RANSVESTIA

In its more extreme forms, guilt takes on some interesting behaviors. An FP friend recently related the following to me: "I had already board- ed a plane and we were waiting to taxi out for take off. Suddenly we were all ordered to disembark from the plane. It seems there had been a bomb scare and we were all lined up to go through an inspection of our carry-on baggage. I had an overnight case which contained some of my femme things as well as my masculine clothes. As we approached the counter I was in the middle of a group of men all carrying brief cases or overnight bags. When I saw that they were opening and examining the the bags, I dropped out of line and went to another airline and checked the bag. I couldn't face them opening my bag and finding all that femme stuff in it while these other guys were waiting their turn and looking on."

Now there are many valid reasons why a man might have feminine items in a suitcase. All men have mothers, most have wives and many have daughters. The clothing could belong to any of them or be gifts; their baggage could have been left behind or sent on ahead with him, the clothing could be given by one woman relative to another and being transported by him as son, husband, or father plus other reasons. But he didn't think of that because HE and he alone knew that the clothing belonged to him and that he was an FP.

What he was really doing was somewhat the reverse of mind reading. In that, one is supposed to be able to intercept and interpret another's thought. In the hyper-guilt reaction we tend to PUT what we know to be true INTO another's mind (in the example the air marshalls and the other male witnesses) and then wait in expectation of the reaction we expect them to have. Not wanting to face such a reaction (which of course would not have happened anyway since the others didn't really have the information my friend had) he ran away from the situation.

—

His self concept wasn't big enough to say in effect "so what if I am carrying femme clothes, I'm not carrying a bomb and that is all you should be concerned with. I don't have to explain their presence to you as it is none of your business." Such a person would be in harmony with himself, would be self-accepting instead of self-condemning and would have succeeded in placing the problem where it belonged in the other person's head, not in his own. In the last analysis, that is what self-accept- ance really is realizing that it is not you who has the problem (and thus not condemning yourself) but the other guy. If he can't deal with you in any or all of your various aspects that inability is his problem. Why not help him, poor fellow? And if you don't have the problem, you will have the energy, the time and the compassion to do so.

86