NOT crossing --

"Drag" is a costume, INTENDED to exaggerate, hyperbolize the "femme" cultural paradigm. Cross dress presumes clothing that clearly distinguishes M from F. Fashion doesn't distinguish along the edges, in the gender continuum between cis-F and cis-M. Judith Butler refers to gender poles as "hetero-normative dyad" -- which she asserts is socio-culturally hegemonic.

And socio-culturally, we're starting to de-polarize, deconstruct the normative dyad.

Terms matter. "Cross-Dressing" implies clear gender boundaries in sartorial presentation, and that the bounderies are "crossed" in clothes choices, fashion statements. Butler asserts that "gender is performative" -- presentation as performance.

Not "Cross-Dress," but rather "Wardrobe Deconstruction" ? ? ?

We like to "appropriate and subvert" -- wearing clothes clearly and literally tagged "Women" and sized female. But on me it presents M, "unisex" or on the edge in subtle detail (neckline hem in T's). Shoulder tressed, no 2nd-ary "male pattern" hair, earrings (6 ea.), under-dressing. We strive to appropriate F clothes, subvert gender presentation, perform gender deconstruction.

Deconstructing gender, not "crossing" clear gender lines but rather blurring lines, problematizing gender presentation boundaries.

Terms matter! "Cross-Dressing" as a term is analog to the pronoun issue. We hate it when the State  calls me "Sir" !!!

☆☆☆

C'mon ! ! !

This is a really simple idea: "It's not a disguise, no costume, not an alternate ID. Gender distinction in attire is soooo last couple centuries!"

 

I can only see this thread end up in argument and disenfranchising people.

Locked