Not sure whether this should be in aesthetics or politics but i'll go ahead with it anyway...

The reason i have decided that transvesticism should be in aesthetics although it is more of a political issue (according to 'Vested Interests' by M. Garber) is that it seems that if a choice has been made (to be a 'TV', and if it is a choice, then despite this attraction to BEING female, or rather, exhibiting some female aspects, especially in the scope of fashion and attire, then this is focally an aesthetic issue that raises ethical questions.

Now, from what i understand this is apparantly the intentional mind behind the TV phenomenon as expressed by the following extract:

[blockquote]˜Lacan™s astringently categorical phrase, œurinary segregation, is a reminder at least for citizens of the United States that not too long ago there were separate bathrooms for œwhite and œcoloured in the southern parts of this country. In other words, this is all about binaries. The old binarism, the old division œbetween the sexes, the ultimate grade school taboo (boys™ room/girls™ room) becomes a gender test.™ [Introduction: p.15][/blockquote]

So, the idea is that the TV is presenting, or challenging, social norms...

Initially i would have asked for what purpose but it seems there's a logic to the business that has to do with, in itself, of posing a challenge to the norms...

My problem with this (thus far) is the degree of confusion that follows. It seems that making an essentially radical aesthetic choice that in effect serves to facilitate social change is dangerously naive because the position assumes that the norms it assumes to change have the same level of awareness regarding the motives for such behaviour. Isn't that the essential dilemma of transvesticism.?

Seeing quite a few TVs in Indonesia i always wondered why they would subject themselves to such public antagonism (i.e., persistent danger for radical aesthetics) and in many respects i'm sceptical of the underlying reason as being a political reaction to social norms seeing it more of rationalised mode serving a radical fetishism; however i'm open to other ideas...

[NB/ for those unfamiliar with Transveticism there is a distinction, albeit "blurred", between TVs, Transexuals (TSs), Gays and Lesbians although there are various degrees of "cross-overs" with some/others considering the 'other' a kind of 'faux-pas' - apparantly...]