Split Thread: Difference between Blackface and Drag

[Rolfe]

You're funny.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by plague311

Where the **** did you pull this from? Googling it I can't even get a match. Usually we source **** here when we post it because it's rude to not. I don't know why anyone here should acknowledge or give a **** about this quote.

It's from the post she was replying to, with key characteristics changed from drag to blackface.

Your response might be taken as proving her point.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Aber

It's from the post she was replying to, with key characteristics changed from drag to blackface.

Your response might be taken as proving her point.

Usually when we change a quote we'd hilite the changes, but it's not important. I'll stand correct but also stand by my point that no one should take it seriously.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

How does that not also apply to minstrel shows?

It applies to a wide range of entertainment.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's conflation bingo!

1) Not all cases of males portraying females are a parody of femininity. But some are. Broad brushing the entirety of drag as if there is no difference between drag and Shakespearean male actors playing a female role is falacious and borders on disingenuous. This is like saying that minstrel shows aren't a "parody of black people" because of Lawrence Oliver's portrayal in Othello. It's bait and switch logic playing fast-and-loose with language in order to obscure the meaning.

Doesn’t address anything I actually posted.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

3) "Could" sure, in some cases, could….snip…

Glad we agree on something.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by plague311

Usually when we change a quote we'd hilite the changes, but it's not important. I'll stand correct but also stand by my point that no one should take it seriously.

Why not? You take the exact same sentiments seriously when they're defending drag shows.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by plague311

Usually when we change a quote we'd hilite the changes, but it's not important. I'll stand correct but also stand by my point that no one should take it seriously.

Really?
I see this identical tactic fairly regularly on this board. It's just a way of making an analogy.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why not? You take the exact same sentiments seriously when they're defending drag shows.

Some positions make sense and should be taken seriously, some don't. There are some from both sides I've dished off as bull ****. I like that you're telling me what I do, very "theprestige" of you.

Originally Posted by TomB

Really?
I see this identical tactic fairly regularly on this board. It's just a way of making an analogy.

If you say so. I can't argue with what you see I guess.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by dann

A Night With Tina: MIDSUMMA PULLS SHOW FROM 2021 PROGRAM OVER ACCUSATIONS OF BLACKFACE (StarObserver, March 31, 2021)

In the article Dann linked, a drag performer was dropped from a festival due to complaints about blackface. The performer in question does a performance of Tina Turner with duplicates of her costumes and choreography. Basically, he bills his show as a faithful and convincing replication of a Tina Turner concert.

This leads my thoughts in a couple of directions.

First, his costume alters his apparent race as well as his gender/sex in order to impersonate a specific person. Neither alteration appears to be parody or caricature of either women or black people, but rather a costume to simulate a particular individual's appearance.

Second, while I have not seen the show, he at least bills it as a faithful reproduction of Tina Turner's stage performance: choreography, etc. So it doesn't sound like an impersonation in the sense that SNL impersonates a president by exaggerating their mannerisms, but more of an attempt a realism. (Again, I haven't seen the show.)

Third, it's in Australia. I'm not sure to what extent (if any) Australia shares the U.S. history regarding minstrel shows and blackface. I know why this is taboo in the U.S., but I've heard cases that it's not the same in the rest of the world.

So....
Given that the representation appears to be equally respectful in both execution and intend regarding the gender and race aspects of his costume, why is one aspect offensive and the other not? This is a question specific to this one performer, not drag as a whole. Or blackface. Just in this specific instance, why is it the race imitation and not the sex imitation that is offensive?

If Tina Turner were to see the show and approve, would that make a difference? I'm not asserting that she does. She probably has no idea that the show exists. I'm just wondering is she owns her own image to the extent that she can allow whoever she wants to impersonate her or if there are limits.

All costumed performances/impersonations are not the same. where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Does realism/accuracy move the bar towards acceptable or unacceptable? (Monty Python was unrealistic, but apparently acceptable? What about realistic drag performances (simulations) as opposed to over the top drag performances?)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by dann

A Night With Tina: MIDSUMMA PULLS SHOW FROM 2021 PROGRAM OVER ACCUSATIONS OF BLACKFACE (StarObserver, March 31, 2021)

This is a good article, that rather captures the discussion in a nutshell.

The performer, Fabio Cattafi, views their performance as Tina Turner as a tribute to a great musical artist. Cattafi doesn't intend any offense or harm, and recognizes none in their performance.

And yet, irrespective of their intent, offense is taken - and taken by a large enough portion of the event's expected attendees - that Cattafi will not be performing.

Cattafi views it as a tribute to a female performer that they love and adore. But they are still a white person performing in blackface. And that is sufficiently unacceptable in modern times to cause a problem.

That they are a male person performing in womanface is also offensive to some people, myself included. I know that I am not alone in this view.

What I find... intriguing?... is that there is general support for Cattafi being barred from performing with darkened skin due to the inferred offense taken by people who are black... there is simultaneously a complete disregard for any inferred offense taken by people who are female.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It seems to me that d4m10n has assumed the Mollies were cisgender because they didn't claim to be trans, despite trans not being a concept at the time. I'm trying to see if he actually has any reason or evidence to support his claims.

Originally Posted by Darat

Ah right. There is contemporary evidence of men wearing female clothing and wigs at Mollies.

The idea of trans has existed for quite some time. There have been males with sex dysphoria pretty much as long as humans have existed. They have been rare, but they have definitely existed, even though terminology has not been consistent (and still isn't).

There have also been males who dress as females in order to put on a performance... pretty much as long as there have been performances.

Those two things are not the same. Intentionally conflating those two in order to insinuate that one's interlocutor is a hateful transphobe is both fallacious and disingenuous.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by plague311

Where the **** did you pull this from? Googling it I can't even get a match. Usually we source **** here when we post it because it's rude to not. I don't know why anyone here should acknowledge or give a **** about this quote.

It is not a quote, nor is it presented as a quote - I used neither quotation marks nor the quote function of the software. It is italicized in order to make it stand out.

Go back, read it again. And read what it's responding to. Give it a moment.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by plague311

Usually when we change a quote we'd hilite the changes, but it's not important.

I did not edit Checkmite's post, nor did I present it as a quote. Your statement here is both erroneous and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by plague311

I'll stand correct but also stand by my point that no one should take it seriously.

Do you also make the point that nobody should take Checkmite's post seriously?

If you think Checkmite has a legitimate point, but that I do not, can you explain a material difference between the two perspectives?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

What I find... intriguing?... is that there is general support for Cattafi being barred from performing with darkened skin due to the inferred offense taken by people who are black... there is simultaneously a complete disregard for any inferred offense taken by people who are female.

I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of PoC find blackface to be offensive while the overwhelming majority of women might not find drag to be offensive? Just a guess.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I did not edit Checkmite's post, nor did I present it as a quote. Your statement here is both erroneous and irrelevant.



Do you also make the point that nobody should take Checkmite's post seriously?

If you think Checkmite has a legitimate point, but that I do not, can you explain a material difference between the two perspectives?

Simple, really simple. Established history. It's beyond proven fact that blackface was designed to mock and degrade PoC. Those facts have been linked and proven throughout this entire thread. So your changes to his quote are quite simply just bull ****. You have convinced yourself that drag is nothing more than mocking or insulting women, that doesn't make it fact. On the other hand we have people saying at the time that they were mocking PoC. It's really that simple.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TomB

So....
Given that the representation appears to be equally respectful in both execution and intend regarding the gender and race aspects of his costume, why is one aspect offensive and the other not? This is a question specific to this one performer, not drag as a whole. Or blackface. Just in this specific instance, why is it the race imitation and not the sex imitation that is offensive?

That's really the heart of it. There's a reasonable likelihood, given what little I can find of the performer, that I personally would not classify Fabio's performance as a parody of females. Very likely, I also would not find the skin-darkening to be offensive either. An homage to an icon is just that - an homage. There are quite a few cases over the past decade where people have been given grief for "blackface", when their costume has been entirely respectful. By a similar token, I don't find ALL cases of males performing as females to be mocking or derisive.

Where I end up confounded is that many people who I consider otherwise rational and intelligent grant that ANY instance of anything that even borders on "blackface" to be obviously and blatantly offensive and unacceptable, regardless of how respectfully and true-to-form it is... Those exact same people think that ANY instance of a male performing in female attire, regardless of how exaggerated and intrinsically demeaning that performance is - they think that's just fine and that anyone who is insulted by it - especially if that insulted party is female - is just overreacting, it's no big deal, calm down, quit being hysterical.

Why it's firewalled in both directions, in diametrically opposing fashions, makes zero sense to me.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by plague311

I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of PoC find blackface to be offensive while the overwhelming majority of women might not find drag to be offensive? Just a guess.

A more realistic interpretation would be that the overwhelming majority of progressive white males find blackface to be offensive, but the overwhelming majority of progressive white males give very few ***** about what females find offensive.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

A more realistic interpretation would be that the overwhelming majority of progressive white males find blackface to be offensive, but the overwhelming majority of progressive white males give very few ***** about what females find offensive.

If that's how you see it. I wouldn't say it's more realistic by any means. It might be to you, but that's not how everyone views it. Especially considering the links that were shared in this thread showing that women make up the bulk of the audience at the drag shows.

I understand YOU might be offended, but you aren't a spokesperson for all women. As I've mentioned before, Stacyhs also shares your gender but doesn't agree with your stance at all. So, again, you aren't "more realistic". Just different.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It seems to me that d4m10n has assumed the Mollies were cisgender because they didn't claim to be trans, despite trans not being a concept at the time. I'm trying to see if he actually has any reason or evidence to support his claims.

Did any of the Mollies claim to be women? If so, perhaps they were trans.

Originally Posted by Darat

There is contemporary evidence of men wearing female clothing and wigs at Mollies.

According to contemporary identity theory, cross dressing isn't enough to enough to make one transgender if doing so isn't an expression of one's innermost sense of self. This is difficult to parse, to be sure, but it is what it is. None of the countless Monty Python sketches which incorporated cross dressing involved trans identity, according to the prevailing theory.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The sexual orientation and hypothetical gender identity of the performers is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by plague311

If that's how you see it. I wouldn't say it's more realistic by any means. It might be to you, but that's not how everyone views it. Especially considering the links that were shared in this thread showing that women make up the bulk of the audience at the drag shows.

I understand YOU might be offended, but you aren't a spokesperson for all women. As I've mentioned before, Stacyhs also shares your gender but doesn't agree with your stance at all. So, again, you aren't "more realistic". Just different.

Black people made up the bulk of the fans of Fat Albert, back in the day. Therefore, nobody could possibly view it as relying on racial stereotypes, and any black person who did NOT like it when it was popular was clearly out of their gourd.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Black people made up the bulk of the fans of Fat Albert, back in the day. Therefore, nobody could possibly view it as relying on racial stereotypes, and any black person who did NOT like it when it was popular was clearly out of their gourd.

I used to watch Fat Albert all the time. I just did a search and found articles claiming it was the best cartoon show of the seventies, won awards, one of the first black cartoons, was created, hosted and largely voiced by a black man (Cosby), and had a lot of positive messages.

I don't remember any complaints back then, but we had no internet so there's that. It was very successful though.

The cartoon was based on people Bill Cosby grew up with.

I've never heard anyone complain about that show until this thread. Heaven forbid a black man wants to design a show that black kids can relate to. Some call it a stereotype, some call it reality.

My friend showed me a short video from a drag show she went to. It was someone in a big white dress dancing on a stage, kinda like a stripper but with more clothes and not undressing.

She says all they pretty much do is lip-sync to songs and dance.

She says if they want to sit on someone's lap or involve a crowd member in any way that they will ask you well ahead of time if it is okay to do so.

The video reminded me of a bar I used to work at where guys would watch women undress to music and dance extremely provocatively. Those poor exploited girls made more in four hours than I made in 2 weeks.

I think religion is more detrimental to society than watching drag but I'm okay with people going to church anyways. Some of them are even nice people.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The idea of trans has existed for quite some time. There have been males with sex dysphoria pretty much as long as humans have existed. They have been rare, but they have definitely existed, even though terminology has not been consistent (and still isn't).

There have also been males who dress as females in order to put on a performance... pretty much as long as there have been performances.

Those two things are not the same. Intentionally conflating those two in order to insinuate that one's interlocutor is a hateful transphobe is both fallacious and disingenuous.

Which is what I have said a few times in this thread.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did any of the Mollies claim to be women? If so, perhaps they were trans.

According to contemporary identity theory, cross dressing isn't enough to enough to make one transgender if doing so isn't an expression of one's innermost sense of self. This is difficult to parse, to be sure, but it is what it is. None of the countless Monty Python sketches which incorporated cross dressing involved trans identity, according to the prevailing theory.

..snip...

We can't know with any kind of certainty.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The idea of trans has existed for quite some time. There have been males with sex dysphoria pretty much as long as humans have existed. They have been rare, but they have definitely existed, even though terminology has not been consistent (and still isn't).

Gender and gender roles have actually had a wide range of differences depending on the cultures pretty much as long as humans have existed. Your claims do nothing to prove that the Mollies were cisgender men, which was d4m10n's claim.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There have also been males who dress as females in order to put on a performance... pretty much as long as there have been performances.

Those two things are not the same. Intentionally conflating those two in order to insinuate that one's interlocutor is a hateful transphobe is both fallacious and disingenuous.

While the 2 things are not the same, there is quite a lot of overlap as demonstrated by the many examples of trans people performing drag given already in this thread. I have no need to insinuate that any of the posters here are hateful transphobes, as those that are are quite happy to demonstrate such without my help.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did any of the Mollies claim to be women? If so, perhaps they were trans.

I await your evidence either way. As this was your claim, it's on you to provide evidence for it.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which is what I have said a few times in this thread.

That may be, but several other people keep pretending that the entirety of the objection is to ANY male wearing female-typical clothing on stage EVER. Which it is not, and which I have reiterated multiple times.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

We can't know with any kind of certainty.

See below.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Your claims do nothing to prove that the Mollies were cisgender men, which was d4m10n's claim.

I think it's relatively safe to assume adult males who speak English think of themselves as "men" unless there is some specific reason to believe they do not, especially prior to John Money^WP and the conceptual decoupling of gender identity from sex at birth. Happy to stand corrected on this, if there is specific documentary evidence regarding the OGs of drag.

Does dressing in a feminine way make one a woman, per se? I'm skeptical of those who answer in the affirmative, but happy to hear the argument.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

See below.

I think it's relatively safe to assume adult males who speak English think of themselves as "men" unless there is some specific reason to believe they do not, especially prior to John Money^WP and the conceptual decoupling of gender identity from sex at birth. Happy to stand corrected on this, if there is specific documentary evidence regarding the OGs of drag.

Does dressing in a feminine way make one a woman, per se? I'm skeptical of those who answer in the affirmative, but happy to hear the argument.

As I guessed, your "fact" was an assumption. Thanks.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That may be, but several other people keep pretending that the entirety of the objection is to ANY male wearing female-typical clothing on stage EVER. Which it is not, and which I have reiterated multiple times.

So you weren't saying "...snip.. Intentionally conflating those two in order to insinuate that one's interlocutor is a hateful transphobe is both fallacious and disingenuous. ...snip..." to me even though it seemed to be addressed to a post I had made that said the opposite?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

See below.

I think it's relatively safe to assume adult males who speak English think of themselves as "men" unless there is some specific reason to believe they do not, especially prior to John Money^WP and the conceptual decoupling of gender identity from sex at birth. Happy to stand corrected on this, if there is specific documentary evidence regarding the OGs of drag.

Does dressing in a feminine way make one a woman, per se? I'm skeptical of those who answer in the affirmative, but happy to hear the argument.

You seem to be saying that "trans" couldn't have existed before someone "scientifically" decided to label such behaviour? Have I misunderstood what you posted?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

So you weren't saying "...snip.. Intentionally conflating those two in order to insinuate that one's interlocutor is a hateful transphobe is both fallacious and disingenuous. ...snip..." to me even though it seemed to be addressed to a post I had made that said the opposite?

No, I responded to wayerin, and included your post with theirs so as not to lose context.

Based on the quoted posts, I would have though it rather clear.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

You seem to be saying that "trans" couldn't have existed before someone "scientifically" decided to label such behaviour? Have I misunderstood what you posted?

d4m10n can speak for themself, but my inference is that this is not at all what they are saying.

Rather, they're saying that the current trend of retroactively transing anyone who wore clothing typical of the opposite sex is irrational and inappropriate.

wayerin is the one insinuating that Mollies were transgender, as well as insinuating that a whole bunch of drag performers are trans - despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of drag performers do not themselves identify as the opposite sex.

It's really quiet irritating to see such efforts to change history - even well documented history - in this way. For example, all of the current intentional attempts to insist that Michael Malcolm kicked of the stonewall riots and that they were a transwoman. In their own words, on film, repeatedly they stated that they were not present when the riots began, didn't show up until late in the evening after they were over, and furthermore that they were NOT transgender, but were a proud gay male who had a drag persona.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

d4m10n can speak for themself, but my inference is that this is not at all what they are saying.

Rather, they're saying that the current trend of retroactively transing anyone who wore clothing typical of the opposite sex is irrational and inappropriate.

…snip…

But no one is doing that.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

wayerin is the one insinuating that Mollies were transgender, …snip…

Well no, that strand of the discussion was about the origin of drag being from “cisgender” males as claimed by d4m10n.

What was asked for was the evidence for that.

Now unless d4m10n believes that drag came from the theatre strand of men dressing as women - which remember is something you vehemently disagree with - then the origins of drag have to be found elsewhere, my contention is that on the scant information we have from the Molly houses drag evolved from the criminal subculture of males having sex with males. We are very, very unlikely to ever know for certain because it is an unrecorded subculture that only appeared in the historical record when it intersected with the law. Saying that however the slight information we do have is that the performances played in Molly houses were parodies/homage/satirical/travesties of female behaviour - the giving birth to a baby and so on. That seems a very likely place for the birth of drag and its long association with men who have sex with men right up until the modern day of homosexuality.

We do know that cross dressing went on in Molly houses, but of course we can’t simply label that as “trans” but lets remember that the only place historically someone who would probably be described as “trans” these days could go and present as female was in the places frequented by homosexual males, and this persisted until modern day.

I really don’t think it is a stretch to think that at least some of those cross dressing back in the 18th century would probably be described as “trans” if they were living today, in the same way many of those men having sex with men back in the 18th century would be described as homosexual if they were living today.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

as as well as insinuating that a whole bunch of drag performers are trans - despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of drag performers do not themselves identify as the opposite sex.

No one has insinuated that.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's really quiet irritating to see such efforts to change history - even well documented history - in this way. For example, all of the current intentional attempts to insist that Michael Malcolm kicked of the stonewall riots and that they were a transwoman. In their own words, on film, repeatedly they stated that they were not present when the riots began, didn't show up until late in the evening after they were over, and furthermore that they were NOT transgender, but were a proud gay male who had a drag persona.

But no one here is making any effort to change history.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

You seem to be saying that "trans" couldn't have existed before someone "scientifically" decided to label such behaviour?

No one could claim to identify as a fan of the Chicago Lions Rugby Football Club until 1964, the year the club was founded.

No one could claim to have a "gender identity" different than the gender everyone assumes (based on sex observed at birth) until the concept of gender identity^WP was coined in the same year.

Perhaps you've a way to tell who is "trans" other than self-identification, but I certainly do not. I'd be surprised if any of the Mollies ever identified themselves as women even in private correspondence. I still think it is fairly safe to say they were seen as men, both by themselves and others.

Originally Posted by Darat

I really don’t think it is a stretch to think that at least some of those cross dressing back in the 18th century would probably be described as “trans” if they were living today, in the same way many of those men having sex with men back in the 18th century would be described as homosexual if they were living today.

Homosexuality can be observed based on behavior, e.g. having an erection at the sight of another one. Any primates can be homosexual, and we needn't ask them about their sense of self in order to figure it out. By contrast, self-identification requires the ability to identify, and it is rather tricky to do so without coining the idea of gender identity.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No one could claim to have a "gender identity" different than the gender everyone assumes (based on sex observed at birth) until the concept of gender identity^WP was coined in the same year.

And yet, Transgender history^WP existed prior to the current nomenclature. The term is defined by the phenomenon, not the other way around.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No one could claim to identify as a fan of the Chicago Lions Rugby Football Club until 1964, the year the club was founded.

No one could claim to have a "gender identity" different than the gender everyone assumes (based on sex observed at birth) until the concept of gender identity^WP was coined in the same year.

Perhaps you've a way to tell who is "trans" other than self-identification, but I certainly do not. I'd be surprised if any of the Mollies ever identified themselves as women even in private correspondence. I still think it is fairly safe to say they were seen as men, both by themselves and others.

Homosexuality can be observed based on behavior, e.g. having an erection at the sight of another one. Any primates can be homosexual, and we needn't ask them about their sense of self in order to figure it out. By contrast, self-identification requires the ability to identify, and it is rather tricky to do so without coining the idea of gender identity.

And yet, you have no problem assigning them the title "cisgender" which didn't exist at the time either. Hmmmm

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No one could claim to identify as a fan of the Chicago Lions Rugby Football Club until 1964, the year the club was founded.

No one could claim to have a "gender identity" different than the gender everyone assumes (based on sex observed at birth) until the concept of gender identity^WP was coined in the same year.

That was a label applied to a type of human behaviour - are you saying that behaviour only started once the label was invented?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Perhaps you've a way to tell who is "trans" other than self-identification, but I certainly do not. I'd be surprised if any of the Mollies ever identified themselves as women even in private correspondence. I still think it is fairly safe to say they were seen as men, both by themselves and others.

We know they did refer to themselves as "she", "mother" and called each other "sisters" but so did (and some still do) many in gay subcultures over a long time, even before the word "gay" was used to describe men who have sex with men and identify themselves at least partially by who they have sex with. There are still many men who have sex with men who do not identify as gay or homosexual or bisexual.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Homosexuality can be observed based on behavior, e.g. having an erection at the sight of another one. Any primates can be homosexual, and we needn't ask them about their sense of self in order to figure it out. By contrast, self-identification requires the ability to identify, and it is rather tricky to do so without coining the idea of gender identity.

No it isn't - "I feel like I should be a woman" - "I feel I was born in the wrong body" were phrases that were used that led to modern use of gender and our modern use of "trans".

The behaviours existed before the label.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Transgender history^WP

As a side note, I find it fascinating that we often consider things like homosexuality or transgenderism to be new phenomenon or fads when they've been around forever in some form or under some other name. We have just been taught little or nothing about it because of some religious or quasi-moral rationalization.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

And yet, Transgender history^WP existed prior to the current nomenclature. The term is defined by the phenomenon, not the other way around.

Do the Mollies show up in that wiki entry?

Originally Posted by Darat

That was a label applied to a type of human behaviour - are you saying that behaviour only started once the label was invented?

Gender identity theory isn't about behaviour, but rather an inner sense of self. Bruce Jenner behaved like the manliest of men, as I recall.

Originally Posted by Darat

No it isn't - "I feel like I should be a woman" - "I feel I was born in the wrong body" were phrases that were used that led to modern use of gender and our modern use of "trans".

Did those phrases originate in the same place as drag culture?

I'm happy to be persuaded that drag culture and "trans" originated from the same time & place, but so far as I can tell they are separated by several decades and thousands of miles.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Do the Mollies show up in that wiki entry?

Gender identity theory isn't about behaviour, but rather an inner sense of self. Bruce Jenner behaved like the manliest of men, as I recall.

That is a human behaviour.

Quote:

Did those phrases originate in the same place as drag culture?

I'm happy to be persuaded that drag culture and "trans" originated from the same time & place, but so far as I can tell they are separated by several decades and thousands of miles.

Who has claimed that drag culture and trans originated from the same time and place, no one in this thread has claimed that.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

That is a human behaviour.

Nope. It is an innermost sense of self which needn't manifest to the outside world in the form of behavior.

Originally Posted by Darat

Who has claimed that drag culture and trans originated from the same time and place, no one in this thread has claimed that.

Is there some reason to believe the Mollies were "trans," in whatever sense you take the term? If not, can we safely assume they were your ordinary gays-who-call-themselves-men?