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?
janainaart
stormborns
blakekathryn
annaxmalina
