Leaderboard

Firstly, to address your highly refined sense of pedantry, surely "or what?" invited an interpretation rather than offered one? With that now established with the good grace you often provide, I'd like to think the charming Shyheels was quite correct when he chose "the latter" of the three stated interpretations you had helpfully suggested. Taking his wise guidance (only a fool wouldn't), I gave his choice my full support. On reflection, and now with some further guidance on the matter from your good self, I would possibly encompass a group not specifically offered but might fall into the "or what?" camp. I am tempted to label them; "Theatricals". Some having wrists good enough for all sorts of DIY skills and legs strong enough for cycling. Others, possibly more interested in homely, more sensitive pursuits perhaps? I would agree wholeheartedly with the notion that ANY attire that was created with the concept a women would be the wearer, but a man chose to wear it as well, might label the him a cross-dresser. (I'm very sorry for the shocking grammar.) But being a great believer for equal opportunity across gender, the same could be said for almost every Western woman at some stage during her life. Though a cross-dressing woman is undeniably an oxymoron, if I can dare to use such a sophisticated word? I can't think of any attire that has been made, that a woman could wear and it not be socially acceptable, at least in Western culture. Does rather seem to be something of a one-way street, so to speak. We are all doing our bit to change that, of course. Frontiersmen, everyone one of us.

You raise some interesting points, Freddy. I will respond briefly and would point out that some may take exception to any word below which (like me in heels) is emboldened when seen in public: 1. Yes, 'or what' did invite others to provide an additional interpretation; but I don't think I got one, despite it being the true subject of 'the latter' - hence my query. Hence my assumption (now confirmed) that it was the third of my four suggestions that you had both chosen. 2. 'Theatricals' is indeed a fair label for a fourth camp. It overlaps with others but we can pretty well envisage the wide range of gentle-men that this label embraces. 3. Crossdressing (with or without the hyphen) is of course a very vague concept and you are right that it has little or no significance when a woman is the subject, although its regularity or acceptability does not per se create an oxymoron (or even a cowymoron), as a woman in male clothing is still, literally, crossdressing. And it is indeed a one-way street, unfortunately. As to frontiersmen, I am reminded of one Davy Crockett, a very popular character in the mid-50s, thanks to some Disney films and a memorable song. The question often asked in the playground was 'How many ears does Davy Crockett have?'. The expected answer: 'A left ear, a right ear and a wild frontier'.

I was addressing Shyheels in my last above - and he is undoubtedly a very singular fellow. (Reminds me of one of many anecdotes about the late Sir Thomas Beecham. On spying a newcomer to his orchestra in rehearsal, he asked the bloke's name. 'Ball, sir' was the reply - to which Sir Thomas responded 'How very singular'.