Amphibious Thing

Eleanor | she/they | Genderqueer Dyke | I mostly post about 18th century queer history.

[amphibious-thing]

We can never really know d'Eon's true gender identity. Sure. But? You'll still make sure to deadname her. You'll still use masculine pronouns for her. You'll still describe her as a man. You'll still ignore any of the ways she expressed her gender identity in her lifetime. Because why? Because if we can never really know we should assume d'Eon was cis right? Because "we shouldn't assume" is always code for we should assume cisgender.

[amphibious-thing]

What's more likely?

transgender people existed in the past

Louis XVI was going around forcefemming men for political reasons

Remaining time: 1 day 11 hours

[amphibious-thing]

I don't really understand people who think novels shouldn't have content warnings because its "too fanficy". Content warning are an accessibility accommodation. They're so helpful for the people who need them and if you don't it's pretty easy to just skip them.

[my-deer-friend]

I thought @amphibious-thing had prepared me for how bad Delaney's chapter on d'Eon would be, but... hoo boy. There is genuinely too much to critique without writing a chapter of my own, so let me first point you to @amphibious-thing's posts about it here and here and here – to sum up her points, Delaney doesn't know shit about the context, nuance or previous research of this topic.

(At one point, he uses a quote from 1716 to make a point about the 1770s. That's like someone using a comment from 1970 to make a point about gender stereotypes today – i.e., disingenuous, inaccurate, and frankly laughable. He also accuses historians of peddling "modern sureties", as though he himself is not a gross perpetrator of presentism when it suits him.)

I know fairly little about d'Eon, but even I can tell Delaney is cherry-picking materials that help make his point – the point being a truly loony theory that d'Eon was basically blackmailed into crossdressing as a woman despite "his" wishes in a grand conspiracy, as a form of psychological torment and retribution in exchange for being allowed to return to France, and just decided to go along with it. Apparently, living under the shadow of scandal and intrigue in England carried a higher cost than surrendering "her very identity" to become a man-in-women's-clothes in France. In all this, we have to put aside the outrageous supposition that Louis' secret agents couldn't come up with a different, more politically relevant and damning accusation to levy against her – surely, if you're trying to discredit someone's character, "uh, actually, he's a woman" is a bizarre place to start.

Unfortunately for Delaney, this theory doesn't make sense even with the evidence he himself provided, viz. that d'Eon continued to voluntarily live as a woman, including referring to herself in the feminine, wearing women's clothes when she returned to England (i.e., was no longer on French territory and didn't have to abide by Louis' rules) and cohabiting with another unmarried woman who was not her relative, something that would have been truly scandalous if anyone thought she was a man.

He tries to eat his cake and have it when sourcing from d'Eon's fictionalised autobiography – the parts that serve his narrative must be based in truth; those that don't are obviously fabrications. He point-blank ignores any instances where d'Eon expresses joy in her female identity.

Delaney claims to have made a grand revelation in finding newspaper extracts that indicate d'Eon did fencing demonstrations in her Captain of Dragoons uniform, trying to sell this as proof that she didn't always wear women's clothes – yet is somehow completely oblivious to the reasoning that d'Eon was a performer with a unique selling point, and that the adverts continued to use female pronouns for her. Delaney says that "This overlooked evidence demonstrates that previous assumptions that d’Éon dressed exclusively as a woman after she returned to England are incorrect" – except this 1) is not overlooked, and 2) is not evidence of what he's claiming. A stage costume (!!) should not be used as proof of someone's inherent gender identity, nor does it negate the choices she made the rest of the time. Delaney claims it would have been "impossible" for d'Eon to continue wearing men's clothing in the early 1770s if she'd been revealed to be a woman; yet here she is, wearing both men's and women's clothing. So, maybe it's not impossible...?

Amazingly, it seems that 18th century people were better able to wrap their heads around a woman contextually wearing men's clothes than Delaney himself.

[amphibious-thing]

His theory isn't even original it's basically the plot of the 1837 novel Mémoires du Chevalier d'Eon by Frédéric Gaillardet which Delaney cites as a primary source.

Delaney is far from the first person to find those newspaper extracts. If he actually did as much archival research as he wants us to believe he might have found the newspaper articles which detail the scandal that led to d'Eon wearing her dragoon uniform while fencing. See when d'Eon first started doing fencing displays she fenced in women's clothes but found them cumbersome. This led to her striping down to her stays while fencing. The following was reported in the press:

The Chevalier the pulled off her jacket, and thus stripped to her stays, with her handkerchief loose over them, and short petticoats that did not come half way down her legs (The Times, 31 May 1793)

This was as you can imagine quite a scandal. One newspaper article suggested:

If she deems it prudent to make a publick display of her fencing abilities, would it not be better to reassume the dress of a man? (St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, 27-29 August 1793)

It seems she took this advice. I have a longer post about what d'Eon wore while fencing if anyone is interested.

[amphibious-thing]

I'm sick of media criticism thats just this character did something illogical. It shows such a shallow engagement with the story. Why did the character do something illogical? What does that say about the character?

[amphibious-thing]

Gender conforming women are belittled for their enjoyment of feminine things due to misogyny. However it is annoying that gender nonconforming women are always expected to reassure gender conforming women that its ok to conform to gender norms.

[amphibious-thing]

a lot of leftists have never set foot in a factory and it shows

[amphibious-thing]

its the seeming arbitrary nature of how Delaney decides who is and who isn't queer that annoys me

[amphibious-thing]

If Delaney thinks they're queer then 'many historians' have ignored this. If Delaney thinks they're not queer then 'many historians' have wrongly assumed they were. See 'many historians' are wrong about everything. Delaney has the sole ability to see the truth. He uncovered these hidden histories from the archives*.

*ignore his reliance on secondary sources

[my-deer-friend]

Topics Delaney covers in his chapter on Horace Walpole:

Thomas Gray's social anxiety, unequivocally assumed to be the result of homophobic attack because... Delaney finds it relatable?

The Chuteheds (which "many historians" have ignored... Haggerty spinning in his grave)

That adult adoption, cohabitation and proximity to other queer figures are indicators of queerness (just ✋🛑🙅‍♀️ don't apply the same logic to von Steuben)

Antonio Cocchi's writing on bachelorhood (this was good)

John Chute's interior decorating (unclear what, if anything, this has to do with period queerness)

Topics Delaney does not cover in his chapter on Horace Walpole:

Literally anything about Horace Walpole, one of the most written-about queer figures of the period – not his noted effeminacy, or his bachelorhood, or his possible asexuality, or his love letters to Henry Seymour Conway, or his relationship with Thomas Gray, or–

Literally anything about the gothic queerness of Strawberry Hill House, despite Delaney being all about the domestic queer spaces

The "Quadruple Alliance", Walpole's circle of friends at Eton that's absolutely brimming with queerplatonic potential (or– oh, wait, is queer friendship not queer enough?)

Literally anything else about Thomas Gray?? Not even a passing mention of Richard West!? Or Gray's love letters to Walpole himself???

[amphibious-thing]

Lord Hervey is a great case study on the relationship between sex, gender, sexuality and disability in the 18th century so it’s always a tad disappointing when someone doesn’t see how interesting that is

[my-deer-friend]

Chapters 3 and 4 of Queer Georgians handle the story of John, Lord Hervey and Stephen Fox.

I say "story" intentionally, because at times it feels like Delaney forgets that he's talking about real people – he tells us that "Like all the very best love stories, however, it also ends in heartbreak." Again, as with the executions, real people's suffering is framed as entertainment for us.

I'm not very familiar with Hervey-Fox, so I can't comment on the details presented, but what struck me most in these chapters was the flattening of nuance. You'd think that flipping from working-class Gabriel Lawrence to aristocratic John Hervey would be a chance to explore the different types and levels of risk that queerness carried across social strata... but no. The experiences are framed in the same stakes – "all would be lost" for Hervey – where in practice there was little chance of an aristocrat being tried and executed for same-sex encounters. After all, Hervey was publicly accused of sodomy and lost neither his job nor his social standing, never mind his life.

In a similar vein, there are things to critique about the interchangeable way he uses "sex" and "gender", but perhaps that will be a post of its own in future.

The section on Hervey's duel with Pulteney was also confusingly framed. Hervey (described as "a winter weasel of a man" – what does this mean??) is "outed" and thereby has his masculinity and courage impugned; he responds by calling a duel, "a show of courage ... this most manly of responses". And yet... everyone seems confounded? What else were they expecting Hervey to do?

[amphibious-thing]

I hate that people use the term historical context to excuse bad behaviour because it is actually really important to understand the historical context

[amphibious-thing]

people understand that using a slur as an insult isn’t reclaiming it regardless of your demographic right?

[amphibious-thing]

It is in fact possible to both not glorify emaciated people's bodies as some ideal of thinness and also not try and ban them from existing in public. Not all emaciated people are so because of anorexia and even those who are will not be helped from being told they are so hideous to look at they shouldn't be allowed out of the house.

[amphibious-thing]

Do you like non-diegetic modern music in historical fiction?

Yes

No

Depends

Voting ended onJul 19

[amphibious-thing]

Do you think it’s weird to paint every room in your home different colours?

Yes

No

Other (comment)

Voting ended onJul 19