{Trans-sexual Dressing}[18th November 1990]

[Redbook8:116-118][19901118:2032]{Trans-sexual Dressing}[18th November 1990]

19901118.2032

A 1920’s-30’s[-set] sitcom, ‘You rang, M’Lord?’, on BBC1 [TV] has two aristocratic sisters of whom one is feminine and the other cross-dresses as a man. This is an enduring image of the inter-war period, at least as strong as that of the ‘Flapper’ – whose physique was de-sexualised, flat chests being the* female ideal. But the ‘Flapper’ image has often struck me as resonant, not so much of maleness in its suppression of the female physique, as of xS (R~).

By contrast the 1960s suggest males dressing towards the female ideal, with long hair and jewel[le]ry – a tendency which has by now almost disappeared; but as against this, trousers for women began to reappear (having presumably vanished at the end of the [2^nd World] War at least as early as the late sixties.

With the exception of the last feature, which I cannot explain, these fashion tendencies fit in with the C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] location C(1920) → r~/S~(1928) – (g~)/M~(1936) for the first period, and J~(1960) – G~(1968) – R~(1976) for the second.

(My only, and tentative, suggestion for the female trousers is that as we approach 2048C, the 64-cycle contra-rotation and/or the unifying tendencies of C become more noticeable. But I cannot support this with other evidence).**

*{/a?}

**(& Contra-rotation is virtually ‘having it both ways’)

(But re Unification, which implies Contra-rotation, see [entry after next, [Redbook8:118][19901118:2032b]{Trans-sexual Dressing [continued (3)]}[18th November 1990]] 118)

[Also perhaps worth considering that trousers are ambiguous as to gender & sexuality – more difficult to get off/into, but potentially much more revealing of female sexuality than skirts or dresses.]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger23102022]