Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People

[Ozexpatriate]

Oh, dear - It was all going so well too! Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this - could we please get back to the original subject, and ask you two to take your disagreement off the forum and into PMs

Jack, I have to agree. Interpretations of marriage equality, while certainly linked to issues of tolerance and diversity in the wider society, are separate from our accepting all people who enjoy model railways to fully participate here.

[raymw]

Hi Kevin, Thanks for the understanding. I was going to put a 'smily' in my post but thought that may be thought to be ironic - such is overthinking. The calculus ref was to my post just before yours.

 

Very easy to shoot off in all manner of directions in this thread (innuendo unintended- but it is now!)

[BlackRat]

I have met some great people in life's journey, so good, some not so good and some absolute w*!€$~<!

 

It hasn't mattered whether they were gay, straight, bi, black, white or any other combo you care to mention.

 

All that matters was that they were good people ( to me anyway).

 

And some of them made pretty good model trains as well.

 

We should all be treated equally.

 

I can't see any other argument, life really is to short.

[rockershovel]

Reverting to the OP, I'd have to feel this whole issue should be filed under "Oh really".

 

I really don't see what is gained by airing such matters in such a fashion. I'd have held the OP in higher regard if they had simply contacted those known directly and discussed the matter at whatever length was required, and left the rest of the world to go on its way. I've travelled a bit and seen a thing or two. A few of my workmates and colleagues have been inclined to what the late Spike Milligan described as "nautical enthusiasms" and I've simply left the matter rest with them. It's usually pretty obvious when you are living in close quarters. I had a phase of having "a girl in every port", the proclivities of "nice girls" being proverbial, but I never saw the point of advertising it, and managed to avoid the pitfalls of the nautical life (those ones, anyway) once married.

 

There's more in life than that.

 

Go with God, old lad, whoever he might be for you. I can promise you that most of the world are much less interested than you might think or fear, and the rest of them are easily enough avoided.

Edited September 24, 2015 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

RayMW

 

Having now read your "calculus" posting, isn't all the "inner fish" stuff a re-hash of material that was first made accessible by Karl (Carl?) Sagan, in a book called "The Dragons of Eden" in about 1968?

 

I read Sagan's book in the 1970s, and I still sometimes warn my family if I get up in the morning feeling as if only my "lizard brain" got switched-on (coffee usually switches-on the higher layers, but not always!).

 

Another good read is "The Private Life of the Brain", can't remember the author's name, but she was President of the Royal Society for a period. Susan Greenaway, possibly. She looks at how the brain develops from conception, through early life, which offers another set of perspectives on how/why we think/behave as we do.

 

Kevin

[Andy Y]

I really don't see what is gained by airing such matters in such a fashion. I'd have held the OP in higher regard if they had simply contacted those known directly and discussed the matter at whatever length was required, and left the rest of the world to go on its way. 

 

Similarly you could have chosen to not read or not post in the topic; I can see a good number of members are supportive that it's been raised and it's for them rather than someone who doesn't want to see it.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

The discussion so far has been interesting.

 

Cross dressing has been going on for centuries and only in more modern times has it become a discussion point.

 

Let me be clear, coming out on this forum has been very much on my mind for a couple of years.

 

Coming out anywhere that testosterone or male social ideas are paramount is always a risk and Garret and I have decided to do that......or to be more accurate, Garret decided and I tagged along as the opportunity presented itself in this thread. I am now instantly Garret's lifelong ( or forum long if you please ) friend. That is regardless of how or when we meet or whatever clothes we are wearing at the time. I think that is of value. I have no doubt that both of us would be able to continue our modelling activities without demur although scrambling about on the carpet is a tad difficult in a long skirt, let me tell you!

 

Remember though that a lot of the heavyweight discussion so far has been about sexual orientation and I have already said that I don't dress for sex and none of the dressers who 'come out' on here or indeed anywhere else would suggest that they do either. That is not to say that sex is not part of my ( and their ) life but dressing far far outweighs it and gives me what I assume is an endorphin rush that makes me feel totally euphoric sometimes. I personally have never experienced anything quite like it but I know that all dressers at my personal level ( out and proud ) feel exactly the same. It could be said that I am mentally ill but this idea is not recognised in this country and the whole scene is regarded as harmless both to an individual and to society at large.

 

Coming out in such a way on this forum which is unrelated to my dressing in any direct sense now gives me an opportunity to dress that I didn't have before ie going to Taunton for Cap'n Kernow's soirée fully dressed. I can tell you that I was sore tempted the meet before last but my friend who lives within a few miles talked me out of it.

 

Just to blow one misconception out of the water, drag queens are mostly NOT considered to be dressers. We do it because we really want to and for no other reason; they do it because it represents a living. I have never met one at a t girl venue but I have been to see them when they are working and there is a rapport but even they will admit that there presentation is just as a drag queen and everyday life is conducted as a man.

[PhilH]

 

 

 

The discussion so far has been interesting.

 

Cross dressing has been going on for centuries and only in more modern times has it become a discussion point.

 

Let me be clear, coming out on this forum has been very much on my mind for a couple of years.

 

Coming out anywhere that testosterone or male social ideas are paramount is always a risk and Garret and I have decided to do that......or to be more accurate, Garret decided and I tagged along as the opportunity presented itself in this thread. I am now instantly Garret's lifelong ( or forum long if you please ) friend. That is regardless of how or when we meet or whatever clothes we are wearing at the time. I think that is of value. I have no doubt that both of us would be able to continue our modelling activities without demur although scrambling about on the carpet is a tad difficult in a long skirt, let me tell you!

 

Remember though that a lot of the heavyweight discussion so far has been about sexual orientation and I have already said that I don't dress for sex and none of the dressers who 'come out' on here or indeed anywhere else would suggest that they do either. That is not to say that sex is not part of my ( and their ) life but dressing far far outweighs it and gives me what I assume is an endorphin rush that makes me feel totally euphoric sometimes. I personally have never experienced anything quite like it but I know that all dressers at my personal level ( out and proud ) feel exactly the same. It could be said that I am mentally ill but this idea is not recognised in this country and the whole scene is regarded as harmless both to an individual and to society at large.

 

Coming out in such a way on this forum which is unrelated to my dressing in any direct sense now gives me an opportunity to dress that I didn't have before ie going to Taunton for Cap'n Kernow's soirée fully dressed. I can tell you that I was sore tempted the meet before last but my friend who lives within a few miles talked me out of it.

 

Just to blow one misconception out of the water, drag queens are mostly NOT considered to be dressers. We do it because we really want to and for no other reason; they do it because it represents a living. I have never met one at a t girl venue but I have been to see them when they are working and there is a rapport but even they will admit that there presentation is just as a drag queen and everyday life is conducted as a man.

 

 

Serious question...I see your photo with your mates was at Alresford...I've met you on the MHR a couple of times plus exhibitions etc., if I meet you again as your 'alter ego' do I still call you Dave?

 

As I say, serious question.

[rockershovel]

I'm intrigued with the idea of a model railway forum being described as "testosterone paramount". That said, I've also seen a thread on a Harley riders forum about HO scale model railroads, I suppose they are all "big boys toys" of one sort or another. My Broadway 2-8-0 was a great success in the office at Baku, but models of various descriptions are common in engineering offices so people accept them.

[skipepsi]

Hmmm I hadn't thought of that difficulty, may be I don't know as much as I thought I did.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Serious question...I see your photo with your mates was at Alresford...I've met you on the MHR a couple of times plus exhibitions etc., if I meet you again as your 'alter ego' do I still call you Dave?

 

As I say, serious question.

 

Yes it is Phil and I am pleased you asked it. My femme name is Ava and I would be delighted if you addressed me by that name. My 'handle' on other sites is Lady Hay. I might change my name on here to that to reflect my alter ego. You can of course take the p---s out of me as well as long as it is friendly. I am a big girl and can defend myself if needed.

 

Do you still drive on the MHR? Will you be driving on the Steam Gala? I am of a mind to attend if the weather is kind.

[PhilH]

Yes it is Phil and I am pleased you asked it. My femme name is Ava and I would be delighted if you addressed me by that name. My 'handle' on other sites is Lady Hay. I might change my name on here to that to reflect my alter ego. You can of course take the p---s out of me as well as long as it is friendly. I am a big girl and can defend myself if needed.

 

Do you still drive on the MHR? Will you be driving on the Steam Gala? I am of a mind to attend if the weather is kind.

 

Fair enough, I'll have to remember that..and yes friendly pee taking is ALWAYS the order of the day.

 

Yes I do still drive, yes I am rostered for the gala,(24th) but there's a possibility that I might also be rostered for a trip out on the mainline with the Brit in which case I will give the gala turn away. 

[runs as required]

From a counsellor I spoke to recently, there are connections apparent between autism spectrum disorders and trans people. How well it has been investigated is another question, as trans issues are not that well investigated or understood.

 

All the best

 

K

Curiously (and revealingly) I misread 'trans people' as 'trains people' throughout  K's post and it made total sense to me.

 

I think its also to do with the whole psychodynamic thing of being on (or off) the rails, absolute block signalling and the old BR Rule Book we all had to sign for.

  dhig

 

ed: changed the word thread to post

Edited September 24, 2015 by runs as required

[The Stationmaster]

I would hate to think of some really good modelers  who come into this category being driven away by a few careless words of some unthinking person.

 

Sorry I should elucidate, I don’t know whether any have been “driven away” from this site. Transgender or indeed gender orientation or sexual preference (between consenting adults)  of any sort has no effect on modeling skills.

 

It seems a real shame that I even have to write that last sentence....

 

Best, Pete.

I agree absolutely Pete - some aspects of this thread have veered off at a rather distressing (in my view) tangent which bears little relationship to where the discussion started and where it should have stayed.  We are talking about ordinary people who try to live their lives in a way which does no harm to others and who, by appearing here, indicate they probably share some of our hobby interests.  That's what this is all about and nothing else and we should in my view give those people our support simply because they are human beings, if for no other reason.

 

And starting off about what is right or wrong about various things which do really do not have much connection with the original points could - even if inadvertently - possibly lead to something which is offensive or discouraging to those people.  Nothing wrong with expressing a view but let's take care what we say and how we say because we don't know the background (in relation to the OP's comments) of whoever is reading this thread.

 

As to nature or nurture about getting involved in our hobby the easiest answer seems to be that gender is totally irrelevant.  There are a number of female contributing members of RMweb who by what little they give of their background have clearly been born in a female body - but they are deeply involved with the hobby.  And while she's not a particularly active modeller I can assure everyone - from personal observation at the time - that my daughter was obviously female at birth, and it equally obviously has little to do with nurture or parental encouragement as her interests were (unfortunately) centred on the LNER and are now drifting towards the OBB; I duly apologise for betraying personal confidences.

[GarrettTheThief]

I agree with station master. I think it's due to how boys and girls are socialised. I don't there is anything innate when it comes to preference for toys. I hope there's a shift in attitudes towards them because kids should play with what they please regardless of who it's marketed to (as long as it's not for adults!). Target has removed gender markers despite a lot of resistance from people who still live in the past.

 

The idea that men should be breadwinners and women nurturers harms everyone.

[bmthtrains - David]

Reading a topic on gender and sexuality on a model railway forum reminds me of the sad realisation I made years ago that discrimination, cruelty and hatred seems to be stronger within minority groups than towards them.

 

Take model railways - I see more mud slinging, bitchiness and lack of inclusivity among modellers than I've ever seen from those outside the hobby towards it. Fine scale versus train set, OO versus N, one magazine's fans versus another, and so on.

 

In the LGBTetc 'community' it's even worse, and sadly I do think trans people suffer the most. And my own experience is that gay men are far more homophobic, ageist, sexist, openly racist, cruel and far from inclusive towards each other than most straight people are towards them. Ironically, for a group of people supposedly championing diversity and inclusivity in society, these traits are not often found within the group.

 

There seems to be something about being a minority group - what it is exactly I am not sure, perhaps it makes the fight to be top of the pile more intense so the gloves come off, or maybe something to do with feeling second class in someway prompting behaviour to push those around you further down so you feel elevated above them.

 

I may never quite understand it, but as the positive comments show for the OP on this thead, I suspect LGBT individuals would often find more acceptance in the model railway crowd, and railway modellers the same in the LGBT crowd than within their own 'groups'. With that thought in mind, perhaps it's simply that when you get too many similar or like-minded people together, conflict naturally arises. If so, I can't think of any better argument for diversity.

 

David

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

perhaps it's simply that when you get too many similar or like-minded people together,

 

You get a committee that never makes a decision

[Ozexpatriate]

I may never quite understand it, but as the positive comments show for the OP on this thead, I suspect LGBT individuals would often find more acceptance in the model railway crowd, 

If a minority group of people who are sometimes socially marginalized simply because of their hobby interests* can't be understanding of other individuals in a social minority, I don't know who can.

 

* By which of course I refer to the usual stereotyped labels: anorak / trainspotter in shorts and cap / railfan / plays with toy trains / etc.

 

The relatively modest marginalization of model railway enthusiasts cannot of course be compared with marginalization for LGBTQ people but the empathy is there, or should be.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[raymw]

Hi Kevin,

 

 

Having now read your "calculus" posting, isn't all the "inner fish" stuff a re-hash of material that was first made accessible by Karl (Carl?) Sagan, in a book called "The Dragons of Eden" in about 1968?

I suppose it is all a rehash of Darwin, various religions, etc. The series showed some more up-to- date research, genetic differences, etc., using methods and research results that were not available when Sagan wrote. I can not remember if i read Sagan's book, but to my mind the short series was well presented, and I found it a worthwhile watch.

[phil-b259]

I agree with station master. I think it's due to how boys and girls are socialised. I don't there is anything innate when it comes to preference for toys. I hope there's a shift in attitudes towards them because kids should play with what they please regardless of who it's marketed to (as long as it's not for adults!). Target has removed gender markers despite a lot of resistance from people who still live in the past.

 

The idea that men should be breadwinners and women nurturers harms everyone.

 

Actually various scientific studies have shown the social conditions in which a child is raised make very little difference as to their preferences with regard to toys clothes, future jobs and partners. In a word its all down to Chemistry - certain combinations of hormones, etc be they in the parents body during pregnancy or as seen in the person once they are born seem to produce what we would think of as 'feminine' tendencies while other combinations result in more masculine traits. This is then overlayed with the physical gender we are born with and can result in either a very girly girl / masculine boy or at the other end of the spectrum a boy / girl that feels trapped in the 'wrong' body and undergoes gender reassignment to become the person they feel they really are.

 

What does seem to be true however is that females usually have a certain combination that naturally makes them gravitate towards the caring aspect of life and boys the action man aspect. This is hardly surprising as we now know that mother and baby binding involves all sorts of chemical and pheromones which only occur in the female body and are as much of a product of our evolution as learning to walk upright was.

 

I recall this inbuilt preference being demonstrated on monkeys - a toy truck and a doll (neither of which the animals had seen before in any shape or form) were placed before the group and it was noted that most of the males found the truck the more interesting toy to play with while the females seamed more interested in the doll. They had not been 'taught' to prefer one over the other by anyone before the test took place yet the results seemed to confirm stereotypical human behaviour.

 

Equally i recall reading a study where a set of parents - who were very much of the belief that i was the fault of toy makers etc that girls liked dolls and boys like trucks attempted to ensure that their daughters were bought 'male toys' in exactly the same ratio as 'female' ones. They were most upset to find that their daughters still preferred playing with the 'female' toys over the male ones thus reinforcing the thought that thee is something far more fundamental than what toys we play with that governs our position on the male / female axis.

 

So what does this mean? Well basically that while we should not pigeon hole someone into doing a certain job or liking certain things based on their sex, there is nothing wrong with observing that the majority of males / females will confirm to the stereotypes. However those that do not follow the chemical / gender make up of the majority should be encouraged and accepted for who they really are and not subject to any restrictions on their potential for life fulfilment.

Edited September 24, 2015 by phil-b259

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Actually various scientific studies have shown the social conditions in which a child is raised make very little difference as to their preferences with regard to toys clothes, future jobs and partners. In a word its all down to Chemistry - certain combinations of hormones, etc be they in the parents body during pregnancy or as seen in the person once they are born seem to produce what we would think of as 'feline' tendencies while other combinations result in more masculine traits. This is then overlayed with the physical gender we are born with and can result in either a very girly girl / masculine boy or at the other end of the spectrum a boy / girl that feels trapped in the 'wrong' body and undergoes gender reassignment to become the person they feel they really are.

 

This is good but not really too accurate. If this hormone imbalance is addressed in the womb or later in life it is a fact that there are 100 times more men who are 'in touch with their feminine side' than there are women going the other way.

 

There are patterns to this but I am wary of projecting too many statistics as I have many friends who dress and we all have different reasons or motivation to do what we do. In essence though and as an educated guess, I think the answer might lie in testosterone production and the pituitary gland that controls hormone production. Both men and women produce testosterone, men at 10 times the level of women and this hormone seems to control sex drive in both genders ( so now you know why men want sex at 10 times the intensity of women!). In both genders, any 'spare' testosterone is converted by the body to estrogen which is the main hormone that women produce from their ovaries. I am unaware of why the testosterone is treated as spare by the body or why men produce a lot or a little but I am fairly sure that a low testosterone level in a man is the main reason that feminine behaviour and emulation is so satisfying. At this point it gets confusing in that the brain is a far greater influence in that part of the brain controls production of these hormones and nobody knows what that means in the scheme of things or why there is an imbalance at all, whether it is measurable and what variation produces what effect.

 

This is in stark contrast to railway modelling which is purely a mechanical if therapeutic hobby whether you have varnished your nails or not.

[Debs.]

Take great care. A sly bit of editing and  a nasty member of the LGBT community ( there are quite a few of them ) taking exception to it could turn this post into a 'hate' crime.......

 

I hadn`t realised that those G-scale garden-rail folks had so many issues!!!

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Which illustrates my earlier point, that the relevant legislation constitutes an invitation to malicious entrapment, an opportunity to threaten with criminal conviction based upon the unsupported and unquantifiable opinion of a third party, that this depends upon the opinion of a judiciary whose selection depends (since Blair specifically introduced the requirement) upon the demonstrable support for an activist platform and is therefore thoroughly bad law.

 

Oh dear. I will try to explain. I am an active member of a group of men ( and a few sympathetic females ) who indulge in cross dressing. We thoroughly enjoy it. Nevertheless we also enjoy undue attention as we are visibly different and in many cases, quite easily spotted as cross dressers especially up close or when we speak ( still work in progress in my case ).

 

We are very much more likely to be the target of abuse than a gay person for instance but if we were coloured.........we are entitled to a level playing field in work, rest or play and the Equality Act enshrines that right in law.

 

This is the first time in the whole of my life that I have ever been a member of a visible minority and it is also the first time that I understand what my white gay and coloured anything have had to put up with.

 

The Equality Act gives me that level playing field and makes me feel safer because the population at large are now aware that being abusive to me and my friends is now effectively illegal. In my book that is a good law.

 

On a broader note, the law is supposed to reflect society and what is fair to all. Sometimes it is difficult to see the whole picture particularly if you are basically unaffected but cannot see that the restriction is justified mainly because you have never been the victim of abuse and feel unconnected to those that are plus ( and I make the natural assumption here ) you don't indulge is such abuse so you are mystified as to why the law is needed.

 

I hope you can see that the alternative to my natural assumption is that you wish to engage in abusing me and other non conforming sections of society and you have no wish to be restricted in your choice to do so which is how it was before the Equality Act came into law.

Edited September 25, 2015 by dwhite4dcc

[rockershovel]

and with that, post deleted.

I've deleted mine since it included the quote, and made no sense out of context

 

Re the above, the last paragraph sums up the special pleading, sophistry and sense of entitlement that lies at the heart of the whole issue of identity politics. As you rightly say, few transvestites genuinely pass as females to the disinterested observer. Quite a few transsexuals don't, either.

 

The key issue of political correctness is that the white, nominally Christian, straight, western male is always, always wrong and any contortion or contradiction is permissible to uphold this. Diane Abbot was lately quoted in the press, criticising "white hipsters encroaching on a black neighbourhood". Jack Straw has said openly that "the English race is not worth saving". I see no logical basis on which both statements are not "racist" within the meaning if the law, and hence that the law is either fundamentally flawed or administered without impartiality or justice.

 

There is an unfortunate fact which is routinely denied or suppressed, but stubbornly remains, that a large cohort of the population find such matters unacceptable, but take no serious interest on the basis that it is someone else's business.

 

However once you embark upon the course of resorting to the law to dictate things which do not bear scrutiny, you arrive at the situation where the law brings itself into disrepute. You arrive in a situation where a Dutch judge can say in open court, that "the truth is no defence". You arrive in a situation such as in Swden, where dissent is now a criminal act - in the name of freedom (note that the EU have more than once indicated that they favour such laws, and our own government AND opposition have indicated likewise).

 

So, I have no interest at all in whether a small group of men like to dress as women; I really don't care. But I fear for the country when such things are advanced as justification for the changes wrought upon our legal system. This is the substance if my reply to Feman; do I agree that such things are devoutly to be wished? No, absolutely not.

Edited September 25, 2015 by rockershovel

[trisonic]

So, I have no interest at all in whether a small group of men like to dress as women; I really don't care.

So, why bother replying to the thread then? I just counted 12 posts from you (without taking into account the ones that have been deleted) that’s 10% of the entire thread.

 

Best, Pete.

Edited September 25, 2015 by trisonic