This is SO controversial to say but... Fjord's narrative does actually hold incredible meaning if he is a cis man. The idea that his narrative is inherently enhanced or made better by him being trans, actually says that his narrative is lesser or diminished if he is cis—and his narrative is not lesser that way. These are different stories, one not better than the other. Fjord's story taken as a cis man unpacking his relationship with masculinity is already at its best as that specific kind of story.
There is a wide gap between "I interpret Fjord as trans" and "the story is better / improved / enhanced if he's trans". These are very different sentiments, and I am very specifically talking about the latter.
Fjord taken as a cis man unpacking his complicated relationship with masculinity, understanding what is and is not valuable in the masculinity he inherited, is incredibly meaningful as is. We cannot ask cis men examine their relationship to their gender, particularly in the course of ultimately rejecting toxic masculinity, then imply such a story is lesser because they are not trans. This is self-defeating, devaluing work undertaken, and signaling that this work belongs only to trans narrative. It's implying that interrogating toxic masculinity isn't AS meaningful if you're not trans.
(Frankly, the idea that cis men unpacking masculinity is lesser is uncomfortably too compatible with awful radfem and TERF rhetoric that men are forever incapable of unpacking masculinity because they are stained by it, that they can never decouple themselves from harmful masculinity, but this post is too long to discuss such.)
I understand the desire for trans narrative, but I feel "this specific story is inherently better if trans" lacks nuance because it starts at the idea that a story about cis masculinity, even one unpacked to reject harmful ideals and to embrace healthier masculinity, is lesser.
Fjord's narrative is not diminished if he is cis. A narrative where he is understanding his masculinity and relationship to himself as a cis man is meaningful, important, and nuanced. Frankly, it cannot be improved in that regard—only made different.
There is incredible, significant, specific poignancy if Fjord is a cis man. That narrative is already at its best as that specific story, and it is actually integral to that specific narrative that he would be cis. In fact, there is specificity in narrative between being a cis man versus a trans man. These are radically different stories, and there IS something if Fjord is cis that can never be achieved by his being trans as vice versa. These narratives are not interchangeable—to act like they are waters down queer experience and narrative. Cis men DO have stories and experiences unique to them.
(Also, Fjord's narrative is significantly about the relationship between race, class, and masculinity. This is often overlooked.)
The story would not be improved or enhanced, only different. This does actually matter. Again: vast difference between "I interpret—" and "It improves—". I'm talking about the latter.
I feel we need to stop saying that cis men unpacking toxic masculinity is not good enough, that we need to stop implying that stories about cis men undertaking that work is lesser.
We cannot want narratives about cis men rejecting toxic masculinity and embracing healthier cis masculinity, then turn around and say that this PRECISE narrative is automatically lesser for the fact that it is about specifically cis men. We need to stop saying or implying that these stories are diminished for being about cis men if we ever want to see stories about healthy cis masculinity.
theartofmadeline
ellievsbear
germansingergirl
kianamaiart
gamechangershow
tangentwithtanner
