never forget about katherine hepburn's tboy swag
yknow what aggravates me is how both hepburn & pauli murray (and potentially LM alcott although I know less about them) are people we, i think, can generally consider part of transmasculine history based on how they described themselves. we can't know what modern words they would have used, but they share many experiences with people who today identify as transmasc, so they should be recognized as part of our history. and both are credited for their anti-patriarchal actions and defying of gender roles. & with both I see this assumption that if they were cis women, every act of gender non conformity and defiance of stereotypes around women was them fighting for women's rights– but if they were transmasc, then their motivations must have been entirely selfish and essentially feminist on accident. they just appeared feminist because they were cis men in the bodies of women, basically. the experience of cis womanhood is seen as a valid motivator for resisting patriarchy, but not transmasculinity. why? why is it assumed that transmascs are selfish and keen to go along with the patriarchy, or only resist based on the notion that they think they personally shouldn't experience misogyny because they aren't women?
if someone puts on pants and defies misogynistic demands put on women and they are a cis women, they are a feminist icon, but if they do the same thing and are transmasc, its... a disapointment? patriarchal? i wish so badly that we can get to a point where people can appreciate transmasculinity as something radical and which can be a powerful motivator for feminist action in and of itself. i wish we can get to a point where transmasculinity and feminism are not treated like oil and water, where transmasculinity isn't seen as a corrupted failed version of proper womanhood (whether that's being a housewife or a "womyn-identified womyn").
and it especially hurts when it comes to those two figures because neither of them were able to be openly transmasc. pauli murray was labeled schizophrenic and nearly institutionalized for trying to seek HRT and by the time transmasc healthcare started being more widely performed, they were under heavy scrutiny already as a civil rights activist working in the government. hepburn's entire career was, ultimated, based on them being a beautiful actress. i will never stop thinking of how many transmasculine ancestors just... held those feelings close to their chest and played the role of woman for the sake of their spouse or their children or their job or their politics. and how we're expected to celebrate this as the ultimate feminist gesture which any possible transmasculinity threatens the legitimacy of.
cis woman ≠ feminist icon. it's not "was this person a feminist icon or transmasc?" because it can be fucking both. cis women– and women in general– do not have the sole claim to feminist knowledge or action. transmasculine history is part of feminist history. we have been here the whole goddamn time. we have been fighting alongside you the whole goddamn time. transmascs have been inspired by cis women who resist patriarchy; why are cis women incapable of being inspired by transmascs?
i mean just look at this guy
#i’ve done some dives into both jimmy and lou . and i feel incredibly confident they were both men.#jimmy had relationships with gay men and women that he noticeably did not consider sapphic#lou dressed up as a man at parties. his father called him son. his family called him brother. he said he has a man’s soul.#our history is so rich you just have to dig and dig and dig through everyone who does everything in their power to obsfucate it
on this note. there are already so many rules for when you are "allowed" to describe a historical figure could be transmasc (even though that term is extremely broad and includes many kinds of identities). there is such a SPECIFIC kind of narrative we are taught to expect from transmasc history. masculine cis-passing heterosexual man (9/10 white) completely disconnected from his childhood or past living as a woman, who lives a life near indistinguishable from a cis man until he's outed.
one can't help but wonder just how much transmasc history gets buried and erased and "we just can't possibly say!"-ed because trans men&mascs are not allowed to exist outside of a narrative that makes misogyny a footnote at best.
like, i saw another post on Jimmy in which someone in the notes basically summed up their perspective of their gender as "maybe she was a trans man maybe she just didn't like the expectations of women." i mentioned the pauli murray thing above. its always always always "trans OR feminist" "trans OR navigating misogyny" and with Jimmy, Lou, and Pauli, all three of them could very easily have been transmasculine people who simply did not / could not run away and start an entirely new life completed dissociated from anyone who ever knew them and spend their entire life hiding.
misogyny keeps transmasculine people in the closet & then our transmasculinity is pitted against the misogyny we experience! your experience and even identity as a transmasculine person can be fundamentally shaped by living in a society which actively works to trap you as a submissive obedient housewife, and then you have people debating over whether you had negative feelings about being forced into that role OR if you were a trans guy (and thus implicitly fine with / unaffected by misogyny). HELL WORLD!!!!!!!!
#so many people are utterly incapable of conceiving that someone might have both the attitude#i am pushing back against gendered expectations for women being put onto me because they are unjust#AND also the attitude#i am pushing back against gendered expectations for women bc i am not a woman#so many ppl see someone distancing themself from womanhood and immediately see that as proof that they are in support of women being oppres#once again it all boils down to ppl being incapable of not perceiving transmasculinity as inherently misogynistic
there is such a SPECIFIC kind of narrative we are taught to expect from transmasc history. masculine cis-passing heterosexual man (9/10 white) completely disconnected from his childhood or past living as a woman, who lives a life near indistinguishable from a cis man until he's outed.
I wonder what percentage of transmasc people today would even qualify under those expectations. Not to mention we're not even limiting to binary trans men here, we're already saying 'trans masc' which has the uncertainty and ambiguity and allowance for variety of experience built in.
