hooks' "Is Paris Burning?"

I have a hard time understanding, or accepting the claim that transvestism is subversive. Because to me, if a woman had to dress like a man thinking that she would gain power and “cross from the world of powerlessness into a world of privilege” (p. 145) then she didn’t really gain that power and privilege, not even temporarily because she is accepting the norms that were put in place: that the world of women=powerlessness, the world of men=privilege. So I see it more as giving in to these norms, and changing her own identity. Now if it is done just because of personal taste or for other reasons it’s different, I just don’t agree that a woman dressing like men to gain power would ever gain power just by transvestism.

It is interesting that she would consider transvestism of a woman as subversive but not that of a man. (Although after reading her argument about the comedians I am tempted to agree, I’m not completely sure though).
The author talks about how “many black comedians appearing on television screens for the first time included as part of their acts impersonations of black women” (p.146) as insulting to black women because they make her the source of ridicule which serves a misogynist society as well as the racist one. This point really caught my attentions that something like comedy, which can often be viewed or considered as ‘innocent’ can be full of meaning and messages, negative of course in this case.
As I was comparing this with the female transvestism, at the end of this section she mentions that this male transvestism “ were never subversive; they helped sustain sexism and racism” (p. 146)

One transvestism is empowering, the other degrading, sexist and racist?
It’s an interesting point of view,but I’m not quite sure what I think of the second passage, that’s why I thought I’d share to see what everyone else thinks.