Read and JJ, This is where I tread carefully, because _all men_ (or nearly so) are raised with some pretty toxic beliefs doused all over them (and women, but they seem to do a bit better than us men at dealing with it). Sometimes it's hard to tell the boundary between "traditional gender roles" versus homophobia. And that's why it's absolutely a reason why it's a touchy subject. Anytime "doing X in dancing is homophobic" is brought up, it's: 1. Not always accurate 2. When it is accurate, it's just going to shut down most discussion. No one wants to hear their deeply ingrained societal norms and beliefs are bigoted, right? It's a non-starter for conversation. That said, lgbtqia folks (myself included) absolutely should talk about the negative effects of it (ex: Two women are split up so men can have partners, or the "dramatic production" JJ mentioned in their reply). It's critical these stories continue to be told so people can understand the harm that is done sometimes in the name of "tradition". But in terms of how we - as performers and organizers - look forward and improve things, I think if the goal is persuasiveness, it's more effective to let people judge for themselves whether and how their ingrained societal norms are homophobic or not. Changing these things is hard work and takes a long time. Gender and sexuality are core parts of our identities, so any discussion of it can be intensely personal for anyone. In dance, Julian Blechner He/him Western Massachusetts On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 6:55 PM JJ <jcgj95(a)gmail.com> wrote: Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

I’m kinda doubtful about how common reason 2 is, I think most of what might superficially seem like insisting on conventional gender roles is actually (men's) homophobia—dancing with a man might make me look like a…, or the man dancing with me might be a…. (I specify men because I’ve never once lived and danced where women were exercised about this—occasionally a preference for mixed-gender, but never a strong one). The guy who assaulted me at NEFFA years ago because he came across me in the line dancing the “wrong” role didn’t do so because I was rejecting conventional gender roles, he did it because of homophobia. Read Weaver Jamaica Plain, MA http://lcfd.org contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: with a partner of a different binary-presenting gender person, in trad roles, there's 2 possible, non-exclusive reasons: people you're not attracted to. Which, I guess is fine in and of itself, but I think people with this preference often may not consider _just how many exceptions_ there are. get back to this ... _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

I'm nodding with a lot of comments from the last couple days. Louise articulated some base concepts clearly, which a lot of y'all expanded on. There are some contradictory ideas about gender and sexuality with dance, and I think we in general tend to shy away from delving too deeply in public discussion. I've been accused of "shaming" people for asking why a man may prefer dancing with women. The thing is, I've also said what I think nearly everyone - including most/all of the strongest advocates for genderfree contra - has said: its OK to have preferences for partners. I think it is sometimes hard to presume these discussions are done assuming the benefit of good intent, given how much gender and sexuality is an enormous political and civil rights topic in the US and most Western nations. But, I presume this good intent, and I think nearly everyone here does, too, so, I'm taking another stab at this topic. Here's some ideas I've been chewing over in an attempt to dig into this more deeply: - dance is often a courtship ritual - despite this, inter-gender set dancing has a long tradition in Western dance, and partnering with someone hasn't really ever been a "oh, I am attracted to them". To use the overused example of Jane Austen novels, even then it's clear family dance together, friends dance together, and strangers dance together just to have any partner. - children are at our dances. So if a person is choosing partners based on heterosexual tradition, why, um: EW And thus is where the conversation often stops. But to break it down more: - So, when someone says they prefer to dance in non-genderfree dances, with a partner of a different binary-presenting gender person, in trad roles, there's 2 possible, non-exclusive reasons: 1. That their choice is about courtship, but "make exceptions" for people you're not attracted to. Which, I guess is fine in and of itself, but I think people with this preference often may not consider _just how many exceptions_ there are. 2. Their choice is more about embracing traditional gender roles. I'll get back to this. So, in the case of #1, the problem isn't just about "what do we do with the fact that about 5% of people aren't straight". (And realize the number being 3 or 4 times as high among surveyed youth, with numbers lower in areas where anti-lgbtq law and sentiment pervades). The problem is also about fat phobia. And bias against people who aren't "conventionally attractive". And ageism. And disability phobia. Then there's the even worse case of when a person both claims attraction is their main factor for partner preference ... and also has a preference for much younger dancers. :| Pushing back on the idea of "partner preference because of sexual preference" is about all these issues - fatphobia, ageism, disability phobia, beauty-bias, etc. Now, maybe these things aren't a priority to everyone, but, I'm going to assume that the overwhelming majority of people on Shared Weight are interested in most, if not all of them. And, inevitably, remember - youth, beauty, and able-bodiedness all will fade for everyone. In reality, I think partner and role preference for trad-gender-partnering actually has to do more with gender norms. So insofar as sexual-attraction for partner preference, I think pushing back, openly, against this, can benefit dance communities in many ways. And, ultimately if that's not actually the main reason, then it isn't really harming anyone if we present it and deal with it with compassion and patience for those having difficulty with the change. It's not like people aren't going to flirt and meet sexual partners anyway; we simply don't need to establish dance as a courtship-by-default space. Which leads to look at the other reason, #2: wanting trad gender partnering because you just like trad gender roles. In and of itself, that's fine. If you like ways of having your binary gender reinforced, there's nothing wrong with that. And while I'm not transgender, my friends who are and have shifted/come out as a different binary gender identity deserve to have their gender affirmed, too. While me, personally, I don't need reinforcement about being man (which is its own privilege), I respect people's desire for their gender to be respected and celebrated. So, what does that mean for dancing? - Ultimately, as long as people are finding partners and having fun and people are respectful of anyone they meet in line, great! - As noted, splitting up people because of gender is disrespectful on several levels. - That complaining about "ah, so many neighbors are my same gender" is setting one's own preference above everyone else's. In short: it's selfish. - If someone refuses to dance with someone of the same gender (or nonbinary/agender folks who "don't look like the opposite gender") then that's selfish. It's not _as_ selfish as the last item, and, generally, if this is what they choose, I don't see the positive outcomes from pushing it. So, if someone wants to just dance trad gender preference in partners, that's fine to me. There is, though, the big Catch 22: If someone believes gendered roles "are just role names", while simultaneously have a strong/sole preference trad-gender-partnering, this is self-contradictory. That person is trying to have it both ways. And so, I leave with the thought: this last bit I see as a core sticking point to more equality and inclusion at dances. How do we address this? Can we start looking at this more openly in a way that is compassionate buy also more direct that we have been? In dance, Julian Blechner He/Him Western Mass On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 12:24 PM Tanya Merchant via Contra Callers < contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

On Mar 12, 2024, at 1:36 PM, Julian Blechner via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I'm nodding with a lot of comments from the last couple days. Louise articulated some base concepts clearly, which a lot of y'all expanded on. There are some contradictory ideas about gender and sexuality with dance, and I think we in general tend to shy away from delving too deeply in public discussion. I've been accused of "shaming" people for asking why a man may prefer dancing with women. The thing is, I've also said what I think nearly everyone - including most/all of the strongest advocates for genderfree contra - has said: its OK to have preferences for partners. I think it is sometimes hard to presume these discussions are done assuming the benefit of good intent, given how much gender and sexuality is an enormous political and civil rights topic in the US and most Western nations. But, I presume this good intent, and I think nearly everyone here does, too, so, I'm taking another stab at this topic. Here's some ideas I've been chewing over in an attempt to dig into this more deeply: - dance is often a courtship ritual - despite this, inter-gender set dancing has a long tradition in Western dance, and partnering with someone hasn't really ever been a "oh, I am attracted to them". To use the overused example of Jane Austen novels, even then it's clear family dance together, friends dance together, and strangers dance together just to have any partner. - children are at our dances. So if a person is choosing partners based on heterosexual tradition, why, um: EW And thus is where the conversation often stops. But to break it down more: - So, when someone says they prefer to dance in non-genderfree dances, with a partner of a different binary-presenting gender person, in trad roles, there's 2 possible, non-exclusive reasons: 1. That their choice is about courtship, but "make exceptions" for people you're not attracted to. Which, I guess is fine in and of itself, but I think people with this preference often may not consider _just how many exceptions_ there are. 2. Their choice is more about embracing traditional gender roles. I'll get back to this. So, in the case of #1, the problem isn't just about "what do we do with the fact that about 5% of people aren't straight". (And realize the number being 3 or 4 times as high among surveyed youth, with numbers lower in areas where anti-lgbtq law and sentiment pervades). The problem is also about fat phobia. And bias against people who aren't "conventionally attractive". And ageism. And disability phobia. Then there's the even worse case of when a person both claims attraction is their main factor for partner preference ... and also has a preference for much younger dancers. :| Pushing back on the idea of "partner preference because of sexual preference" is about all these issues - fatphobia, ageism, disability phobia, beauty-bias, etc. Now, maybe these things aren't a priority to everyone, but, I'm going to assume that the overwhelming majority of people on Shared Weight are interested in most, if not all of them. And, inevitably, remember - youth, beauty, and able-bodiedness all will fade for everyone. In reality, I think partner and role preference for trad-gender-partnering actually has to do more with gender norms. So insofar as sexual-attraction for partner preference, I think pushing back, openly, against this, can benefit dance communities in many ways. And, ultimately if that's not actually the main reason, then it isn't really harming anyone if we present it and deal with it with compassion and patience for those having difficulty with the change. It's not like people aren't going to flirt and meet sexual partners anyway; we simply don't need to establish dance as a courtship-by-default space. Which leads to look at the other reason, #2: wanting trad gender partnering because you just like trad gender roles. In and of itself, that's fine. If you like ways of having your binary gender reinforced, there's nothing wrong with that. And while I'm not transgender, my friends who are and have shifted/come out as a different binary gender identity deserve to have their gender affirmed, too. While me, personally, I don't need reinforcement about being man (which is its own privilege), I respect people's desire for their gender to be respected and celebrated. So, what does that mean for dancing? - Ultimately, as long as people are finding partners and having fun and people are respectful of anyone they meet in line, great! - As noted, splitting up people because of gender is disrespectful on several levels. - That complaining about "ah, so many neighbors are my same gender" is setting one's own preference above everyone else's. In short: it's selfish. - If someone refuses to dance with someone of the same gender (or nonbinary/agender folks who "don't look like the opposite gender") then that's selfish. It's not _as_ selfish as the last item, and, generally, if this is what they choose, I don't see the positive outcomes from pushing it. So, if someone wants to just dance trad gender preference in partners, that's fine to me. There is, though, the big Catch 22: If someone believes gendered roles "are just role names", while simultaneously have a strong/sole preference trad-gender-partnering, this is self-contradictory. That person is trying to have it both ways. And so, I leave with the thought: this last bit I see as a core sticking point to more equality and inclusion at dances. How do we address this? Can we start looking at this more openly in a way that is compassionate buy also more direct that we have been? In dance, Julian Blechner He/Him Western Mass On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 12:24 PM Tanya Merchant via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I’m bumping this for folks who want to talk about gender preference in dance partners. And while I understand the valid social and historical context that would make inactive roles a good thing for the social part of social dancing, like Jeff, I’m also really glad we don’t do that much anymore. Tanya H. Merchant On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:01 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: "The whole point of moving away from Proper to First Couples Improper or Becket was that you then had people of the opposite gender on both sides of you in your minor set, so that all Neighbour and Partner interactions were with the opposite gender" That's one advantage for some people, but another advantage of Improper and Becket is that they make it much easier to have equal-turn dances, where everyone is 'active' simultaneously. No more waiting fifteen times through for a chance to be a "one" and then only getting to dance it twice before the music stops. Jeff On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:54 AM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net> _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net> _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

I’m bumping this for folks who want to talk about gender preference in dance partners. And while I understand the valid social and historical context that would make inactive roles a good thing for the social part of social dancing, like Jeff, I’m also really glad we don’t do that much anymore. Tanya H. Merchant On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:01 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers < contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

"The whole point of moving away from Proper to First Couples Improper or Becket was that you then had people of the opposite gender on both sides of you in your minor set, so that all Neighbour and Partner interactions were with the opposite gender" That's one advantage for some people, but another advantage of Improper and Becket is that they make it much easier to have equal-turn dances, where everyone is 'active' simultaneously. No more waiting fifteen times through for a chance to be a "one" and then only getting to dance it twice before the music stops. Jeff On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:54 AM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: i'll repeat the suggestion I offered a few months back. everyone to dance with everyone else, regardless of gender, age, level of experience or any other factor" - and also as a reaction to covid, we've started designating the standard neighbour swing (and default partner swing, if you don't know your partner and don't want to experiment), as a "modified ballroom hold" - which we call the "elbow hold". way compromising the effectiveness of the swing in my opinion. (Though I am sure there will be some other opinions out there ;). ) above the elbow. cisgender woman I find it makes the most difference to me when dancing with men, I have found I like having a bit of extra space between me and any man who is not my spouse :) ) contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt;gt;: individually and find someone with whom to do a Gypsy Meltdown (Gypsy & Swing). Many of the ladies got together leaving two men alone in the middle of the dance-floor. There was absolutely no way that those two men were going to Swing each other in a Ballroom Hold. about this very challenge. The author was concerned that by going gender-free they would lose many good male dancers who weren’t comfortable with the situation. with ladies, then there is nothing preventing you from only asking ladies for a dance. But what happens when you get in the set and find that every Neighbour that you meet is a man! Jive, Tango, Salsa, etc. 99% of the time it is one man with one lady (OK, I specialise in dancing with two ladies at once, but that is another matter!). Occasionally there will be same-sex pairings, and nobody thinks anything of it. But it is not being forced on them in the way that contra dancing is forcing same-sex pairings as you meet and interact with all your Neighbours. Becket was that you then had people of the opposite gender on both sides of you in your minor set, so that all Neighbour and Partner interactions were with the opposite gender! which many men find too intimate with another man. Of course there are lots of symmetrical holds that don’t have the same challenge – you are further apart. They don’t have the “Pointy Hand” to help you remember which side to finish on. I often use these myself in contra dances when I have a good partner, doing a different Swing each time through the dance, but I know which side to finish the Swing on. I suspect the Ballroom-Hold Swing is too embedded in Contra Dance culture to change now, though, of course, it was not always so. geographic and positional calling where it helps. I start most sessions by saying, “Find a partner, traditionally one man and one lady, but anyone can dance with anyone.” 99% of the time they will dance with the opposite gender. Ladies in my calling. For me the L in Lark makes me think of Ladies, not Left. It really hurts my brain! will Swing anyone. I love Chaos Lines! (And please don’t assume that you know anything about my sexuality!) are being lost. Our culture has always been very inclusive, with everyone welcome and anyone dancing with anyone they want. I am not at all convinced that any benefits outweigh the losses. 07802 940 574 contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

I must say that I am very disappointed to hear that male dancers are still attempting to forcibly split female couples up so that men don't have to sit out or dance with other men. We need to figure out whether this desire for these actions is somehow steeped in "tradition" or whether it is based in some sort of discomfort that some men have in being in a swing with other men, which some see as some sort of intimate embrace. One of the things that I have learned that gender free dances do is to create a safe space for all to dance with people of all genders in both roles. That safety and inclusiveness is definitely not a hallmark when two women choose to dance with each other and men are trying to split them up. This shouldn't be happening even if the role terms are gendered, because we want people to have the ability to dance with the partner of their choice, regardless of reason. I think in this era of contra dancing, the mid 2020s, that all people who contra dance should *expect* to encounter people of the same gender as a neighbor, and act in an inclusive manner, and that might mean swinging. That's even if they choose to only dance with people of other genders in the gents role only. Unless your dance is completely heteronormative in that same-gender dancing is frowned upon, in which case it's not an inclusive dance because it excludes people who wish to dance either role for whatever reason. I'm not sure where the notion of male/female couples being "traditional" came from, but it totally reminds me of the argument for "traditional" marriage (meaning one man, one woman) as an excuse to ban same-gender marriages. We need to be accepting of all forms of coupling on the dance floor if we aim to be an inclusive dance form. Perry On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 07:51:02 AM EDT, Louise Siddons via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: Colin wrote: I wasn't going to get involved in all this, but I have to side with Ken Panton - I'm a man and I certainly prefer dancing with women. And I very much enjoy dancing with Louise Siddons even though she may generally have a different preference. It always surprises me when people bring sexuality into this conversation, even though at this point I should know better. I enjoy dancing with Colin, just as I enjoy dancing with anyone who is a good dancer (or making a good-faith effort, or having a tonne of fun) and an interesting, kind, thoughtful human being, and I am pleased that we are friends both on and off the dance floor. When he (or anyone) asks me to dance, my first thought is not “oh good, I'm sexually attracted to this person” — it’s “oh good, this will be fun!” Recently at a contra dance I was separated from my partner, a woman, by two men who didn’t want to dance with each other and perceived my partner and I as acceptable alternatives. I was visibly upset by it and declined to dance at all; I am not a commodity). One of the men came over afterwards to apologise (as did my partner; older than me and not in her home community, I think she felt more social pressure to accede). He explained that he knew how I felt because he “has a daughter like you” — meaning, lesbian. I explained back to him that I wasn’t upset because I’m a lesbian, I was upset because I had asked someone to dance, they had accepted, and that agreement had been disregarded in deference to two men’s discomfort. To be honest, I am squicked out by the idea that someone looks at me dancing with another person and thinks first of my sexuality — that’s a creepy worldview in the context of contra dancing. There are dance communities determined to hold onto a heterocentric model, and that’s their choice — but we are, as a society, attempting to heal from a long — but ultimately quite recent — history of toxic gender models and so I think it’s a bad choice. Men being afraid or disgusted to touch other men is a social illness, not something to preserve or protect. Based on people’s comments in this discussion, gender-free dance communities understand, consciously or otherwise, that contra dance is a collective enterprise, that we are all dancing with each other, and that the community is healthier when it doesn’t put limits around how that happens. Friends can dance with each other — yes, even if they’re men! — and family members, and strangers, and lovers can all dance with each other, and they can bring different aspects of themselves to every interaction within the dance, whether with partner or neighbour. Louise. _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

Colin wrote: I wasn't going to get involved in all this, but I have to side with Ken Panton - I'm a man and I certainly prefer dancing with women. And I very much enjoy dancing with Louise Siddons even though she may generally have a different preference. It always surprises me when people bring sexuality into this conversation, even though at this point I should know better. I enjoy dancing with Colin, just as I enjoy dancing with anyone who is a good dancer (or making a good-faith effort, or having a tonne of fun) and an interesting, kind, thoughtful human being, and I am pleased that we are friends both on and off the dance floor. When he (or anyone) asks me to dance, my first thought is not “oh good, I'm sexually attracted to this person” — it’s “oh good, this will be fun!” Recently at a contra dance I was separated from my partner, a woman, by two men who didn’t want to dance with each other and perceived my partner and I as acceptable alternatives. I was visibly upset by it and declined to dance at all; I am not a commodity). One of the men came over afterwards to apologise (as did my partner; older than me and not in her home community, I think she felt more social pressure to accede). He explained that he knew how I felt because he “has a daughter like you” — meaning, lesbian. I explained back to him that I wasn’t upset because I’m a lesbian, I was upset because I had asked someone to dance, they had accepted, and that agreement had been disregarded in deference to two men’s discomfort. To be honest, I am squicked out by the idea that someone looks at me dancing with another person and thinks first of my sexuality — that’s a creepy worldview in the context of contra dancing. There are dance communities determined to hold onto a heterocentric model, and that’s their choice — but we are, as a society, attempting to heal from a long — but ultimately quite recent — history of toxic gender models and so I think it’s a bad choice. Men being afraid or disgusted to touch other men is a social illness, not something to preserve or protect. Based on people’s comments in this discussion, gender-free dance communities understand, consciously or otherwise, that contra dance is a collective enterprise, that we are all dancing with each other, and that the community is healthier when it doesn’t put limits around how that happens. Friends can dance with each other — yes, even if they’re men! — and family members, and strangers, and lovers can all dance with each other, and they can bring different aspects of themselves to every interaction within the dance, whether with partner or neighbour. Louise. _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

Hi all,               I once called Chris Page’s dance where the dancers scatter individually and find someone with whom to do a Gypsy Meltdown (Gypsy & Swing).  Many of the ladies got together leaving two men alone in the middle of the dance-floor.  There was absolutely no way that those two men were going to Swing each other in a Ballroom Hold.               There was an article in the EFDSS magazine not so long ago about this very challenge.  The author was concerned that by going gender-free they would lose many good male dancers who weren’t comfortable with the situation.               Someone in these threads said that, if you prefer dancing with ladies, then there is nothing preventing you from only asking ladies for a dance.  But what happens when you get in the set and find that every Neighbour that you meet is a man! I and my wife dance many styles, West Coast Swing, Blues, Ceroc, Modern Jive, Tango, Salsa, etc.  99% of the time it is one man with one lady (OK, I specialise in dancing with two ladies at once, but that is another matter!).  Occasionally there will be same-sex pairings, and nobody thinks anything of it.  But it is not being forced on them in the way that contra dancing is forcing same-sex pairings as you meet and interact with all your Neighbours. The whole point of moving away from Proper to First Couples Improper or Becket was that you then had people of the opposite gender on both sides of you in your minor set, so that all Neighbour and Partner interactions were with the opposite gender! I think part of the challenge is the very close Ballroom-Hold Swing which many men find too intimate with another man.  Of course there are lots of symmetrical holds that don’t have the same challenge – you are further apart.  They don’t have the “Pointy Hand” to help you remember which side to finish on.  I often use these myself in contra dances when I have a good partner, doing a different Swing each time through the dance, but I know which side to finish the Swing on.  I suspect the Ballroom-Hold Swing is too embedded in Contra Dance culture to change now, though, of course, it was not always so. The communities that I call for all want men dancing with ladies.  I use geographic and positional calling where it helps.  I start most sessions by saying, “Find a partner, traditionally one man and one lady, but anyone can dance with anyone.”  99% of the time they will dance with the opposite gender. Personally I have a real problem with Larks & Robins since I use Men & Ladies in my calling.  For me the L in Lark makes me think of Ladies, not Left.  It really hurts my brain! I am all for anyone dancing with anyone.  I dance the Lady’s role and will Swing anyone.  I love Chaos Lines!  (And please don’t assume that you know anything about my sexuality!) I feel that it is very sad that the traditional and historic concepts are being lost.  Our culture has always been very  inclusive, with everyone welcome and anyone dancing with anyone they want. I am not at all convinced that any benefits outweigh the losses.             Happy dancing,                    John                                                           John Sweeney, Dancer, England   john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent                                         

The point is that if you announce it loudly, then you're making it gender free in name only. If larks is just code for gents, then people who want to dance a role that doesn't match their gender expression or identity (or who are non-binary for that matter) will be more uncomfortable than if the dance is truly gender free. You announce it quietly not because it's shameful to have a preference, but because it's shaming the people who don't match if you announce it loudly. On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:56 PM Colin Hume via Contra Callers < contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

Am I the only living person who has a preference for dancing with the opposite cisgender (realizing that any particular, such opposite, cisgendered individual may, in fact, have a different preference)?

Katherine Kitching wrote: telling Thanks for the additional information, Kat. I'll have to gain more experience in non-gendered contra; COVID has hampered that, significantly. Ken Panton _______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net

Hi Ken! Changing the subject line as others suggested. I would say there is a difference between telling someone "quietly" and telling someone "furtively" :) We do the former and not the latter!

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024, 10:58 Katherine Kitching &lt;kat(a)outdooractive.ca&gt; wrote: Indeed! I forgot. :) Thanks for the reply of the experience in your community, Kat. I am, however, somewhat troubled by one statement you made, below: I'm not quite sure what to make of tiis except to see it as form of shaming that it needs to be mentioned "quietly".   ??? Ken Panton  >