Yes, it’s me Dave
Dizzy bitch that I can be, I left my camera on a table in Pink Punters last Friday.
A call the following day put my mind at rest. Some kind soul handed it in.
So on my way down to London Sunday night I called in at PP to collect it. The guy at the desk called the manager, I assume, Dave, who asked me to show him the pictures on the camera. I guess to see if I knew how to operate it thereby indicating I might not be a fraudster.
Next, he asked me to show him a picture of myself. To be fair on the guy I told him I was wearing a frock. So scrolling through pics of my friends first I eventually got to some of mine. No honest there were very few of me. Anyway, I have to show him a few coz he doesn’t look convinced, he keeps looking at the photos and back at me.
We got to this one and he said, “That’s a heck of a transformation.”
What chuffed me was that it sounded like neither a compliment nor an insult. More like a statement of fact.
I’ve always felt people could see straight through me and see who the guy behind was, but that and V’s family not recognising me in the pictures of her wedding are starting to give me hope. :)
Now don’t get all confused and think I’m saying I pass coz I don’t. Well, I can if folk have their minds on other things like when they’re out shopping, but any second glance isn’t going to fool them.
No, what I’m chuffed about is that this guy didn’t associate what he saw on the camera with me in male mode. YIPPEE!
Silly, I know. :)
on March 14th, 2007 at 10:35 am
> “That’s a heck of a transformation.”
Passing and transformation are two very different things. To be fair though - and to agree with that gent - it’s true. When you see t-girls in bloke mode, be that in real life or via the web, the differences between that and there TG appearance can be very surprising. Frequently, t-folk seem to look younger when they’re made up well.
I wonder that as we know ourselves (in terms of physical image) that we find it easy to look beyond the wig, make-up and clothing; to see the chap underneath. Perhaps people don’t look that deeply and when they are confronted with a ‘this is really me’ photo, they have to look beyond what there eyes are telling them.
on March 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Words of wisdom, as usual, Lynn. I have to admit to feeling my Rachel look is totally transparent, but it seems other people’s reality isn’t as harsh as mine. God, that sounds awful. I just mean I think I know myself too well physically, so don’t get beyond seeing the male in me. I thnk that explains it a bit better.
on March 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Thanks Rachel: kind words.
It’s interesting that you should say ‘get beyond seeing the male in me’ because - and this is me being personal, I make no suggestion that it’s like this for every tranny - that I don’t feel any great spiritual connection to an inner female. I’m just me…in a dress. Perhaps through going out and socialising, that there is no him/her - just me now. Hmmm… Spooky.
I remember a couple of years back talking with Maddie and meeting up for a coffee. Two burly chaps drinking in the Broadmarsh. You had to use your imagination a bit to link Maddie’s two appearances together.
on March 14th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I do completely understand about the ‘matter of fact’ thing…kind of honours the reality of Rachel - not trying to be ‘nice’ or ’supportive’ (good those things are), but just kind of saying Rachel ‘is’?
Came over via Lynn. Why haven’t I spotted your blog sooner hon? ;-) Await your comments about ‘humour’…my powder is being kept fairly dry on all of that. But I certainly do feel pretty ‘conflicted’ (as they say) about humour based on the insecurities of others…
on March 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
@ Jo: humour is very personal and while some of it may not appeal to me, if I can see there’s no malicious intent I’m OK with it.
If we’re talking about the recent criticism by Pia of Becky’s TV and Tranny sketch I personally found the parody of Trannie oneupmanship very amusing. What I can’t comment on is Becky’s reaction, because she removed Pia’s comments; this I think is a mistake, but want to do a post on the whole subject as and when I get the time.
I believe both you and I have had comments removed from Becky’s blog, and because I feel I can’t express honest opinions on her blog without the chance of them being removed I don’t bother anymore. One exception was to wish her and Jane best wishes for their future together.
on March 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Yes its me Dave
Wow! I would not have recognised Rachel as being the guy who dresses as Rachel. Quite a transformation indeed. You are looking good hon.
I do think that you are missing the point though. The camera is for others to take pictures of YOU ; )
on March 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
To Lynn: Wow, I can’t believe I missed your comments about “any great spiritual connection to an inner female.” I feel totally the same way, and I suspect quite a few us T-Girls do too. Do you think it’s something to do with accepting yourself and consequently not drawing any distinctions between yourself in a dress or trousers? Personally, I think it’s a wonderful place to be.
To Julie: It’s very sweet of you to say so. But as for the camera, I’m not a fan of my own piccies.
on March 24th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
> I can’t believe I missed your comments….
S’okay. I’ll do bullet points next time :-)
I think - and as you put - that are large part of it is self-acceptance. Maybe the growing confidence you get - or more accurately, “accept me as I am” - that you no longer bottle certain aspects of your personaly. Perhaps once you are at ease with yourself, there is no longer the need to mentally split oneself (tranny + non-tranny).
on April 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Just been re-reading these comments and you’re right Lynn, I no longer feel there is Richard and Rachel. Just different modes of attire, cool. Perhaps I should change my name to Chris, Lesley or Kim. I’ve thought about it on more than one occasion…