Consideration of others (was Re: Survey comments, part 2)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Joan
----------

>>From a purely sociological perspective, we owe it to our TG
>>sisters to put our best face forward to the general public.
>>The general public already misunderstands what we are about.

True, and we do that by carrying ourselves in a gentle and
loving manner. A great looking person acting rudely ruins the
day. But a nice "ugly in the world's eyes" person is truly
beautiful.

>The principle behind all of our behavior, dress, and restroom
>guidlines is being considerate to others.

I'm sure it is on the surface. but the way it is handled often
makes me wonder.

>Those who say "f*ck you, I'll dress the way I want, get used
>to it" are just being selfish.

I doubt anyone is thinking the f word concerning this. I think
unconcerned people are an extreme rarity at DLV. But what about
the genderqueer, and genderf*** people in the world.

I think they too deserve a place at the table, and an equal
one at that.

>Consideration of others is part of what we learn as we grow
>up and learn to get along with people. It shouldn't be that
>foreign a concept to anybody who's been around a number of
>decades.

Very true.

>Even these complaints, which some consider to be petty, about
>things like beard shadow and no makeup, are most definitely
>related to consideration of others, or in this case the lack
>of it.

I think I must respectfully disagree.

I think consideration most applies to the inner matters of the
heart. I work hard to not judge a person by their looks, but
by how they treat me. I generally haven't been treated
inconsiderately by these folks who may be appearing differently
from the way society wants them to be. I don't see beard shadow
or lack of makeup as inconsiderate. I do see rudeness and anger
and lack of hygiene as inconsiderate.

Let's not judge the book by it's cover, but take the time to
look inside. A pleasant surprise awaits.

With love and consideration, Joan here in LV.


----------
(This posting was entered by Joan, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: annie
----------


>From a purely sociological perspective, we owe it to our TG
>sisters to put our best face forward to the general public.
>The general public already misunderstands what we are about.

The principle behind all of our behavior, dress, and restroom
guidlines is being considerate to others.

Those who say "f*ck you, I'll dress the way I want, get used
to it" are just being selfish.

Consideration of others is part of what we learn as we grow
up and learn to get along with people. It shouldn't be that
foreign a concept to anybody who's been around a number of
decades.

Even these complaints, which some consider to be petty, about
things like beard shadow and no makeup, are most definitely
related to consideration of others, or in this case the lack
of it.


----------
(This posting was entered by annie, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: annie
----------

>I doubt anyone is thinking the f word concerning this. I think
>unconcerned people are an extreme rarity at DLV.

Extreme rarity, yes. We do see them, however.

These people are incredibly self-centered and care not one iota
about anybody else.

Unfortunately they tend to make a lot of noise, figuratively and
literally.
. . .

>But what about the genderqueer, and genderf*** people in
>the world.

A good set of questions for next year's survey might be on the
attitude of our attendees toward GQ and GF individuals.

As of this time, the expression of most genderqueers would not be
in line with our guidelines for dress, which proscribes either
complete boymode or complete girlmode.

It's my opinion that genderqueer individuals are not attracted to
events such as Diva Las Vegas, making this somewhat self-regulating.

As you probably know, there's ongoing discussion (both in the GQ
and TG communities) as to whether genderqueer does or does not
occupy a point on the TG spectrum.

Some say it does, others (often times GQs themselves) reject this,
arguing that the TG community is still gender-binary.

As an aside, our local TG support group has recently affirmed that
we welcome GQs as well as other gender-nonconforming and gender-
questioning individuals.
. . .

As to genderf*ck (skag-drag and similar styles), it's definitely
been a no-no at DLV and probably will be indefinitely.

This is a blatant in-your-face sociological and political
statement. I don't think the style would be welcome at DLV, and
is in particular inappropriate for our mainstream activities.


----------
(This posting was entered by annie, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: annie
----------

>>These people are incredibly self-centered and care not one iota
>>about anybody else. Unfortunately they tend to make a lot of
>>noise, figuratively and literally.

>There were at least 5 people at this years DLV that fall into
>this category. After the remarks and lack of assist from these
>folks when I needed help BADLY, I will never volunteer for
>anything at DLV again.

This saddens me to hear, LeeAnna. :(

I know you have a conflict next year, but I hope in the future
you'll get back and we, the attendees as a whole, can show you
that this was an isolated incident.

I know the majority of the DLV participants appreciate our
efforts. Most of them realize that if we didn't do what we do,
there would be no DLV.

>In my opinon, there are a lot more people attending DLV lately
>with the "ME" attitude than in past years.... just my opinon for
>what it is worth.

I hear you, and I unfortunately I can't refute this although I
wish I could. :( One fact of life is that there will always be
more equine derrieres than there will be equines. :(

I do know, from knowing and getting to know the countless down to
earth people at this year's DLV, that the ME-ME-ME types are way
down in the minority. They (the ME types) do, however, demand more
than their fair ration of attention, so it may appear that there
are more of them than there are.


----------
(This posting was entered by annie, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: LeeAnna
----------


>>I doubt anyone is thinking the f word concerning this. I think
>>unconcerned people are an extreme rarity at DLV.

>Extreme rarity, yes. We do see them, however.

>These people are incredibly self-centered and care not one iota
>about anybody else. Unfortunately they tend to make a lot of
>noise, figuratively and literally.

There were at least 5 people at this years DLV that fall into
this category. After the remarks and lack of assist from these
folks when I needed help BADLY, I will never volunteer for
anything at DLV again.

In my opinon, there are a lot more people attending DLV lately
with the "ME" attitude than in past years.... just my opinon for
what it is worth.

LeeAnna


----------
(This posting was entered by LeeAnna, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Joan
----------

>>But what about the genderqueer, and genderf*** people in
>>the world.

>A good set of questions for next year's survey might be on the
>attitude of our attendees toward GQ and GF individuals.

I agree, this issue needs to be addressed, and soon.

>As of this time, the expression of most genderqueers would not be
>in line with our guidelines for dress, which proscribes either
>complete boymode or complete girlmode.

Then perhaps we should change our guidelines so we could be more
inclusive.

>It's my opinion that genderqueer individuals are not attracted to
>events such as Diva Las Vegas, making this somewhat self-regulating.

I would think there are genderqueer individuals who would be
attracted to DLV. Perhaps i am one of them.

>As you probably know, there's ongoing discussion (both in the GQ
>and TG communities) as to whether genderqueer does or does not
>occupy a point on the TG spectrum.

>Some say it does, others (often times GQs themselves) reject this,
>arguing that the TG community is still gender-binary.

I wish the TG community was not binary. Sometimes I just don't fit in.

>As an aside, our local TG support group has recently affirmed that
>we welcome GQs as well as other gender-nonconforming and gender-
>questioning individuals.

If they can do it, why not us?

>As to genderf*ck (skag-drag and similar styles), it's definitely
>been a no-no at DLV and probably will be indefinitely.

What is skag drag?

>This is a blatant in-your-face sociological and political
>statement. I don't think the style would be welcome at DLV, and
>is in particular inappropriate for our mainstream activities.

Why not? I'd be OK with it.

Do I belong at DLV. If not, I will gladly move on.

Sincerely, Joan, fighting the good fight.


----------
(This posting was entered by Joan, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: annie
----------

>>As of this time, the expression of most genderqueers would not be
>>in line with our guidelines for dress, which proscribes either
>>complete boymode or complete girlmode.

>Then perhaps we should change our guidelines so we could be more
>inclusive.

Are GQs part of our target audience? (I don't know.)

Many say that ABs are part of the overall TG spectrum as well,
but I think that most of our attendees would draw a line of
inclusion that places them clearly on the other side.

>>It's my opinion that genderqueer individuals are not attracted to
>>events such as Diva Las Vegas, making this somewhat self-regulating.

>I would think there are genderqueer individuals who would be
>attracted to DLV. Perhaps i am one of them.

I'm gonna speak very freely here since you brought it up. I don't
think you are GQ. I think you have TG tendencies but don't fit
neatly into any of the little labeled boxes that people assign
to points on the TG spectrum. I also think you are in a questioning
stage at this point in time.

I can identify with this as well. To question is the answer! :)

>>Some say it does, others (often times GQs themselves) reject
>>this, arguing that the TG community is still gender-binary.

>I wish the TG community was not binary. Sometimes I just don't
>fit in.

But it is. The TG community is very much based around the
duality of male/female and masculine/feminine. It will be
for much longer than you and I combined will be on this planet.

>>As an aside, our local TG support group has recently affirmed that
>>we welcome GQs as well as other gender-nonconforming and gender-
>>questioning individuals.

>If they can do it, why not us?

Apples and oranges.

Different group, different goals, different target audience.

>>As to genderf*ck (skag-drag and similar styles), it's definitely

>What is skag drag?

Good examples are the 70s motorcycle gang known as the Cycle Sluts
and the album cover of the first Mothers Of Invention album.

>Do I belong at DLV. If not, I will gladly move on.

You are a valued attendee and volunteer of DLV.

However some of your opinions are in the minority.

I can also identify with this. I'm sure that the majority of the
group would say that my fashion choices for Lunch With Ginger
are not what they would choose.

We don't all have to agree on everything. Living in that kind
of world would be very boring.

>Sincerely, Joan, fighting the good fight.

There's no need to fight at all. All of us need to respect each
others' opinions.


----------
(This posting was entered by annie, an external user of MyDLV.)