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

[BertrandRussell]

There have always been women who pretended to be men to take jobs nor available to women, and it seems that they are being trofitted as transmen It seems extraordinarily presumption to do this to a person unable to tell her story.

Here is one story.

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.

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

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).

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!

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).

Its dreadful

I agree with the more erudite amongst you

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

when was this ?

I thought it was really sad. Albert was already living as a man by the time he joined up and stayed living as a man his entire life.

And then at the end, when he had dementia and was all confused anyway he was forced into a dress and he didn't even know how to walk around in it without tripping. Broke my heart a bit. He didn't deserve that.

It's the same as the cultural appropriation transactivists practice. It's all trying to "prove" that being trans is somehow innate, across time and culture.

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.

While of course transwomen are reinforcing the stereotype of women while, in the case of TAs, retaining the attitude of male entitlement.

I wonder when TRA are going to start claiming these people, identifying as women, as their own:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40480305

It was a program on the radio a few weeks ago. Part of their queer history season. A woman stated that Radcliffe hall was part of both lesbian and trans history

thanks AdalindSchade will try and get it on catch up.

Ridiculous

Not directly to do with historical women, but I watched a a french film called "Tomboy", about the struggles of a 10 year old girl with short hair who moves to a new area, is mistaken for a boy, and decides to keep up the pretence.

This film, massively, massively resonated with me as how I was as a child. Of course she wants to be a boy, boys get to do all the cool stuff! (To be clear, at no point does she actually say she wants to be a boy). She might grow up to be a lesbian, as there is some childish romantic interest between her male alter-ego and the only other girl in the group of neighborhood kids.

Almost all the reviews of the film I have read refer to her as a transboy, despite there being no evidence of this in the film. Yes, the film is about gender non conformity, and fitting in, but that doesn't make her trans!

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 And so many MtTs wait until they have made it (with male privilege) before the 'big reveal'.

Radcliffe Hall is so sad because that is also about the destruction of dyke history.

Maybe I shall leave special instructions in my will for my remains to be disinterred some years after my death so that the decomposition of my hips can be examined to see whether I was really a man all along.

Or - hopefully - by the time I am long gone, such a notion would be recognised for the insanity that it truly is

What about the men who dressed as women to temporarily gain advantage? E.g Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy during the US Civil war - he is supposed to have dressed as a woman to elude capture by Union soldiers as the war ended. Was he trans? Utter rubbish.

Offensive and stupid. Really, really, stupid.