The Sissy Who Refused To Wear Men’s Clothing

The inimitable LA Times has recently reported on the story of a long-time, cross-dressing man known as Sissy Goodwin.

Sissy has lived his entire life in Wyoming. He was born into a terribly unhealthy world, as his mother was an alcoholic and his father was physically abusive. As a response to this awful and untoward treatment by a male figure, he hyper-identified with his mother. Most men like Sissy in his age bracket became forerunners to second-wave feminism, refused to identify with anything remotely masculine and simply divorced themselves from positive relationships with other men.

In the long run, most men in this situation simply have life-long struggles with masculine identity that relate directly with self-esteem, ability to attract and maintain healthy relationships with women and the inability to connect positively with other men. However, Sissy took a bizarre approach – wearing women’s clothing. Tellingly, his sense of feminine fashion seems oddly stationed in the pre-1950’s era – he even admits as such, saying his preferred clothing belongs more in the 1950’s. Since he is a clear-cut liberal, citing the 1950’s is damning – he knows his clothing belongs in another era.

Matthew Shepard

Sissy recounts, with detail, numerous incidences of what he calls “homophobia.” He recalls hateful slurs directed at him, sneers in the local supermarket and outright violence visited on him. The article goes so far as to mention Matthew Shepard, a gay man killed under disputed circumstances in the late 1990’s. Gay advocates refuse to admit Shepard’s murder was for any reason other than two men who were closeted homosexuals that murdered an out and proud gay man in Shepard. Still, for this incredible torrent of vitriolic hatred and bigotry, did Sissy leave Wyoming for the tolerant pastures of a big city? The article states cross-dressing is so commonplace in major cities that he would exist simply as another human. No, no, no: Sissy remained in the feverishly intolerant atmosphere of Wyoming.

I am going to suggest something radical, apparently intolerant, and true: people do what they want. If Sissy was so worried about being a victim of crime and his acceptance in a community, then why didn’t he move? The most common response to this assertion would be that people should be able to be whatever they want wherever they want. I don’t agree with that statement for many reasons, but most saliently here is this: people do what they want precisely because people only do that they want. If what he truly wanted was to be accepted in Wyoming, he would learn to dress in way that reflected prevailing norms. If what he truly wanted was social acceptance, he would move to San Francisco where his choice of who he is would be more accepted.

The fact he refused to change his style of dress while still remaining in his home state says exactly what he wants: for people around him to treat him badly for his choices as a man. Sissy knows that people will automatically assume he is 100% against violence and expressions of bigotry, but his behavior completely belies that he against expressions of hatred and violence towards himself.


Sissy wants to be treated badly by men he perceives as masculine. The article makes a point to highlight he teaches at the dreadfully male-centric world of Casper College’s power technology lab, where he bravely wears his yellow top and carries his pink lunchbox. First off, those are more markers of youthful femininity, not a person drawing Social Security – anybody else notice the girlish bow in his hair?

Second, Sissy seems to love to press right up against the edge of the box, without actually having to step outside the box. He seems to be relieved that so many of his students have decided to show their support by wearing pink in their hair, but come on. What was the point of all this wearing women’s clothing? To combat gender expectations? You mean he has engaged in a pattern of behavior over multiple decades so other men can make the choice to wear women’s clothing? Was it his biological calling to wear female’s clothing? Or are we simply to accept this man’s choices simply because he engaged in them?

The latter reason is the story-time lesson we are supposed to glean from this heavy-handed and predictable piece. As expected: male privilege, bigoted intolerance in the red-state America and women fearlessly accepting a man who wears lace panties on the regular. Regardless, the most interesting aspect of this story is the complete lack of understanding of why people are the way they are. A common claim, here, is that people should be allowed to be who they are so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. This man has kids. His own son was quoted as stating he sees his father as brilliant, but Sissy admits some form of guilt or shame, as he admits “I blame myself now…[my son] was defending his dad when he didn’t really know what he was defending him for.”

Really? Now, suddenly, all that self-aggrandizing behavior Sissy engaged in over the course of decades – bringing shame to his family and embarrassing his wife (you can’t argue she wasn’t negatively affected by all the attention directed his way) – is now an issue because his son is implicated? Sissy feels some twinges in his heart now that a young boy has been placed in a similar situation as he was. Forced to deal with untoward attention he didn’t ask for, his son reminds Sissy all too much of his youth. A self-absorbed male gives birth to another male – just a potential usurper to the primary role Sissy has carved out for himself in the Lifetime movie of his life.


Which might be the saddest aspect of this story: Sissy chose this path, but as a response to his father’s abuse, and most likely, his mother’s weakness. He may have taken to wearing women’s clothing in a way of idolizing the mother he deified; it may have been a way of acting out the role she should have taken in response to an abusive father. Regardless, this man’s life was one of his choosing, but far, far sooner than he should had to make a choice.

Children shouldn’t be forced to take up roles, much less ones taken up in the crepuscular lights of their existence. This deep-seated choice of his to wear women’s clothing was born of a highly unhealthy identification with his mother. As a result of his choices as a child, he has made a life of himself and how people respond to his decision to be a man who wears women’s clothing. Without children, he can freely view others simply as objects who either give him worship (tolerance) or hatred (anybody who doesn’t worship him). With children, he suddenly feels a strong jolt of guilt, only to deny that guilt and port it out as shame, as he has refused to change and figure out quite why he needs to dress as a woman.

Any man who desires so deeply to wear women’s clothing – much less women’s fashion dating back to their youth – has serious problems. Media outlets, like the LA Times, love tidy stories of impossibly quick transformations or normalization of personality disorders. Both serve to feed the audience’s desire to either have a quick and easy morality tale, or an all-too-brief expose that highlights the pervasive intolerance of people who are not in the targeted readership demographic.

As for Sissy, he still refuses to address why he needs to wear women’s clothing. Indeed, his son observed that his father wore men’s clothing at his sister’s wedding. Curious, Sissy refused to wear men’s clothing for his entire son’s childhood, but when in the presence of God at a wedding, he surrenders to wearing men’s clothing. Somebody has a clear issue with authority figures.

It really doesn’t matter, as Sissy has spent his entire life wasting emotional energy on propping up a psychological construct that carried him through his childhood, only to not abandon it as an adult – clinging to a past that hasn’t existed for decades. He has drug his children, his wife and his social circle at large through repeated episodes of those who would mock or abuse him for wearing women’s clothing. A fully grown man – a father, a husband – needing to be a victim of perceived hatred in order to bolster his self-identity. Sad.

I’d venture to guess that Sissy’s dad beat him when his dad claimed Sissy wasn’t man enough. Sissy’s dad was 100% wrong when Sissy was a child, but his dad is 100% right today.

Read Next: How To Wear A Beard Without Looking Like An Ax Murderer

63 thoughts on “The Sissy Who Refused To Wear Men’s Clothing”

    1. I wouldn’t bother him, but also wouldn’t associate with him. Crazies who can’t dress themselves properly are unlikely to behave properly

      1. He actually is hurting all of us by trying to normalize his anti-civilization faggotry.
        Read some Jack Donovan. The problem with faggots and the whole LGBTQ community is not that as individuals they are evil. Most of them are just damaged. The problem is that en masse they are attempting to stigmatize and reject the masculine identity that creates and sustains healthy civilizations.
        Masculinity is homophobic! Masculinity is mysoginistic! Masculinity must be reimagined!
        Going along with their bullshit in the name of live and let live is cultural suicide in small increments and in the least dignified manner possible. The faggots are waging war on Western masculinity and what’s more they’re winning.

        1. Man did you hit that one of the goddamn park. I couldn’t have said it better myself brother…. and thats something I rarely say

        2. Maybe they’d be less likely to be “damaged” if there were fewer homophic people trying to tell them that there’s something wrong with their sexuality.
          A man shouldn’t criticise someone for something that’s not of their choosing.

        3. Just to clear it up, this was a reply ‘the sad truth’ talking about the “faggots”, not the article.
          The whole reason the man in the article made a news story is because this is fucking weird.

        4. what about the son? How in the name of Sting’s flying metal codpiece from ‘Dune’ is that kid going to turn out happy and normal because of something that is not of his choosing?

        5. There is plenty wrong with the “sexuality” of your average
          faggot. More fundamentally, however, there is plenty wrong with the whole LGBTQ acceptance movement, which is just another hard left movement like feminism—willing
          to throw every last ideological support pillar of our culture under the bus just so long as they get to have their little marches and signs that say “no one can judge me I’m perfect the way I am!”
          Fuck that, and fuck you for using a bullshit buzzword like “homophobic” sincerely.
          The funny part is that the LGBTQ lobby wields enormous social, political, and economic power on an international scale. Gays have the support of the Supreme Court and
          the White House. Our universities actively promote their worldview. They have the adoration of the MSM and every mainstream publisher in America. Hollywood fawns over them, and TV programs do too. Highly influential industries like fashion are top to bottom purple.
          And yet I’m supposed to feel sorry for the oppression that
          they suffer because people like me (who can’t even use their real names lest they be hounded out of their jobs) say mean things about them online? Those poor things! How do they get out of bed in the morning?

        6. “Fuck that, and fuck you for using a bullshit buzzword like “homophobic” sincerely.”

    2. I am fine with live and let live. However, when I am profiled in the LA Times, I have made myself a target of public discussion. ROK didn’t seek out Sissy: Sissy sought ROK.

        1. Ahhh.. I didn’t realize that by “…not hurting you so fuck off…” you meant that you were complaining that you were not taught by the ROK article. I thought you were saying that he shouldn’t be criticized. My bad reading skills, sorry.

    3. Clearly examining and dissecting the psychological motivations of people is not your thing, so…why don’t you go fuck off???

      1. Actually I find examining and dissecting psychological motivations of people quite interesting. That was not the point of this article.

      1. I just did. Another thing, you should change your name, every time I read it I picture a little faggot, cunt with his hat on sideways that I want to smack in the head.
        Yeah, I know the rebuttal, “Coming from a guy who calls himself Super Groucho,” well that’s about the 50th name I’ve had to come up with as I keep getting banned, hence I don’t put any thought into it. Hell, one time I went under the pseudonym of “Cunt Stretcher.”

        1. “Another thing, you should change your name, every time I read it I picture a little faggot, cunt with his hat on sideways that I want to smack in the head.”
          Fucking live and let live, dude. He and his hat are not hurting you so fuck off.

    4. Also a great justification for not stopping the guys who beat the hell out of their wives/gf’s in the parking lot when I was a bouncer. He wasn’t hurting me, after all. Can you honestly say that what that dumpster fire of a man is doing to his child is any better than giving the ol’ lady a tune-up before the drive home?

  1. This is why I can’t stand to look at newpapers, TV news, or commercials.
    Everything, and I mean everything, has to include a morality lesson about fat/gay/race/bullying/help-the-needy/environmental-collapse/fem-careers. The perps of this outrage are white female college graduates and their homosexual co-workers who run the publishing and fashion industries.

  2. Oh, he’s not hurting anybody.
    “Daddy, why is that man wearing a dress?”
    “Well, Timmy, studies have shown that gender is a social construct. If you are curious about girl’s clothing you should feel free to explore your sexual identity and try them on without getting bullied by anyone. It’s ok to wear your sister’s clothes and underwear and act like a girl, if that’s how you feel on the inside.”

  3. This is why, along with the twice refuted gay gene study in 1993, I don’t believe homosexuality is normal or natural. I think many of these men who go that route, be it ideological/mental/physical abuse, suffered at the hands of family or peers; choose to get their healing/affection from someone of the same sex.
    I don’t hate them, I pity them because in today’s ay and age, they are severely hurting, but people cheer them on in their pain. These same people cheering them on are the same sorts of sycophantic pussies who would have physically attacked them in different times for being gay. Gay=popular today, so they “cheer them.” In times past, both modern/ancient/whatever, gay equaled abnormal/evil/wrong/destructive, and couple that that in those times people did not have the healthcare required to service a gay lifestyle and its many ailments; people reacted in ways, shall we say…..less than tolerant.
    To varying degrees, but you get the point?
    Basically, the homosexual lifestyle once again in human history is enjoying a false paradise of acceptance. When traditional values rear it’s ugly head once more, homosexuals and players like us, will get the comeuppance the “tradcons” feel we deserve. Make no mistake, as people get older, and wiser, they start to become more conservative. Even if they vote liberal, they live conservatively.
    They just don’t “force it” on others for fear of being “intolerant.” Once that fear is gone, and shaming becomes popular, homosexuals will be, once again, forced to move back into the closet. And players will have to get their mistresses on the side.
    Honestly, in some ways I am all for it. Conservative values tend to increase great economies, produce significantly less violence as a whole (unless there is racism, but that rarely gets reported), and there is a significant chance that with more accepting attitudes of other people that look differently, or act differently, we may have a better version. People want to live man. They don’t want to be hampered for it. I just don’t see that historically including homosexuality because it is historically viewed as abnormal, and indicative of poor familial upbringing. Not always, but in most cases. I think nowadays, many who claim to be gay, are that way for psychological reasons. Not because we will ever prove it is natural. Even the best arguments about brain activity leading to natural homosexuality are faulty at best. They are merely tolerated because no scientist or researcher wants to lose their career in a gambit against the homosexual lobby.

    1. Exactly what I stated in a post a while back. Being gay is a fad. It gets you instantly more popular. One of the most gay guys I know gets about 15 likes per status. Ridiculous.

      1. my god. Please tell that to all the gay people who are too afraid to come out for fear of being beat up or possibly killed, depending on what country they are in. Tell that to the parents of gay kids that killed themselves because they were bullied to the point of feeling completely worthless because of their sexuality. Or perhaps the gay people whose family cuts them off because of their orientation, the ones ostracized because of who they are.
        Aside from that, homosexuality has existed throughout history and is nothing new.
        A fad. You have to be a troll.

    2. Do you have a link to the studies? I’d be interested in seeing them as many around me claim its natural and cite the differences in chemical makeup.

      1. I know this is way too late, but if you see this man, check out the wikipedia page on the topic, and then look up rebuttals to the actual studies done from 93-2002. They involve twins, and “gay stock” of families that had numerous gay members.
        If you read between the lines, you will see that those praising the progress, are actually researchers to afraid to challenge the gay lobby. For good reason, their careers would be over. You know what it costs to get a PHD in a hard field, then get a reputation and tenure only to have it ruined by a single statement or study?
        Also, look up it’s denial to THE DSM manual which is the Bible for psychologists, and the history of it with the gay movement. You will see that they were not oppressed individuals ever. They have been a powerful lobby for decades.
        I don’t hate them, and many on AVFM are very reasonable people. I just don’t think it is natural. When I brought it up a couple of times, AVFM members actually did not fret. They were very open on the topic. So that impressed me in that their skin was very thick; and they were not easily rattled. Try that on jezebel or manooby.

  4. In concord with the author’s observation that Sissy isn’t dressing like women, but like 1950’s women. Yes Sissy is no different than some kook who wants to dress like a 1940’s Waffen SS Obersturmfuher in small town America. It way of sticking your dick in the faces of your community. The difference is a guy in an SS Officer’s uniform gets the crap kicked out of him and no one cares, but a man in a dress gets jacked up/yelled at/denied anything and the Lavender Mafia is swarming the town.

  5. You know, up until 15 years ago, that kid would have been out the door and into foster care. What will be interesting to see is how the poor little bastard turns out. I suspect Not Well.

  6. The problem with the advocates of this tolerance BS is that they do not practice what they preach. Liberals are some of the most hateful people I’ve met. Always attacking some institution that disagrees with them; typically a traditional one in western culture. The church quickly comes to mind as outdated and patriarchal according to these libtards, yet they will defend Islam and condemn attacks against it, which is much more oppressive and male-oriented.
    The mind of the liberal is chaotic, quixotic and always in constant contradiction with itself. Liberal tolerance is highly selective. If you are white, christian, rich, or successful in any form, and do not adhere to the mentality of the herd, you can bet your ass they aren’t going to tolerate you or your opinions.
    Their slogan should be “Tolerance, only if you think like us”

    1. Liberals are trying to build a utopia, Anything that stands in their way is subject to be removed. The path to their dream is built by blood.

  7. I lived in Casper for 2 years. I can tell you that there is a strong homosexual community there. I remember seeing women walking hand in hand and kissing one another.
    There is no correlation between consservative political views and morality. Republicans are just as depraved as democrats.
    Americans have safety from war , pestilance and famine. The United States is like Sodom and Gomorah. Those cities had lots of food, wealth and luxury. Freed from want.they indulged their passions.

  8. Why not move out of Wyoming?
    Uh how about because uprooting your entire family and flying across the country to a city where you don’t know anyone and the cost of living is significantly higher is not a realistic option?

    1. I love you are defending this man’s actions. You are inherently supporting poor mental health. Further, did you not read? His family is chock full of unhealthy people – most people would want to move away from that.
      Also, people move all time this day and age. What do you think is – the 1850’s?

      1. Agreed…no one wants to call this pathology. I’m ok with leaving people alone but it doesn’t end there does it?? If this fruit got turned down for a job because he looks absurd he would sue for discrimination. We now have to build new bathrooms because of transgender whatevers apparently can’t pee sitting down. Men/women undergo PERMANENT MUTILATING sex change operations because of this madness.

      2. I didn’t defend anything you moron. In the US certain states have a higher cost of living, California is one. In this day and age it’d be fiscally irresponsible to move to San Francisco from Wyoming. Get your head out of lala land and realize not everything is black and white

        1. Yes, my opinion that this man has serious personality disorders is based out of black and white opinions.
          “In this day and age?” Sissy could have moved decades ago before liberals and big government types pissed away fiscal solvency for California.
          Once again, you refuse to address why this man has decided to wear women’s clothing. There has to be a reason and you refuse to address it.

        2. I refused to address it because THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. YOU. FUCKING. DIMWIT.

        3. All you want to talk about is the cost of living in different states.
          I want to talk about a person’s mental health.
          Once again, your entire comment thread is defending this man’s personality disorders, which by definition is his choices.

        4. God the mental gymnastics here. All I’m doing is rationalizing why he did not move, saying it’s not some self victimization thing. If you wanted to discuss his psyche, then you shouldn’t have answered me at all.

        5. I’m truly sorry your reading comprehension skills are so abysmal. That must make it hard for you

  9. Good for him!
    Quite a stretch to say he obviously “wants people to treat him badly.” According to that way of thinking, you could say the same thing about ANY nonconformist – including the ones you lot tend to admire.

    1. Well, I could pull a condom over my face and wear my underwear on the outside of my pants and be a non-conformist.
      But does it really say something (other than I’m a jerk) or achieve something (other than lowering the bar for more debased behaviour?
      Comparing this attention whore to some one like General Patton is a major stretch.

    2. Why are so proud that he was abused as a child by his father and this is his response? Why are you so happy for people having serious personality disorders? Christ.
      People non-conform for many reasons – anti-social traits, disaffection with wider society/culture – but to say that would apply to everybody who doesn’t conform is ludicrous. *This* particular man has decided to non-conform and this article was about why *he* made the decisions he made.

  10. If he wants to dress like a chick, fine. However, he needs better taste in clothing. He looks ridiculous.

  11. to be honest, I wear male clothes but we weren’t born wearing clothes. Woman wear male clothes to the point they become femine so men cant wear them anymore. its just fabric at the end of the day… and fashions change… up untill the 1920s, pink was a colour for boys and blue was the colour for girls. FACT

    1. Yeah, girls can wear pants or skirts but men can only wear pants? Sounds misandrist to me.

  12. Interesting that you called Sissy brave, and berated him all at once.. Lots to think about through reading this, obviously some I can’t take to heart, and is blatantly untrue.. Knowing what Sissy wants? Maybe he wants to be treated badly, or maybe he wants to be like others before him, and bravely challenge the norm.. sounds like a success story to me.. Now where did I put my bra..

Comments are closed.