[Artemisia] Gender Bending Barons

[Stephanae Baker]

Marco dei Caprioli wrote:

> Please do feel free to pipe up, but am I the only one who thinks this
> is a ludicrious convolution?

I find many things about these laws ludicrous, but this scenario is  
not one of them.

> Why would a couple both transvest for the
> sake of a hat?

The hats would have nothing to do with such a couple's reasons for  
transvesting. After all, if one earned the crown, they could have the  
hats without playing across genders.

> It's absurd.

Transvestitism and transgendering probably often strikes even  
transvestites and the transgendered as absurd, but I'm not sure they  
actually are absurd. I am reasonably sure no one wants to hear me  
ramble about the etymology, denotation, and connotations of the word  
absurd.

> It is perfectly within the bylaws of the
> SCA for a woman to rule in her own right without subjecting herself or
> her consort to such masquerade.

A woman's right to rule as a woman has no more to do with it than the  
hat does. That's hardly the point.

Finally, I'd say masquerade is something most of us in the SCA choose  
willingly--not something we subject ourselves to.


Belladonna


>
> Marco dei Caprioli
>
>
> --- Stephanae Baker <stephanae at countryrhoades.net> wrote:
>
>> As an interesting side note (someone please correct me if I'm wrong),
>>
>> I think it's perfectly legal for (for example) a man with a female
>> persona to become "queen" and have a woman consort with a male
>> persona be the "king" as long as the individuals in question actually
>>
>> possess opposite sex body parts. I will, however, refrain from
>> offering my opinion about the logic of this rule.
>>
>> Belladonna
>>