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

So let's assign the males who put on a dress, clean shaven, and jumped into the sinking Titanic as females.

Plus there was always a doubt about Herodotus' sex. It's always been thought of as he was a she.

I suppose George Elliot and Currer bell will be considered trans next.
It is misogyny and doesn't help trans people who are basically being made fun of by not taking it seriously. Most people will read the guardian article as ridiculous and it will contribute to transphobia.

Pisses me off.

I find this need that TRAs seem to have to invent a past history of transgenderism / prove that people may be trans form birth very interesting...

It's a given this is anti Trump.

But wearing a pussy hat as a protest was being a TERF.

The mind boggles when it comes to the logic.

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

Is it just me that feels there's an undercurrent of "See ladies, there's no discrimination to see here or in the modern world. You just need to identify differently"

Disrespectful, misogynistic and obliterating women's history. And regrettably, totally in keeping with current attitudes towards women.

It's bloody appalling.

Pisses me off massively too, for all the reasons everyone's just said. Galloping misogyny, a massive denial of the obstacles that stood in the way of women doing anything society deemed to be masculine, bad re-writing of history, blatant appropriation masquerading as history.

From the article:

Albert Cashier was assigned female at birth.

So female on biological sex at birth. Given this was two centuries ago that she was born no one would have said assigned female at birth, though I've no doubt this will happen now sooner or later. I hate war and hate everything associated with it, but this was a woman who signed up and was born female at birth. She took a male name.

To deny her history is abhorrent.

There are stories of men who dressed in women's clothes to get on board the scant boats available when the Titanic sunk.

It's fucking bullshit misogynistic trash. Women who had to take on men's clothes and identities in order to be treated like full human beings were not 'truly' men. What a disgusting perspective.

It completely white washes the reasons why they felt they had to dress in men's clothing in order to be taken seriously.

They weren't butch, I doubt any of them were even lesbians, they were intelligent or daring or otherwise wonderful women who knew the world wouldn't take them seriously as women, and so reinvented themselves, not as trans anything.

At a time when women couldn't practice as doctors, despite being allowed to study medicine, they weren't able to matriculate, the only possible option for them was to dress as men.

It is distinctly anti-feminist to retrospectively trans them to fit and faulty present day cult-like ideology.

I find it abhorrent and misogynist.

I also abhor the transing of female fictional characters, be it claiming that they are secretly transmen, i.e. wish to be male (have seen that done to Éowyn, of all women) or claiming that they are secretly transwomen, i.e. have or had a penis.

In both cases it is an attempt to pretend that women cannot be great, unless they a) aren't really women at all or b) have some mysterious male essence that makes them superior to other women and more like males.

The misogynist agenda behind this is obvious.