a sexual act with solace through gratification. TVs have an active fantasy life. Following an episode, TVs loath themselves.  TVism is rooted in childhood where proper nurturing (actively bad by the mother and passively poor by the father) to form a healthy gender identity did not not occur.  Overall, the home environment was cold, tense and very inhibited fostering insecurity and a retreat into fantasy.

For the individual concerned, the creation of a second personality brings him a closeness that he has never had.  Further his "creation" measures up standards of womanhood addressing his sense of failure as a man.  Because of the lack of love in childhood, the individual has an exaggerated self-love.  In addition, TVs are characterised by having low sex drives. The "transvestic individual" also has resentments, hatreds and hostile feelings.”

I should add that the answer provided is to turn to God for help with this sin.  

Whatever about the answer and I am fairly certain God doesn't care about whether I wear a dress or not, I was, as I said at the beginning, struck by the certainty and the conviction in terns of the description and analysis.  Of course, as a rule, the most effective theories are those with certainty and conviction.  Unfortunately, conviction is not the same as being right.  It's certainly no substitute for rigorous analysis and testing of theory against the empirical evidence.  

I certainly display some of the characteristics listed but not all of them.  Equally, there are other factors at play in my own situation outside of those listed.  

I suspect that the authors of the article see themselves as God fearing folk out to save the world from the sex motivated sinner.  I hope rather than believe that the authors have evolved their thinking over the intervening years and have come to realise that making people feel bad about themselves is grounded in Old Testament hatreds rather New Testaments Christianity.  If they want to find sinners motivated by sexual desires or frustrations the mirror might be a good place to start their search. 

Becoming female...whatever that means!

As I understand it, serious minded TGirls like to present as a woman as far as possible but recently I've begun to think again about what that actually means.   Is it to do with the clothes? I have more skirts and dresses than most women and I bet my undies are prettier than many girls wear.   Is it about adopting feminine mannerisms and poses?  Over the years, I've certainly worked on my walk, gestures and nuances.   Is it about what interest us?  I have a number of interests that are traditionally much more associated with women than men.   Is it about how we empathise and relate to others?  Now, that's an interesting one because it is deeper than any of the aforementioned and its existence is ultimately affirmed not by anything we do but by how others, especially women, relate to us.   It’s when we have that sudden sense of awareness that a female friend is talking to us as she would to another woman rather than a man.   Years of wearing the clothes, walking the walk and absorbing women's vocabulary, interests and tastes undoubtedly are very important in that process but perhaps it is even more dependent on the consideration that the starting point is our innate (female/feminine) personality that we learn to free. 

Boring Boring Comedy (or BBC for short)

The media is often criticised for presenting TGirls in an unflattering way.  Usually, the presentation is of a lurid, sensationalist nature (but enough about me).  So it was good to hear that the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) had made a new television comedy -Boy meets Girl- that would feature a TGirl as the lead character and portray her in a positive light. There was much to anticipate because when the BBC sets it mind to it the resulting television programmes are usually of  a high standard. Could Boy Meets Girl, therefore, be the TV (pardon the pun) show that would finally make us TGirls look good. 

Sadly, the answer is a resounding No.  Boy meets Girl is not sensationalist or lurid or even...................remotely funny!  As a comedy show, you would find more laughs at an autopsy.  Even worse, the most boring character in the show is the TGirl.  If I was a teenager struggling with confused gender identity and had the misfortune to watch Boy Meets Girl I would cry myself to sleep saying worried sick that the religious right were, in fact, right and that God's punishment for wearing a dress and heels would be to turn me into the most unfunny and uninteresting person imaginable.  I would burn my bra not in protest but in despair  

We all know that TGirls do have a sense of humour...........right????  Anyway, here's a link to me being funny.
Fifi the Dancing Queen