"Any comments?"? You're damned right I have comments! Despite having read your letter in the September 1999 issue of the magazine over and over again, I still can't believe the rubbish you've written about me. If you really had "read with great interest" the three pieces [1, 2, 3] I've had published in these pages over the last year, you wouldn't have mis-represented me so many times within the space of a mere 600 words. I don't have the time or the inclination to describe my cross-dressing philosophy yet again to someone who obviously isn't interested in trying to understand it; however, if you choose to continue your attack, at least do me the honour of reviewing my material properly – then you might actually come across as knowing what you're talking about.
It's interesting to me that you appear to have a similarly tenuous grasp of the Beaumont Society Constitution. Despite your having signed a declaration to agree to abide by its contents, you clearly haven't ever read it – if you had, you wouldn't have come out with such ludicrous statements as:
"Dressing in a provocative and anti-social manner and saying 'look at me, I'm a man wearing women's clothes' is both distasteful and openly flaunting the principles of the Society."
"I could do little else but sympathise with those who made the complaint [at Rotherham, November 1998] and have empathy for them trying to retain our standards and principles."
"If we are to be accepted by the general public as men who enjoy dressing as women trying to emulate the beauty, finesse and deportment of the female species, then those of us who fall outside this boundary should not be members of our Society."
"I can only applaud the suggestion of one member for those who transgress the rules to go dressed to a football match, and see how well they maintain their alleged femininity."
In fact, the Constitution doesn't specify a dress code for its members; furthermore, it makes no mention of any requirement to pass as a woman when dressed, although if you wish to attempt this deception, that's your prerogative within the Society's charter. In fact, the Constitution states only that members must not bring the organisation into disrepute (article 5, paragraph 2), and I've been assured from the very top that my behaviour is a long way from this. So next time you want to criticise someone based on the rule book, make sure you know what's in it! Incidentally, I find your suggestion that I should be taught a lesson by football hooligans to be vindictive and extremely offensive. Are you seriously wishing that I come to harm just because my radical views don't coincide with your beliefs? How can you stoop so low? Where's your self-respect?
To complete your trip through fantasy-land, you then write:
"Now that I have come to terms with my other self ......"
Have you really? Let me tell you something - a person can truthfully say he's comfortable with his beliefs when he can accept other people holding different views without immediately suggesting that they be thrown to the lions. Such is the knee-jerk reaction of a coward, borne out of fear, ignorance and jealousy - it's happening all around the world every day. Can you not see the similarity between what you've suggested should happen to me at the football match, and a group of insecure macho lager-louts beating me up simply because I'm different? No, my friend, you haven't come to terms with your other self at all. You might have begun the journey, but you've still got a very long way to go.
Graham (a.k.a. Sally Watson)
References:
1. Beaumont Society Letter, "A Point of View from Sally", vol 6 no 4 p 49, December 1998.
2. Beaumont Society Letter, (untitled), vol 7 no 1 pp 64-66, March 1999.
3. Beaumont Society Letter, (untitled), vol 7 no 2 pp 64-65, June 1999.
Beaumont Society Letter, Volume 7 Number 4, December 1999.