It appears that my outspoken article A Point of View from Sally in the December 1998 magazine has opened a whole can of worms! Thank you to Jessica, Lena, and Angela for direct replies, and to Helen who I believe alludes to it as well, on pages 58, 64, 66, and 15 respectively of the March 1999 issue.
I feel I have to respond to the comments in these letters. The first thing I must point out is that I was careful to preface the offending paragraph in my article with the phrase "my personal view is that ......", and it is simply that - my personal view. I didn't expect everyone to agree with it, but I did expect most people to accept that it's just as valid as their own view (whatever that may be). After all, if we're expecting the world to accept us, the least we can do is to accept each other first. And honesty? Well, after lying my way through childhood and adolescence to satisfy my need to cross-dress, I now passionately believe in being totally honest - so far as I'm concerned, we're all guys in frocks, whatever our motivation for dressing, and however well we pass.
I know that Lena was one of those who complained about my arriving dressed "inappropriately" at Rotherham in November - I won't repeat in this text the reasons why I chose to dress that way, since my letter in the March 1999 magazine (page 64) explains it well enough. Suffice it to say that it was not simply me being provocative (although I won't deny that I'm a provocative person). However, I most certainly was making a point - which is simply that I'm free to dress how I please (subject to local judicial and religious laws). This freedom is already enjoyed by all women in the western world, and should apply equally to all men. Sorry Lena, but this isn't negotiable, nor is it conditional on whether or not people are upset by it. Many women suffered directly and indirectly at the beginning of this century in their fight for the freedom to wear trousers, and any man who wants to fight for his freedom to wear a skirt must expect a rough ride too.
Consequently, Lena's point that some cross-dressers are "less than convincing, but they do at least try [to pass]" is not relevant to this debate. The plain fact is that I don't have to try to pass, and furthermore, I don't want to try. The Beaumont Society's teaching that we should aim to pass is but one goal for which to strive - it's not the only one, and it's no more valid than my goal, which is simply to have fun wearing girlie stuff. However, I've found this to be a very difficult concept to get across to BS and non-BS members alike - I continually get comments like "that blue wig isn't helping you to look convincing", and "real girls wouldn't wear stockings with a skirt that short". The possibility that I could want to dress in women's clothes without trying to look like a real woman seems to be alien, even heretical, and I'm deeply curious to know why this should be.
The only reason I can think of is that passing used to be the only way for a cross-dresser to be able to get out in public. Those were the days when it was virtually an offence for a man to dress as a woman - if you passed, you got away with it, but if you didn't, you were shamed into undergoing ECT or some equally unpleasant 'curative' treatment. I'd imagine that this fear of being read still weighs heavily on the minds of many older cross-dressers (no disrespect intended). However, things are different nowadays - the media are more open about 'alternative' lifestyles, and almost everyone has access to the Internet. Consequently, the younger generation of 'out' cross-dressers generally has a more happy-go-lucky attitude towards its unconventional lifestyle. With this self-acceptance sometimes comes a political motive to want to change the world so that no cross-dresser need be discriminated against in the future. A grand ideal? Certainly! But if we all dressed so convincingly that we blended totally into the background, then no-one would know there's an issue. To use Lena's example, if Asians applied make-up to convincingly appear as if they were white, there'd be no racial abuse, and no need for anti-racial legislation. Are we seriously suggesting that that's a good idea? Someone has to go out and be noticed in the first instance, and if I choose to do it (attendant risks notwithstanding), that's my decision! It's also worth remembering that, if we were able to exercise our freedom of dress, then all cross-dressers would benefit - including those who want to pass convincingly.
It goes without saying, therefore, that I vehemently disagree with Helen that "if you can be read, you should not go out in public". This is an outrageous statement for anyone to make, especially a closet cross-dresser! Not only is it tantamount to admitting that we're all freaks, but it comes dangerously close to suggesting that, as cross-dressers, we should expect to have our freedom curtailed. Surely you jest, Helen?
Yes, I am extremely vocal against any person - cross-dresser or non - who wants to suppress my natural mode of self-expression, either by trying to stop me dressing, or by laying down an arbitrary dress code with which I must comply. However, my friends know that I'm also sympathetic to those who hold different views, and who're willing to defend those views with something more substantial than a gut reaction based on fear, on ignorance, or on simply upholding 'traditional' values. Angela makes the point that some men "really are women in all but physicality"; as a heterosexual male cross-dresser, I don't understand potential transsexuals or the motivation which drives them, but this doesn't give me the right to say that their opinions are worthless! Quite the contrary - I defend the right of people like Angela to be what they feel that they are. After all, who am I to dictate to others how they should lead their lives, especially since I'm asking the world to accept me as I am? However, Angela, I maintain that my argument that we should "admit that [we're] really men underneath" does apply to "transvestites pretending that they're real women" as stated in my article - each of us has to decide whether we personally fall into that category.
And what about Jessica's letter? Jessica is one of my long-time e-mail correspondents, so she knows me and my politics very well. I finally met Jessica at Rotherham last year - shortly after my arrival at the hotel in a skirt and tights which made me so infamous! And what a wonderful example her letter contains of the old adage: 'I disagree with what you do, but I defend your right to do it'. If only other BS members were as accepting of those who don't conform to their personal beliefs, or to the teachings of the Society as a whole! But I won't labour this point, as it'd simply be repetition of my March 1999 letter.
Finally, Janett says in her March 1999 Presidential Address that "the Beaumont Society is [not] a fuddy-duddy organisation". I don't know whether this is an oblique reference to the Rotherham incident or not - but in any case, that's beside the point. I feel compelled to report that, amongst the crowd at the Spring Glitz weekend in Blackpool in March, many of those who'd been involved with the BS certainly perceived that it had this type of image. It's seen as catering purely for those gender-motivated cross-dressers and would-be TSs who want to pass as women, and not for fetishists, little girls, free-dressers like me, or indeed - as one person succinctly put it - "anyone who wants to get out into the real world and have fun". If this is really true, then the Society should advertise itself as such, and I won't in future waste my money on subscribing to a group which fails to support or even recognise my views. On the other hand, in this day and age when cross-dressing and certain aspects of fetishism are becoming an accepted part of everyday life, is it not an appropriate time for the BS to examine its creed of 'passing at all costs', and to reconsider its automatic rejection of minority cross-dressing groups?
Graham, aka Sally Watson (S5489)
Beaumont Society Letter, Volume 7 Number 2, June 1999.