* Sam Plusnet:

> On 24-Apr-22 2:50, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> But I'm not wearing a bra in the manner of a hypothetical group of "men
>> who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have so-called
>> "gynecomasty".) Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
>> it just like women do.
>
> That seems to suggest that _not_ wearing a bra would be unwomanly in
> some way.

I didn't want to suggest that.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* CDB:

> On 4/23/2022 9:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>>> or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."
>
>> If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he
>> doesn't, it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of (a)
>> obesity or (b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more common.)
>
> Unless they has changed markedly since getting their picture took, I
> don't think Quinn is likely to be dealing with moobs. More likely, a
> brassiere would be a cosmetic flourish, or else what has been called a
> "training bra".

I wonder how you'd get that from that photo.

This is really TMI, but I've already mentioned here that I indeed had
"moobs"; this came up in the context of when it's ok to talk about a
man's "breasts" or "breast" rather than "chest".

And while we're on it, I've been hesitant to wear a bra and stuff it for
the purpose of making a dress look "right". I've always landed on that
people should get used to how dresses look when someone has a flat
chest. So I've only taken up wearing bras quite recently after going on
hormones that have turned the "moobs" into regular female breasts.

I didn't want to talk about this, but I also don't like the speculating.

And no, the being identified as a woman regularly didn't start from
there, but several months earlier.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

Den 24-04-2022 kl. 21:51 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary to prove
>>> masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach adulthood.
>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee. Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>
> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
> flushes itself as you leave?)

Waterless urinals haven't crossed the pond?

/Anders, Denmark

* Tony Cooper:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>I offer a view of gender that's more suitable for serious analysis, more
>>fitting for 2022, and would help you understand that my insistence on
>>correct pronouns isn't an imposition or coercion.
>
> Provided, of course, that only Quinn's view is the suitable view and
> that that the analysis is restricted to Quinn's views.

No, they just work better for analysis. That's how science operates.

You're trying to understand 21st century society with early 20th century
concepts.

--
.... while there are people who are consecrated, chronic
assholes--like Donald Trump for example, or General Patton--
it's a condition that all of us are liable to.
-- Geoffrey Nunberg, 2012 interview

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:06:47 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:55:10 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>>>>>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>>>>>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>>>>>>>>gender is fake.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>>>>>>>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>>>>>>>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
>>>>>>>contradicts what you know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I frequently see/hear statements that contradict what I know, or -
>>>>>> rather - what I think I know. They might lead me to re-evaluate what
>>>>>> I think I know, but they don't confuse me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wasting space on "semantics".
>>>>
>>>> It's a waste of space to state that what is contradictory is not
>>>> necessarily confusing? That it is possible to re-evaluate one's
>>>> thinking because information contradicting the conclusions of that
>>>> thinking is come across?
>>>
>>>You're just saying that you don't prefer the use of the word "confusion"
>>>in this context, but other, similar wordings. Not a significant
>>>difference to me.
>>
>> What I "prefer" to do is use the right word to describe what I want to
>> communicate. There is a significent difference between the words
>> "confused" and "contradictory".
>
>Well, contradictory statements are only confusing if you think both
>might be true. That was of course assumed.
>
>>>Besides, before even going there, you should ask if you understood the
>>>sentence right or if the person meant what you think they said. Whenever
>>>I ask clarifying questions, I am in a "confused" state.
>>>
>>>I don't know if this is a helpful example, because nobody's going to ask
>>>your advice in such a matter, but if a friend said "I'm dating this guy
>>>for a few months now, and his birthday's coming up. I was thinking of
>>>getting him a bra. Do you think it's too soon?", I would expect the
>>>listener to be confused and ask clarifying questions before proceeding.
>>
>> Unless the note was in a bottle washed up on shore, there was context,
>> and the context would remove the confusion.
>
>Yes indeed - but that's my point: the asker should give more context
>beforehand, to avoid the confusion, the confusion that arises from the
>juxtaposition of "man" and "bra". There would be no confusion and no
>extra context needed if they were talking about a woman instead of a
>man.
>
>> If that example appeared in the "TG Chatroom" (tgforum.com), it would
>> not confuse anyone.
>
>But you're wrong there.

I may not have picked the best example, but are saying that the people
who follow a transgender forum would be confused about the question?

Confused? As in "I have no idea why a man would wear a bra"?

They've not had enough contact with the drag queen or cross-dresser
community to have any understanding of this?
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:06:47 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>Tony thinks that pronoun use shouldn't matter as long as the person
>referred to is not present, but pronoun use influences the ideas about a
>person that people form who are new or haven't much interacted with the
>person.
>
Whatever distance Bruce Jenner managed in the 1976 Olympics in the
long jump part of the Decathalon, you routinely exceed.

These "Tony thinks..." jumps to conclusions span quite a distance.

What I have said is that I don't think you have the ability to control
how others speak of you when you are not present. You responded that
they are "assholes" if they don't follow your dictates.

In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
conversations away from you and away from the office.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022, at 08:05:31, CDB posted:
>On 4/24/2022 2:16 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> It ain't all about you, Quinn. You don't have to live in a
>> completely different world to know that the idea of a man wearing a
>> bra would have been shocking at one time.
>
>I wonder if Jedgar wore one under their ball gown.

I still can't get away from my speculations on how exactly a man might
wear a ball gown. It could be more assertive than a brassiere.

(I take it that we're on to Hoovers here.)

--
Paul

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 00:16:40 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2022, at 08:05:31, CDB posted:
>>On 4/24/2022 2:16 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> It ain't all about you, Quinn. You don't have to live in a
>>> completely different world to know that the idea of a man wearing a
>>> bra would have been shocking at one time.
>>
>>I wonder if Jedgar wore one under their ball gown.
>
>I still can't get away from my speculations on how exactly a man might
>wear a ball gown. It could be more assertive than a brassiere.
>
>(I take it that we're on to Hoovers here.)

I assume it was Miss Gandy who was tasked with buying his delicates.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9-9df0-8d9875b337e1n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary to
> > > prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach adulthood.
> > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem reluctant
> > to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee. Still standing up,
> > but wasting a flush.

> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it flushes
> itself as you leave?)

Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get more
than one user before a flush

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9-9df0-8d9875b337e1n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> > > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary to
> > > > prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach adulthood.
> > > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem reluctant
> > > to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee. Still standing up,
> > > but wasting a flush.
>
> > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it flushes
> > itself as you leave?)
>
> Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get more
> than one user before a flush

Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 4/24/2022 12:25 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>>> or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."
>>> If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he
>>> doesn't, it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of
>>> (a) obesity or (b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more
>>> common.)

>> Unless they has changed markedly since getting their picture took,
>> I

> Ha! I thought "they" was the breasts, but the continuation suggests
> that "they" is Q.

My use of the singular verb-form was an attempt to disambiguate the
statement.

>> don't think Quinn is likely to be dealing with moobs. More likely,
>> a brassiere would be a cosmetic flourish, or else what has been
>> called a "training bra".

>>>> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they
>>>> are not what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that
>>>> it would be confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of
>>>> those men who wears a bra, and it's well-known that some do.
>>>> The shock value of that went to zero a long time ago.
>>> It was one of the better *Seinfeld* episodes -- Frank
>>> Constanza's (Jerry Stiller) latest get-rich-quick scheme.

On 4/24/2022 5:55 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>>> or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."

>>> If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he
>>> doesn't, it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of
>>> (a) obesity or (b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more
>>> common.)

>> Unless they has changed markedly since getting their picture took,
>> I don't think Quinn is likely to be dealing with moobs. More
>> likely, a brassiere would be a cosmetic flourish, or else what has
>> been called a "training bra".

> I wonder how you'd get that from that photo.

Moobs are usually seen on men who are considerably overweight.

> This is really TMI, but I've already mentioned here that I indeed had
> "moobs"; this came up in the context of when it's ok to talk about a
> man's "breasts" or "breast" rather than "chest".

I must have missed that episode.

> And while we're on it, I've been hesitant to wear a bra and stuff it
> for the purpose of making a dress look "right". I've always landed
> on that people should get used to how dresses look when someone has
> a flat chest. So I've only taken up wearing bras quite recently
> after going on hormones that have turned the "moobs" into regular
> female breasts.

> I didn't want to talk about this, but I also don't like the
> speculating.

Say no more. My fingers are sealed.

> And no, the being identified as a woman regularly didn't start from
> there, but several months earlier.

On 4/24/2022 7:16 PM, Paul Wolff wrote:
> CDB posted:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> It ain't all about you, Quinn. You don't have to live in a
>>> completely different world to know that the idea of a man wearing
>>> a bra would have been shocking at one time.

>> I wonder if Jedgar wore one under their ball gown.

> I still can't get away from my speculations on how exactly a man
> might wear a ball gown. It could be more assertive than a brassiere.

> (I take it that we're on to Hoovers here.)

I have been given to understand that J hoover used to waltz around the
hotel rooms, suitably attired, with his long-time companion, who led.

Wikipedia says the question is controversial, and gives a long account
of the controversy. If the allegations are true, that would explain his
paranoia, considering the atmosphere of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Sexuality

On 4/24/2022 12:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different
>>> postures of male and female canines doing their business on the
>>> sidewalk.

>> Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
>> Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who did
>> lift hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was, too.

> A trans bitch, maybe?

No, just a typical Great Pyrenees. they were bred to guard the flocks
from wolves.

> I thought "willy-nilly" was sort-of clever -- intended
> etymologically, but also invoking the BrE "willy." (But not intended
> in the current sense.)

Yes; I missed it because I had started to wonder who would wish or nish
to observe such a common canine habit.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:06:47 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>Tony thinks that pronoun use shouldn't matter as long as the person
>>referred to is not present, but pronoun use influences the ideas about a
>>person that people form who are new or haven't much interacted with the
>>person.
>>
> Whatever distance Bruce Jenner managed in the 1976 Olympics in the
> long jump part of the Decathalon, you routinely exceed.
>
> These "Tony thinks..." jumps to conclusions span quite a distance

The above is exactly what I understood you saying, when you said "you
don't expect people to [be respectful out of earshot]".

> What I have said is that I don't think you have the ability to control
> how others speak of you when you are not present.

"You don't expect ..." says a little more than just that I can't control
them.

> You responded that
> they are "assholes" if they don't follow your dictates.

.... if they go back on respecting my identity when I'm not present - or
I guess you wanted to say, they're only faking respect when I'm present.
Yes, I think these are not decent people.

Generally, I don't trust people who say different things about me
depending on whether I'm there or not, or depending on whether they
think they might get caught, and I'd avoid working with those people if
I can. They'd probably also embezzle money if they can get away with it.

> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
> conversations away from you and away from the office.

I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
you.

But if it happens in the office, it'll also be an HR violation. Maybe
not in Florida, but here.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Tony Cooper:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:06:47 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:55:10 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>>>>>>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>>>>>>>>>gender is fake.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>>>>>>>>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>>>>>>>>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
>>>>>>>>contradicts what you know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I frequently see/hear statements that contradict what I know, or -
>>>>>>> rather - what I think I know. They might lead me to re-evaluate what
>>>>>>> I think I know, but they don't confuse me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wasting space on "semantics".
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a waste of space to state that what is contradictory is not
>>>>> necessarily confusing? That it is possible to re-evaluate one's
>>>>> thinking because information contradicting the conclusions of that
>>>>> thinking is come across?
>>>>
>>>>You're just saying that you don't prefer the use of the word "confusion"
>>>>in this context, but other, similar wordings. Not a significant
>>>>difference to me.
>>>
>>> What I "prefer" to do is use the right word to describe what I want to
>>> communicate. There is a significent difference between the words
>>> "confused" and "contradictory".
>>
>>Well, contradictory statements are only confusing if you think both
>>might be true. That was of course assumed.
>>
>>>>Besides, before even going there, you should ask if you understood the
>>>>sentence right or if the person meant what you think they said. Whenever
>>>>I ask clarifying questions, I am in a "confused" state.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know if this is a helpful example, because nobody's going to ask
>>>>your advice in such a matter, but if a friend said "I'm dating this guy
>>>>for a few months now, and his birthday's coming up. I was thinking of
>>>>getting him a bra. Do you think it's too soon?", I would expect the
>>>>listener to be confused and ask clarifying questions before proceeding.
>>>
>>> Unless the note was in a bottle washed up on shore, there was context,
>>> and the context would remove the confusion.
>>
>>Yes indeed - but that's my point: the asker should give more context
>>beforehand, to avoid the confusion, the confusion that arises from the
>>juxtaposition of "man" and "bra". There would be no confusion and no
>>extra context needed if they were talking about a woman instead of a
>>man.
>>
>>> If that example appeared in the "TG Chatroom" (tgforum.com), it would
>>> not confuse anyone.
>>
>>But you're wrong there.
>
> I may not have picked the best example, but are saying that the people
> who follow a transgender forum would be confused about the question?
>
> Confused? As in "I have no idea why a man would wear a bra"?
>
> They've not had enough contact with the drag queen or cross-dresser
> community to have any understanding of this?

It would still be unclear why (and when and how) this specific man would
wear a bra. There would still be a need for more context.

Among others, there's the possibility that this was written by a
clueless newbie who calls a trans woman a "man". Now that'd be really
confusing.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

In article <EEi9K.111551$4c1.61610@fx13.ams1>, not@home.com says...
>
> On 24-Apr-22 2:50, Quinn C wrote:
>
> > But I'm not wearing a bra in the manner of a hypothetical group of "men
> > who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have so-called
> > "gynecomasty".) Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
> > it just like women do.
>
> That seems to suggest that _not_ wearing a bra would be unwomanly in
> some way.

> I know women who don't own any bras, simply because they don't need the
> support[1].
> It's a practical thing, not some magical symbol of womanhood.
>
> [1] Or their nuisance value outweighs their utility.

Which has been a well-publicised feminine issue for the past 50 years.

Quinn keeps (hilariously) letting slip his innately masculine mindset.

Janet

On 4/24/2022 12:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of
>>>>> proving masculinity, then you don't know the first thing on
>>>>> gender. You haven't reached the level of awareness of many a
>>>>> 6-year-old. You missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism
>>>>> 101 (which your other remark below confirms, too.)
>>
>>>> I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now
>>>> I pee standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates.
>>>> It's part of being a grownup.

>>> There is no proof around that I know of that supports this, but
>>> it's my assumption that human males have peed standing and human
>>> females have peed squatting since the first humans managed
>>> uprightness.

>>> The positions were the natural result of the ability to aim the
>>> flow, not convenience of access or the concept of masculinity.
>>> The males had the ability to aim the flow out and away so they
>>> could remain standing, and the females found that squatting left
>>> their lower limbs less damp.

>> The squatting position is natural for women because of their
>> physiology, as you say, and advisable in the absence of one of
>> those devices Quinn was talking about, but it's more a matter of
>> convenience for men.

>> In my case, the convenience of merely unzipping is often outweighed
>> by the convenience of not having to stand while performing.

>>> Somewhere there might be a cave drawing that supports my theory,
>>> but I don't know of it.

>> I saw one on the back window of a pickup truck the other day.
>> Bart Simpson, I think.

>>> It is somewhat reassuring that the transqueer community, as
>>> represented here by Quinn, is as subject to perpetuating myths
>>> as the rest of us.

> The zipper fly and button fly are only - in a historical timeline -
> seconds old. Older illustrations of men's lower body clothing don't
> indicate that there was any provision for convenient access. No
> penis portal in evidence.

> Evidently, then, men had to "drop trou" to do their business. With
> the trousers (or whatever the term would be for the period) at
> half-mast, going to the squatting position could have been the next
> considered move. Standing, the men still had the ability to direct
> the flow out and away, but the dropped trou could affect balance by
> constricting leg movement. The "wide stance" could not be
> maintained.

When a lord without flies stood to pee
He would sway like a small wind-blown tree;
But idlers nearby
Would keep his feet dry
With a pail on a pole, for a fee.

(Rey Aman memorial indentations)

But before trousers there were hosen, and apparently they could
accommodate relief. Presumably the codpiece could be moved out of the
way or (who knows?) even pissed through.

"Early wool hose were fitted to the leg, and 15th century hose were
often made particolored or mi-parti, having each leg a different colour,
or even one leg made of two colors. These early hose were footed, in the
manner of modern tights, and were open from the crotch to the leg. When
very short doublets were in fashion, codpieces were added to cover the
front opening."

By the 16th century, hose had separated into two garments: upper hose or
breeches and nether hose or stockings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_(clothing)

> There could be a research project, and a possible grant, here on the
> subject.

In article <1oort0ch8jgis$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>,
lispamateur@crommatograph.info says...
> Subject: Re: Tucker Carlson refuses to delete the tweet
> From: Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >> who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have so-called
> >> "gynecomasty".)
> >
> > -ia. It's not "so-called." That's the name of the condition, and it can be
> > controlled with appropriate medication.
>
> It's a bad name, and it's questionable whether it's medically
> significant and needs to be controlled. The problems it causes are
> mostly related to gender identity.

You are talking absolute bollocks.

Gynaecomastia is a common (and distressing) side effect of hormone
treatment for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men in the USA and UK.
One man in eight, will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his
lifetime.

Gynaecomastia can also be caused by any condition that leads to an
increase in the ratio of estrogens/androgens such as liver disease,
kidney failure, thyroid disease and some non-breast tumours. Alcohol and
some drugs can also cause breast enlargement.

Janet

* CDB:

> On 4/24/2022 5:55 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * CDB:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>>>>> or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."
>
>>>> If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he
>>>> doesn't, it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of
>>>> (a) obesity or (b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more
>>>> common.)
>
>>> Unless they has changed markedly since getting their picture took,
>>> I don't think Quinn is likely to be dealing with moobs. More
>>> likely, a brassiere would be a cosmetic flourish, or else what has
>>> been called a "training bra".
>
>> I wonder how you'd get that from that photo.
>
> Moobs are usually seen on men who are considerably overweight.

Well, I do weigh about 50% more than when I was 19 and the same height.
That might still not be considerable (just skirting the obesity range of
BMI, FWIW), but add to that that I've always avoided muscle training,
especially on the upper body.
>> This is really TMI, but I've already mentioned here that I indeed had
>> "moobs"; this came up in the context of when it's ok to talk about a
>> man's "breasts" or "breast" rather than "chest".
>
> I must have missed that episode.
>
>> I didn't want to talk about this, but I also don't like the
>> speculating.
>
> Say no more. My fingers are sealed.

I appreciate that.

--
Grab your lip gloss and your pepper spray, sweetheart. Your
date's here.
-- Keith Mars

* Janet:

> In article <EEi9K.111551$4c1.61610@fx13.ams1>, not@home.com says...
>>
>> On 24-Apr-22 2:50, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>> But I'm not wearing a bra in the manner of a hypothetical group of "men
>>> who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have so-called
>>> "gynecomasty".) Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
>>> it just like women do.
>>
>> That seems to suggest that _not_ wearing a bra would be unwomanly in
>> some way.
>
>> I know women who don't own any bras, simply because they don't need the
>> support[1].
>> It's a practical thing, not some magical symbol of womanhood.
>>
>> [1] Or their nuisance value outweighs their utility.
>
> Which has been a well-publicised feminine issue for the past 50 years.
>
> Quinn keeps (hilariously) letting slip his innately masculine mindset.

You're dead set on finding angles that make it look that way, somtimes
in comical ways.

Among other things, you (admittedly not only you) seem to have chosen to
misread my statement

I wear a bra like women do

as

I wear a bra [all the time] like [all] women do

when it seems obvious to me that the standard reading is

I wear a bra [on certain occasions] like [some/many] women do

The point is that my motivations are the same as that of [some] other
women, rather than those of men who wear bras.

I can't speak for the UK, obviously, but I'm pretty sure in North
America, women who never wear a bra are a minority.

Further details aren't appropriate for this group, with the men not
understanding anything and you not willing to understand when it's me
talking.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:06:47 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony thinks that pronoun use shouldn't matter as long as the person
>>>referred to is not present, but pronoun use influences the ideas about a
>>>person that people form who are new or haven't much interacted with the
>>>person.
>>>
>> Whatever distance Bruce Jenner managed in the 1976 Olympics in the
>> long jump part of the Decathalon, you routinely exceed.
>>
>> These "Tony thinks..." jumps to conclusions span quite a distance
>
>The above is exactly what I understood you saying, when you said "you
>don't expect people to [be respectful out of earshot]".
>
>> What I have said is that I don't think you have the ability to control
>> how others speak of you when you are not present.
>
>"You don't expect ..." says a little more than just that I can't control
>them.
>
>> You responded that
>> they are "assholes" if they don't follow your dictates.
>
>... if they go back on respecting my identity when I'm not present - or
>I guess you wanted to say, they're only faking respect when I'm present.
>Yes, I think these are not decent people.
>
>Generally, I don't trust people who say different things about me
>depending on whether I'm there or not, or depending on whether they
>think they might get caught, and I'd avoid working with those people if
>I can. They'd probably also embezzle money if they can get away with it.
>
>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>
>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>you.

You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
dislike and predjudice against trans people.

That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.

Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
you and based on what you write here.

I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
individuals, and not as representitives of a group.

>But if it happens in the office, it'll also be an HR violation. Maybe
>not in Florida, but here.

In the US, workplace violations are covered under federal guidelines
that cover areas like discrimation based on sex, race, and religion.

Individual companies determine their own HR standards. A company may
consider not using an employee's preferred pronouns to be bullying and
a violation, but I would question who the bully is in your case.

Is the bully someone who refuses to use your preferred pronouns, or
the person who says that anyone who doesn't should be considered as a
potential embezzler?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 4:45:28 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:55:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:57:33 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 09:21:56 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:16:26 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
> >> >> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >
> >> >Hey. Cooper jackass. Why did you distort the attributions, claiming
> >> >that what is marked below with three chevrons was written by ...
> >> >no one at all?
> >> I don't know what GG shows, but what I see is that the attribution
> >> shows that I am responding to what Quinn wrote. No one other than
> >> Quinn and me provided comment.
> >>
> >> "Tony Cooper wrote" and Quinn C ... wrote:" is still visible in both
> >> my post and your reply.
> >
> >The message carries NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER as to who
> >wrote the following paragraph (the one beginning "Those are not").
> >
> >That is EXACTLY what you screeched at me about.
> I now see the problem, and you - as usual - have a tight grip on the
> wrong end of the stick.
>
> The header information shows who participated in the discussion. My
> post's header information did show that both Tony Cooper and Quinn C
> participated, but no information was added in the message body to
> identify who said what.

Wrong, as usual. The attributions show exactly who contributed
which lines.

> In the post in which I screeched at you, you omitted the header

NO, I FUCKING DID NOT. STOP LYING.

Determine WHO deleted the information, and screech at them.

> information that identified Quinn as a participant, and Quinn's six
> lines in the post were the subject of my comments.

They had nothing to do with my comments.

> Surely, somewhere on your shelves of boxed sets of "Keeping Up
> Appearances", "Dancing with the Stars", "The Big Bang Theory" and "The
> Great British Bake Off"

? Did you send me any of those as a gift? If so, I never received them.

> you have a Roget's Thesaurus.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 5:06:56 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:50:17 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >> Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
> >> it just like women do.
> > Do they?
> > Again you're clinging to the 20th-century mode of dress for women
> > that was designed to encourage the desire for women in heterosexual
> > men.
> > The place I most often see women IRL these days is on the local news
> > and on Colbert. The women on Colbert are usually celebrities with plenty
> > of disposable income, and they generally wear what's appropriate for a
> > fairly formal occasion. Even the very well endowed seem rarely to wear
> > a bra.
>
> Are you sure you can judge that? I'm not so sure I can. Plus,
> celebrities aren't a typical sample.

Jeez. They're nearly popping out of their decolletage.

Celebrity garb provides the model that filters down to the watchers.
I didn't cite, for instance, the Met Gala.

> > But if you don't have large breasts, such that it would be uncomfortable
> > for them not to be supported, then there can be no reason for wearing
> > a bra other than conforming to the *Mad Men* sort of stereotype of
> > female "attractiveness."
>
> They didn't even have push-up bras back then, so ideas on attractiveness
> have changed many times since then and aren't perceived as men's
> expectations any more.

! What's "any more" got to do with it? At least one of your "waves" must
have pointed out that the only purpose of mammaries is to nourish babies,
and enhancing their prominence serves no purpose other than inflaming
the "male gaze," a hot topic these days.

Why did the non-practice of "bra-burning" attract so much attention back
when it didn't happen? Because it threatened the male libido!

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 24-04-2022 kl. 21:51 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100
> >> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> >>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary to prove
> >>> masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach adulthood.
> >> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee. Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
> > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
> > flushes itself as you leave?)
>
> Waterless urinals haven't crossed the pond?

Uh -- don't they smell?