Words of warning and welcome:

This is very much my blog, so don't be surprised if this doesn't follow accepted patterns and norms. Obviously it started out as a blog about my cross-dressing but it has developed a great deal since then. It is a place where I can be anonymous and honest, and I appreciate that.

It will deal with many things and new readers would do well to check out the New Readers' Page above this and the tag down there on the right. Although there's nothing too bad in here there will be adult language, so be careful. If you think this needs a greater control, please let me know. Thank you!

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Friends who don't (know)

This actually looks like Sierra, come to think of
it. It also happens to be a painting of a Boer
woman during the Boer War 1899-1901.

There were several points over the weekend
when Sierra made it clear that she sees her role
as a traditional Boer wife. Something, for a
Feminist (she is), I found fascinating too.

Mind you, as she pointed out, it's her choice
to be so.
We visited Tilly's cousins this weekend, but they count better as friends, as part of the beginning of the Festive season. And they are good friends. She, we'll call her Sierra, is very like Tilly - physically, mentally and in personality - and he, we'll call him Pik, is a bit more retiring and respectful than I, a much better husband in many ways, and terribly South African, well, Boer. She's very Anglican, high church like Tilly, and he is, well, whatever flavour Boers are. I suspect Prot but I suspect more Lutheran than Anglican. They are a younger couple, he is fully seven years my junior, but accomplished. She a failed teacher but excellent civil engineer and he a occasional photographer and powerful civil engineer in another company. Their house is a new build and is very well made - to their specifications - and they are both lovely people.

On the evening, whilst Tilly was on Boy duty (we took it in turns), I started a conversation about prejudice. We'd been discussing gay marriage anyway and all agreed that we disliked the Fundamentalist opposition to them and the general literalist view of the Bible. After all, the Bible may be literal, but not in any English translation and, then, not quite as people like to think when they either hold the view or assume that every Christian is a literalist. I, of course, veered into the territory of transgender, as is my wont these days, and we discussed the findings that suggest that homosexuality is encoded, and thus not a mistake, and the fact that transgenderism also appears to be a product of biochemistry based on genetic encoding - leading to the statistical study suggesting that three in every thousand births are biochemically one gender and physically another. We also passingly touched on the idea that binary gender is a relatively modern societal invention rather than predicated on physicality.

Anglicanism!

This church is a good example of the paradox of
Anglicanism, actually, ostentatiously open but typified
as being closed and full of unspoken 'rules' that are
foreboding and off-putting. Like the debate about Women
Bishops, for example. It's part of what makes me a proud
but frustrated Anglican-flavoured Christian.

We wear our confusion openly.
I knew I was treading on thin ice, and I knew that I was deliberately leading the conversation around my current issues. Sure enough, when faced with open-minded people, I challenged how far that held. If Sierra was respectful of TG and TV would she be is Pik were to reveal himself as such. Here she demurred as he would not be the man she fell in love with, he would have been living a lie and thus her trust would be shattered - nothing to do with the TG or TV element, she assured. But what, pressed I, if it had always been thus, if Pik had always acted non-masculine (and here we all agreed that the terms weren't terribly helpful, but approximated what we were driving at) and had never hidden it, what then? Alas, before we reached a full answer the conversation changed. I had not really registered that Tilly had returned. The conversation thus went down new tangents and was not returned to.

The train wins.

It always wins.
On the way home today I asked, as I do, if I dominated conversation. Tilly had been under strict instructions to kick me if I did dominate, as I do when nervous, in order to prevent me being a dick. She replied that there was just one instance. I had broached and pressed a subject that she was uncomfortable with. Apparently she had returned earlier than I registered. Much earlier. And I had not really registered that she had taken part, briefly, in the cut and thrust before leaving and going elsewhere. She returned and attempted a second derailment and succeeded. It would have been like, she said, her raising TV as a derogatory thing and making light of it knowing what my issues are. She couldn't laugh along in our jocular conversation.

A Christian monopoly?

Worryingly, this actually exists.
I did not point out that the conversation was not jocular, it was deadly serious (but friendly so peppered with humour), nor did I point out that had she done so she would have provided ample evidence of the issues of prejudice and chauvinism we were putting under the spotlight. I chose the issue I did partly due to my own stake in the issue but also because it is still very much on the fringe of things, in a way that gay marriage, though remaining contentious, isn't amongst the people I count as friends who are Christian. That is, I very much know who is in which camp now, we all understand the issue and each other's take on it. Indeed, most Christians I know who are also friends are happy to let it carry on - none of us is marrying gay people after all - but with differing views between toleration and support. I err, for what it's worth, to the latter insofar as I don't recognise marriage as being a Christian monopoly nor what people think it is. I've talked about this before and I digress. The point is that trans* people are more contentious and, despite this, 'safer' as very few people I know know that they know someone who is trans* - even I don't know which term, hence the * moniker remains. So, it is a 'safe' contentious issue in which people aren't watching what they say. I thus find it fascinating and would even if it didn't directly affect me.

Put another way, Tilly was made uncomfortable because she felt it was directly about us and I was discussing it because I was able to, as I have always been able to, ignore the fact that it had any bearing on us. I rather suspect that the promise to discuss the issue as it does pertain to us was a hollow one, but I think I knew that anyway.

Does this need a caption?

Am I the work surface or Dr Cox?

Well, I am a cock.
Tilly feels that I raised her POV and made it out to be, in her words, "bloody ridiculous". I confess that, when analysed, I do find her POV on this matter "bloody ridiculous" and that if she were to raise my POV on anything and declare it as such I would either defend it or I would give way based on the strength of argument. Indeed, such things have happened. Some defences are successful, some not and some areas I give way in, still others remain to be thrashed out fully. In all things I stand to be convinced. Hell, this time four years ago I would have been unable to label myself as trans* at all, I don't think I even knew the term, I just knew that now and again I liked to wear clothes designed for women. Ten years ago I had worn knickers once and the rest was idle speculation. Fifteen years ago I was aware of things and knew 'transvestism' but didn't even know that there were people who felt they were born in the wrong body, biochemically or otherwise. Twenty... you get the idea.

Brick walls make my head hurt.


No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are welcome, I have a thicker skin virtually than I do in real life!