It's All a Blur to Them (Dressing across genders)

[Fuuma]

i was just being flippant, don't really know anything about it. but what is that defines gender? physical, psychological or social factors? if a man wishes to care for his children and stay off work to do it, one wouldn't typically class him as transgender, although you might say that he is taking the "normal" female role

You'd also have to self identity as the other sex which I guess is the only way an animal would take the role of the other sex...

[zamb]

Transgender does not imply switching your set of privates. So if male pig decided to keep the young and generally act like female pig then I guess it could be qualified as "transgender". Not too sure how prevalent this is and not really into the natural vs unnatural anyway. We live in concrete structures, use the internetz and derive status from paper with (often dead) rulers on them.

I know animals often engage in homosexual acts but then that's different. Cats lick their own assholes and I'm not about to try that, I don't really see occurances of something in the animal world as an argument for/against human behaviour.

shouldnt we all try everything once?

I don't really see occurances of something in the animal world as an argument for/against human behaviour.

Agreed, I think that in justifying some aspects of human behavior, we often look to the animal kingdom for some kind of similar occurence, but it is the mind and the intellect that controls what we do as humans, an aspect of our being that is superior to that of animals and this should always be preeminent to any kind of primal instinct that we have.............

i was just being flippant, don't really know anything about it. but what is that defines gender? physical, psychological or social factors? if a man wishes to care for his children and stay off work to do it, one wouldn't typically class him as transgender, although you might say that he is taking the "normal" female role

this is an interesting question, and I am sure that there are a wide array of definitions to be had, as wide as human diversity is........
For me it is what kind of DNA and sexual equipment you enter this earth with

[Faust]

Transgender does not imply switching your set of privates. So if male pig decided to keep the young and generally act like female pig then I guess it could be qualified as "transgender". Not too sure how prevalent this is and not really into the natural vs unnatural anyway. We live in concrete structures, use the internetz and derive status from paper with (often dead) rulers on them.

I know animals often engage in homosexual acts but then that's different. Cats lick their own assholes and I'm not about to try that, I don't really see occurances of something in the animal world as an argument for/against human behaviour.

hahahaha, i almost keeled over.

i suppose this is not an argument to justify human behavior, but rather a counterargument against those who say homosexuality is unnatural (meaning, does not occur in other species and is therefore a human concoction, or rather, perversion).

[AKA*NYC]

Transgender does not imply switching your set of privates. So if male pig decided to keep the young and generally act like female pig then I guess it could be qualified as "transgender". Not too sure how prevalent this is and not really into the natural vs unnatural anyway. We live in concrete structures, use the internetz and derive status from paper with (often dead) rulers on them.

I know animals often engage in homosexual acts but then that's different. Cats lick their own assholes and I'm not about to try that, I don't really see occurances of something in the animal world as an argument for/against human behaviour.

probably the smartest, funniest, and most articulate two paragraphs i've yet to read on sz.

[Mail-Moth]

Superiors mammals living in organized groups happen to have sexual relations with their immediate parents, especially at their young age.
Apes and lions are occasional cannibals.

So maybe it would be wiser to leave animals to their own private matters

[Heirloom]

I do think we can look to apes for further studies of ourselves. It's a matter of making our biology and our intellect live in harmony, so to not force anything that doesn't need to be forced. I don't believe in forcing.

[viceroy]

I think the position of fashion within this debate needs serious consideration. It is rather apparent that dress (much like language, voice, action, etc.) has an effect of inscription—of writing the body. Troubling is that this generally follows a mere performance of tracing (particular norms), perpetuating faith in such as representing something like the “truth.” If fashion has any real significance in today’s (and tomorrow's) world, it is not to reiterate gender/class/race-dressing, but rather to expose the extent to which such is wholly untenable. Fashion (in a sense distinct from what has becomes its industry) offers the potential to re-write the body without recourse to signification.

“And such is the responsibility of writing—writing which distinguishes itself be deleting from itself all distinguishing marks, which is to say perhaps, ultimately, be effacing itself (right away and at length: this takes all of time), for it seems to leave indelible or indiscernible traces.” (Maurice Blanchot, The Writing of the Disaster)

“We have to begin by getting through, and by means of, the exscription of our body: its being-inscribed-outside, its being placed outside the text as the most proper movement of its text; the text itself being abandoned, left at its limit.” (Jean-Luc Nancy, Corpus)

[zamb]

I think the position of fashion within this debate needs serious consideration. It is rather apparent that dress (much like language, voice, action, etc.) has an effect of inscription—of writing the body. Troubling is that this generally follows a mere performance of tracing (particular norms), perpetuating faith in such as representing something like the “truth.” If fashion has any real significance in today’s (and tomorrow's) world, it is not to reiterate gender/class/race-dressing, but rather to expose the extent to which such is wholly untenable. Fashion (in a sense distinct from what has becomes its industry) offers the potential to re-write the body without recourse to signification.

“And such is the responsibility of writing—writing which distinguishes itself be deleting from itself all distinguishing marks, which is to say perhaps, ultimately, be effacing itself (right away and at length: this takes all of time), for it seems to leave indelible or indiscernible traces.” (Maurice Blanchot, The Writing of the Disaster)

“We have to begin by getting through, and by means of, the exscription of our body: its being-inscribed-outside, its being placed outside the text as the most proper movement of its text; the text itself being abandoned, left at its limit.” (Jean-Luc Nancy, Corpus)

why should this be the role of fashion? and why if it doesn't take on this role would it necessarily lose any of its significance in the world?, surely, it must serve other purposes, of which the one you mentioned can be one of many................

there are other aspects of your writing that I don't understand, could you break it down a bit more?

[Mail-Moth]

Zam, for what I understand, it is mostly a parallel between the positions of those two french intellectuals - not the most limpid I must say - concerning writing, and clothes, seen as a form of text.

Garments, in this perspective, should be worn in a way that could no more be considered as a proof or sign of anything, except themselves, as the text that would be considered not as a support for interpretation or an occurence of articulated discourse - conceptions which would lead to its destruction as a form - but as a frail trace of its own presence. When the text "means" something, it is no more. When the garment conveys a sense, it becomes something else.

That's interesting. But I'm not sure you can avoid to tell things - or even should.

[zamb]

Zam, for what I understand, it is mostly a parallel between the positions of those two french intellectuals - not the most limpid I must say - concerning writing, and clothes, seen as a form of text.

Garments, in this perspective, should be worn in a way that could no more be considered as a proof or sign of anything, except themselves, as the text that would be considered not as a support for interpretation or an occurence of articulated discourse - conceptions which would lead to its destruction as a form - but as a frail trace of its own presence. When the text "means" something, it is no more. When the garment conveys a sense, it becomes something else.

That's interesting. But I'm not sure you can avoid to tell things - or even should.

which mean then that they are asking for something that isn't even possible. The mind seeks to understand, or at least make sense of the physical world. things created always leads to a dialogue between the creator and those who perceive the creation, even when there is a misunderstanding of the intended communication, which is even why we had the discussion of trying to understand a designer behind a certain work (The issue of Authorship). It is for that reason why we have uniforms for Doctors, Nurses, policemen etc because the clothing helps us to understand and should continue to do so, like other forms of communication.
it is also for this reason when I was young and lived in a neighborhood where the police was hostile to young male youths, I wore a suit, or tie and dress shirt, even when going nowhere that required it, because dressing well the Police would never stop you!
you were instantly communicating to them that you are a law abiding citizen................. at least that what they thought

[viceroy]

Thanks, Mail-moth, that is a wonderful re-phrasing.

But I would not argue that it is a matter of not saying anything. I am arguing quite the opposite: what fashion has the potential to say (and thus do) exceeds fixed terms of classification/identification ("male," "white," "straight," etc.). It says so much more (maybe by trying to "say" much less).

Regarding Zamb's inquiry into my claim that this is fashion's only role:
I am arguing that if fashion is to be considered as something with real critical potential, as a site where identity politics (and thus politics in general) is actually contested, then this potential may be understood in the way I have tried to describe.

[Mail-Moth]

Yes, I can understand that ; I believe there's more to see in clothes than their social function, or even than their aptitude to transgress codes - which is still a way to keep a relation to them. What's interesting in a man wearing a skirt is not that it's shocking, daring, what else. It has nothing to do with openly going against conservative views.

What really makes it interesting is that it introduces a new silhouette in the landscape, that eventually modifies the perception of the landscape itself, for the man wearing this garment as for those who see him pass. Some sort of epiphany, in fact - something you should be unable to interpret on the moment it appears, something familiar enough not to look plainly outlandish, or related to the world of fashion and its previsible eccentricities. Something odd, "making a slight angle with the universe" - eerily familiar, to say it all, as the faces of people we know when they appear to us in a dream.

At least this is the kind of thing that I'm trying to do with clothes.

[LittleTombo]

vv.Just a remark to the comparison of humans and animals when talking about sexual preferences.vv
Both brainstem and the limbic system are animal related parts of the human brain(eps. the brainstem is relevant when talking about ones sexual pattern and prefferences).
---
Fashion targets the animal related parts of our brain...with neocortex left out in the cold. That's why I guess so many people have a problem with esp. men dressing across the dotted line of their gender(because they don't stop to think about it!).

...comparring ourself to animals means everything when looking at our everyday lives. We are living in a material world of hunters and gathers(in this case the hunted items are different pieces of fabrics for ss and fw purposes).

Zamb: Where does God and Jesus stand on big spending-materialstic- homophobes like yourself? I thought at least a senior citizens on this forum like yourself had a bit more sence than to attack a minority group like that.

[theetruscan]

EDIT: Restated entirely.

Your characterization of Zamb is unfair.

I think a lot of us have a problem with zamb's viewpoint. I think it is a bigoted viewpoint, and that saddens me. I think you're off-base and unjustified with your characterization of him though.

[zamb]

LittleTombo,
I am sure that whatever questions you have for God and Jesus doesn't need me and you can ask them.
Jesus can certainly speak for himself

vv.Just a remark to the comparison of humans and animals when talking about sexual preferences.vv
Both brainstem and the limbic system are animal related parts of the human brain(eps. the brainstem is relevant when talking about ones sexual pattern and prefferences).
---
Fashion targets the animal related parts of our brain...with neocortex left out in the cold. That's why I guess so many people have a problem with esp. men dressing across the dotted line of their gender(because they don't stop to think about it!).

...comparring ourself to animals means everything when looking at our everyday lives. We are living in a material world of hunters and gathers(in this case the hunted items are different pieces of fabrics for ss and fw purposes).

Zamb: Where does God and Jesus stand on big spending-materialstic- homophobes like yourself? I thought at least a senior citizens on this forum like yourself had a bit more sence than to attack a minority group like that.