What do people think of the retrospective "transing" of women in history?

SummerflowerXx

Exactly. Disguising themselves as men was a means to an end.

Transgenderism is the end. And for every single trans person I have come across, it's all consuming. Their identity defines absolutely everything about them.

I'm not saying they are all like this. But it's certainly a massive part of who they are.

The women of history identified, if anything, as achievers.

Yes, I agree, it is ahistorical to compare people who lived as the other sex with transgender people today. One of the first female doctors had to pretend to be a man to get into medical school. She did not want to be a man, but she was barred as a woman from getting an education.

I don't even think it was just determination to succeed even just personally but part of a broader genuinely feminist movement to gain access to education despite the barriers. I was struck by the point above that transmen are not challenging the patriarchy at all, just stepping out of their assigned role in it. That is a crucial difference.

This discussion is helping me frame the arguments. I think transmen are rejecting prescribed feminine norms which are no longer legal or educational barriers, but ideals of femininity which are much more external and appearance based. If a transman has a baby, then the biology of being a woman has not changed, only the external appearance has.

Historical female pioneers who had to act as men to gain progress for women acted in ways which benefitted all women against stereotypes. I don't think transmen are doing the same thing. It is an interesting question what they are doing and why, but it is definitely not the same thing.

The women who disguised themselves as men in history did it to succeed and achieve or survive. Single-minded determination to further themselves against the odds.

It's no coincidence that transwomen make a name for themselves in business, arts, politics and sport but transmen are only famous for having babies. A woman identifying as trans confers no status at all.

Transgender people are fragile, at best, and unstable at worst.

It's ludicrous to claim that the strong, determined women of history would have been consumed by the self obsession and victim status that characterises transgenderism. Their sense of purpose meant deflection from who they were as much as possible to keep their eye on the goal. Not making their masculinity the goal.

No-one should need bodyguards for speaking out, though. It is a sad state of affairs that people cannot speak out - and I count myself professionally as a person who does not speak out.

I spent a bit of time googling trans and anthropology - it didn't get me where I wanted, but I read a whackadoo blog post about the trans nature of skeletons which were not discernibly male or female based on pelvis size and shape. It is thus possible to be transed because of how your body decays after death. WTAF?!?

I shall continue my searching, as I think this raises interesting questions. Thanks for the additional suggestions PricklyBall. I need academic ways of sensibly countering the re-writing of history to make a trans* past, without denying the lived experience of people who lived as the other sex.

Agreed, it would be awesome if JK Rowling spoke out against this shit.

It would result in most of the people who didn't burn their Harry Potter books when she outed Dumbledore as gay to do so, once the leaders of transwacktivism told them that they must, but she already made her millions and can also afford bodyguards.

She'd be the perfect person to speak out.

You know what I'd love? For JK Rowling to speak out against this bullshit.

JK was made to use her initials 'JK" rather than her real name, Joanne, when publishing Harry POtter as the publishers were worried it wouldn't sell under a female name. Obviously, this does not make JK trans...

JK has a huge fan base, so it would be great if she came out in support of these women.

Its dreadful

I agree with the more erudite amongst you

Summer, picking a few examples (important disclaimer: I'm not an anthropologist) it seems to go with cultures which have massive degrees of homophobia (Iran for instance) or raging misogyny (bacha posh in Afghanistan, sworn virgins in Albania).

That's really interesting PricklyBall - I was wondering whether there was any retrospective transing of 1970s icons, given it was much more gender neutral. I think not. But it would be fascinating to look at other cultures anthropolgically as well as historically. I had not thought of that, thanks!

Summerflower, I believe that anthropologists have pointed out that so-called "third sexes" and the like are much more prevalent in societies with rigid gender roles than they are in societies with flexible gender roles. (Gender roles in the old fashioned social sciences sense of clothing, behaviour, occupations etc. stereotypically associated with one sex rather than the other).

I think it's time to start a campaign to recognise Pope Joan, who was clearly always a man despite her (fully functioning) female genitalia

Trans activists cant be against dead naming and in favour of pretending women in hiding were trans. There is no evidence they identified as men. It completely ignores the culture they lived in.

What a story, with such a sad ending. Perhaps Albert would have been trans today, perhaps not. We don't know whether them presenting as male following the war was due to an innate sense of being born as the 'wrong' sex or just a sensible choice for a non-gender conforming woman in the mid 19th century. We won't ever know. The writer absolutely should not be speculating like that to push an agenda. It's just not fair.

To me, Albert's story is about women and the struggle for self-determination, freedom and equality we have faced through history. It's a feminist story, not a trans one. There will be other stories about (living) trans soldiers that can be told to highlight the issues around Trump's ban. I don't appreciate stories that show the heroism of female soldiers in history being explained away as their success being because really they were men.

Radcliffe Hall has been claimed as part of transgender history by radio 4. Not a joke.

In other words, instead of retrospectively transing people, the question should be why could they not live as their birth sex and have the same lives as the opposite sex? And then, what are the parallels with today?

We aren't allowed to talk about that, because implying that they might just be ordinary women who don't want to be treated as subhuman invalidates transmen's genderfeelz. (And also, more importantly, makes men and the way they treat all women look bad. We cannot have that, can we?)

Transmen want to get exemption from female slave status for themselves, without actually having to fight the patriarchy. In order to achieve this, they have to maintain that they are completely different from women whose only wish it is to not be treated as subhuman (radical feminists). If they can convince patriarchy that only about 1% of women "identify as male" and will want the same rights as males, patriarchy won't consider them a threat to the status quo.

Of course living freely and conforming to stereotypical femininity is a contradiction in terms...

But we can't possibly know whether they stayed living as men because they were transmen, or because they didn't want to give up the freedom and opportunity living as a man gave them.

This.If you pretend to be male to get a degree in medicine, well, you aren't going to reveal yourself to be a woman immediately after, before you even get to work as doctor.

This is really interesting - if the only opportunity women had to live freely was to pass as a man, what does it say about women's rights today that there are an increasing number of FtT people. Surely that indicates that women cannot live freely without conforming to stereotyped femininity?

In other words, instead of retrospectively transing people, the question should be why could they not live as their birth sex and have the same lives as the opposite sex? And then, what are the parallels with today?

Of course they continued to live as men- they'd been listened to, respected, had liberties they could never have otherwise enjoyed-- who the hell would give those up?

I hate it.

Did you actually read the whole article? There is a clear distinction made between women who pretended to be men in the short term, for example during war, and those who lived as men long term.

The assigned thing annoyed me too though.

Really pissed me off. Completely ignores the world these women were living in.

Ex-fucking-actly.

Go look at the AO3 fanfics for "The Goblin Emperor", I dare you.

That's a fantasy book that has as its premise a very patriarchal world. There's a female character introduced who wants to get into a job that has previously only been open to males, and the guy who supports her (because he needs to present a suitable candidate for the job and she's the only he can get) tries to pass her off as male. Which his boss immediately sees through (because she's small and thin and doesn't look like a male at all) but still accepts her because he, too, urgently needs someone to do the job.

So, this all established, people still, without reflecting on it, write fics in which a canon male character is secretly trans and got that very same job with no problem whatsoever. Because in a world where women clearly, explicitly have to pretend to be male to get the top jobs, genderfeelz will be totes separate from that and only be had for noble and pure reasons of gender identity, nothing to do with material gain. And only those noble TrueTransmen(TM) will be able to pass undetected.Because they are morally superior to those lowly ciswomen who schemingly, evilly pretend to be a valuable male, and their true male self shines through their lowly female bodies. Or something. (No, admittedly, I haven't read the fic, I didn't feel able to deal with the stupid, but it is fucking insulting, even if it is admitted that the transman looking butchier than the woman-with-ambition is mere coincidence.)

They are shown the world those women live in, and still decide that what this world needs is a woman who has male genderfeelz, and just happens to look butchy enough to have no one contradict her genderfeelz.
( It is telling they didn't take the female character that couldn't pass as male and give her male genderfeelz. Then at least they'd be forced to acknowledge that her worst enemy aren't those evil radfems who don't believe in her gender identity, but the men who don't want to give her jobs)

Not surprised. A group of people who are capable if ignoring basic biology are unlikely to have any grasp of history.