On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
are not as scary as some have claimed.
Sure, I think that's probably true. But I think the most likely
possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several
thousand dancers want it".
Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.
I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of
it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance
change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming
being caused by an underlying factor.
I don't understand discounting new dances at all.
If there was a demand for
a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
overall genderfree dancing?
The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that
have recently one gender free are pretty different. The older dances
have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to
be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly
mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer