Re: [Callers] gender (and "Alternate Role Terms")

Perry brings up a couple things which are often on my mind. As i write this, i'm thinking there are a few folks out there rolling their eyes or gritting their teeth at the recent flood of progressive dialogue on this thread. Bear with me, please... I consider myself a trans-role dancer (as opposed to cis-gendered; i fully identify as male, but my gender identity has no bearing on which role i dance). When i first encountered contradance, it was with callers who emphasized that "gent/lady" are merely titles of traditional roles which anyone can play regardless of their gender identity. That idea stuck. At those dances in rural Maine, there was often a surfeit of female dancers, and the callers brought along a briefcase full of neckties to help folks denote roles. (That practice suffers the same limitations that physical armbands do, if dancers plan on "flipping the ship" mid-dance.) I'm going to focus this next bit on "same gender neighboring" versus partnering, so as to include heteropartner-pairs who have swapped roles, and speak from my experience as a trans-role male (a slightly different topic than trans-role female partner/neighbor issues, i recognize). The interpersonal dynamics of same-gender neighbor swings (particularly those following from a gypsy!) are never far from my mind. It seems that no matter where i dance, from Maine to Massachusetts to North Carolina, the sample composition is the same: most men are comfortable with limited same-gender neighboring; many are energized by the apparent physical opportunity to swing or flourish more vigorously; some are merely disoriented by it; and a few are downright uncomfortable. A friend of mine, a male in his 60s, describes his initial discomfort at same-gender dance floor encounters giving way to an appreciation for the inclusivity of the community. He still prefers to partner heteronormatively, but he recognizes the value of making the dance community as inclusive as it is, and on occasion actively supports that value by partnering same-gender. I think that position describes where a lot of dancers are. Whatever a person's experience of the folkdance meta-community is, i believe we can agree that one thing which sets it apart from other social spheres is its inclusivity. In a few locations i've danced, most recently Bangor, Maine, i've noted a phenomenon where multiple sets forming seemed to segregate into cisgendered dancers versus trans-role dancers. I foresee a potentially vehement tangent in response to this observation. Yes, having sets segregate by some set of partnering preferences, be it age or role-flexibility (the two often co-occur) does begin to fragment the community - but it is a patch solution which minimizes the discomfort to some dancers, offering a choice of expressions and comfort levels in communities where a strictly gender-free dance outlet is unavailable. Will we ever move contradancing to a completely gender-free system? I hope not. Good or bad, the genderedness of the form is an intrinsic aspect of the tradition, more so even than in couple dancing; without it, where would the "proper" dance formation be? Gender-free dance can be a "safe space", or a playground for more adventurous dancers - offering an experiential contrast to traditionally gendered dance we would be unable to enjoy or appreciate if the distinction were erased. But... terminology, gender, dance roles, partnering issues (broadening to include other characteristics like age, physical characteristics, dance skill...). In a discussion thread elsewhere, Scott Higgs described partnering issues as an "elephant in the room" that can be a major factor determining whether individuals' experience of the dance is positive or negative. I agree wholeheartedly, and hope that we as a community can be more attentive to these issues, following on opportunities like the session he and Lisa Greenleaf led at NEFFA 2012 to discuss partnering choices and behavior patterns in a judgment-free zone. The thing that's really on my mind right now, and seems to be on others', is that contradance is a unique form, and terms which accurately describe other dance forms don't really fit here. Can we as a community find a system of our own, one that innovates while honoring the tradition, transcending yet including our historical antecedents? As we move into 2013, i hope we can continue to decloak this elephantine polylogue, finding ways to both honor individuals' comfort level and enhance the inclusivity of the community... and get rid of that damn "lead/follow" thing... happy new year, btw! ------------------------------