I am not intending this blog to be an informational blog. There will be a lot of reblogs from others and some original posts. I am open to talking about my gender and my relationship to virago and I'll probably talk about that unprompted anyway--
So... TL;DR: this is a personal blog focusing on my experiences as a intramasc twain.
about me
Given the personal nature of this blog, it's probably best you have something to address me as! (And know some things about me, of course.)
I have a love of pseudonyms. I have so many of them. Here you can call me Vin/Prince (or Nell/Juud/Quinn). I'm bigender, use ve/she/he pronouns, and am black/nigerian-american.
other blog(s).
go figure, this is a sideblog! my main is @juudaimes-true-form so all interactions will come from there :)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Intersectionality between Gender, Whiteness & Anglospherism
Parts:
Free Will & Determinism
Radicalisation of Identity Politics
Conclusion
References
TLDR;
Mind how you, as an Anglospheric-privileged person, dictate queer cultures, identities and experiences, against immigrants and ethnic minorities.
While some people lack choices in their queer journeys, not everyone does. Either way anti-LGBT parties would use both choice and anti-choice against us.
The focus should be on the autonomy of individuals in their own journey with their identities. That even if you “had a choice” to decide what you want to be, regardless of your national or ethnic origins—why should this be demonised? What is so dangerous about choosing your gender identity or what you wish to do to your body that anti-LGBT parties are wielding this like it’s the ultimate weapon? Why should we hide/exclude that embracing our autonomy, does happen?
To not demonise our own who center the availability of choice they have had in their queer journey, especially where these involves immigrant experiences w navigating Anglosphere language models and culture.
There is no such thing as ‘women’s representation’: intersectionality and second-generation gender and politics scholarship. By Ashlee Christoffersen & Orly Siow. (Christoffersen et al, 2024)
“Black and other feminists of colour have long argued that the category of ‘women’ is not neutral; indeed, it is ‘always already raced as white’ (Lewis, 2017: 117).”
“As part of the process of racially minoritised women’s exclusion from the category ‘women’, white women parliamentarians (including those advocating for gender equality) have been shown to have actively constructed the category in their own image (Christoffersen, 2024a). Contemporary examples of this process also abound within the rhetoric of female right-wing populist anti-gender politicians in Europe (see, among others, Farris, 2017; Sager and Mulinari, 2018; Bader and Mottier, 2020). Thus, the category of ‘women’ fails to encompass all ‘women’, even when it is qualified with references to diversity: ‘once you understand that embedded in the idea of “woman” are the normative values of white, bourgeois cisheteronormativity, then the entire fiction of “woman” is exposed’ (Christoffersen and Emejulu, 2023: 635). Therefore, despite best intentions, the term remains problematic as a starting point for gender and politics scholarship.”
“For example, in the field of political representation, not only do both white and certain racially minoritised women benefit from white supremacy, but they have also actively sought to maintain racial privileges by policing the borders of ‘womanhood’ and upholding the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ minority ethnic groups through processes of ‘post-racial gatekeeping’ (Saini et al, 2023). It is not therefore self-evident that ‘women’s’ or ‘diverse women’s’ inclusion should be the priority of efforts towards equitable representation. Gender as a social marker is always interlocking with others that change its qualities, meaning that neither ‘women’ nor ‘men’ are an inherently oppressed group. Gender is also not a binary category, as the burgeoning political scholarship on non-binary gender shows (see, for example, Solevid et al, 2021).”
A part of critical gender and queer theory that is rarely spoken about, is how much binary and non-binary genders and sexualities in culture, meaning and expression are characterised by Western and Anglospheric (US, UK, Canada, AU, NZ) archetypes.
This has become an increasingly pertinent topic given the globalisation of cultures and the undeniable dominance of Western media and portrayals in queer rhetoric. So much so that the Anglosphere’s queer culture has undercut the diversification of gender maps on the basis of international multiculturalism.
It is an uncomfortable one with many implications, that a specific group of people has tried to shut down. These people are often members of White, Anglospheric, or native English-speaking demographics, who may also be queer and from other marginalised intersections. They share an appeal to Anglospheric politics and an ignorance to how their institutions are non-generalisable to other cultures, languages and nations.
Many persons from the aforementioned subset often refuse to acknowledge how localised such gender maps are and reliant upon the collective subjective worldview. This is not without its reasons.
Worldview, which underpins perspective, knowledge models and “common sense”, is informed by culture, religion, local representations, and language models—which are all dependent on history and anthropology of that specific Petri dish.
Language significantly shapes how we understand and express gender. It impacts identity formation. It is derived from local cultures, which has predispositions towards certain archetypal notions. Its usage influences the relational map of human genders to grammatical gender classifications of other nouns. Therefore how we perceive such gendered categorisations of objects and people, constructing and reinforcing gender stereotypes. With the globally dominant language and culture being English and Anglospheric respectively, such has monopoly on queer theory, community and contributes heavily to the international consensus on queer politics and rights.
It should be therefore acknowledged that a delocalised entity is inherently non-binary to local gender maps. When a non-native English speaker, a migrant, or a non-Anglospheric local adopts the terms of an Anglospheric culture, many are making an agentic choice to identify with said term and draw relationships to its referent.
Secondly, that any who are imperfect fits to the divides between gender and sexual categories, who straddles or moves between these—co-opt terms and draws relations to its referents for their own basis of identity, both to enable communication and to conceptualise in accordance to a normative gender map. Such persons may consider themselves to be gender-diverse, fluid and intersex persons, who are often excluded from the discourse that centralises cisheteronormative assimilation.
Thirdly, that as with all use of language, terms offer a “best fit” graph of meaning based on plotted points. When used to describe identity, terms and their referents are not prescriptive, rather descriptive.
Such concerns throws some of the anti-choice beliefs into disarray and has implications on today’s queer discourse.
The reasons that most dominant societies use to “permit” queer persons our rights, is frequently on the basis that queer persons have no other choice but to *be* queer. Many have therefore adopted this rationale to demand basic human rights and liberation from systemic inequity.
The lack of choice in one’s intra- and inter-personal gender experiences are valid and certainly more applicable to some persons than others—but it comes with some nuances.
It is for this reason that the social sciences has focused heavily on the unavailability of free will behind gender and sexual orientation, to legitimise queer politics.
Free Will & Determinism
Queer politics has had to fight against the historical assumptions of queer persons as dysfunctional and/or criminals/intentional deviants, and the inhumane treatments borne from such ideas—such as conversion therapy, correctional 🍇 and other forms of abuse. Determinism, the lack of choice and autonomy in one’s being, has been most effective in this regard.
On the other hand, Free Will and autonomy in one’s identity has been weaponised heavily by anti-TLGB parties to delegitimise queerness, frame queer persons as cultural rebels and deviants, enemies to the status quo who do not deserve legitimisation from the State, nor validation from their communities.
Determinism has been used as an approach against Free Will morality and appeals to nature. Where choosing to be any other way than how nature (or God) intended is immoral, but as long as it is beyond your control, it is justifiable. The extension of this to all queer interactions between agents and their environment, has become the “middle-ground” liberal rationale, which while applicable to some persons, is also done to appeal to the State.
It is therefore especially challenging for queer persons to even begin to address autonomy in gender and sexuality, when doing so could cause them to become liabilities to current queer politics, their communities (which are already scarce) and be subject to endangerment and rejection from all sides.
It causes the splintering of the community into those who operating on choice, versus those who do not. More aptly; it splinters queers central to the Anglosphere and its politics, versus queers who are peripheral to it.
Radicalisation of Identity Politics
The radicalisation of identity politics—that is the legitimisation of such identities without appealing to the state—has always been a topic of intersectional identity politics.
Such has denounced the need for critical queer theory to conform and assimilate into the normative ideas of state-sanctioned personhood, but rather challenges what can be considered human on the basis of maximised autonomy.
Punks, Bulldaggers & Welfare Queens by Cathy J. Cohen (Cohen, 1997)
…rebuff what they deem the assimilationist practices and policies of more established lesbian and gay organizations. These organizers and activists reject cultural norms of acceptable sexual behavior and identification and instead embrace political strategies which promote self-definition and full expression.
While biological predispositions, and socialisation to a smaller extent, have significant roles to play in determining a person’s gender and sexual orientation, deterministic approaches can often deny the autonomy of individuals in favour of assimilation and subjugation to the system. It ignores gender as a performance, a journey with an active agent however shaped by things sometimes beyond their control, and a site of activism.
Hostile parties have consistently attempted to keep any “influence” of queerness from leaking into cisheteronormative curriculums, for the sake of restricting worldviews.
This in turn controls informed ideas of what is possible to be, what is central versus alien, and therefore what deserves the utmost privilege of inclusion and empathy—to the exclusion of the non-normative.
Censorship restricts a person’s autonomy by limiting the paths of self-actualisation availed to them, but more significantly, such ideas of what legitimises personhood, reifies the global white cisheteronormative patriarchal able-bodied classist hegemony.
When the focus is more so on how a person cannot “help” themselves to be, this invites the collective to “fix” an individual in accordance with the status quo—or else to accept the person on a basis of “grace” (typically awarded on the basis of what is most affordable and convenient).
Such has occurred throughout history with the use of psychiatric interventions, conversion camps, “correctional” 🍇, “correctional” bullying, “correctional” behavioural facilities—some of which are now deemed inhumane only on the basis of how much suffering it produces versus how inefficient it is. It however, still deems such methods possible and useful as long as it meets the cost-benefit criteria.
The pivot to the focus on autonomy of individuals challenges the conditional acceptance of queer persons on how conveniently and affordably they fit into the status quo. It strongarms such coercive interventions as violating an individual’s autonomy, their availability of choice and the role of the State and its supporters, in the removal of autonomy.
Assimilation is killing us. We are falling into a trap. Some of us adopt an apologetic stance, stating "that's just the way I am" (read: "I'd be straight if I could."). Others pattern their behavior in such a way as to mimic heterosexual society so as to minimize the glaring differences between us and them….The myth of assimilation must be shattered…Let's make families which promote sexual choices and liberation rather than sexual oppression. (Cohen, 1997)
Intersectional identity politics enables visibility of proximity to privilege across multiple dimensions, and dismantles monolithic ideas of power, status and privilege.
our multiple identities work to limit the entitlement and status some receive from obeying a heterosexual imperative. (Cohen, 1997)
It highlights the inclusion of those who do not necessarily benefit from their pre-existing proximity to state-sanctioned identities, and validates the choice-based membership of persons to their own gendered maps without appealing to the dominant rhetoric for acceptance. Such constitutes transformational politics.
By transformational, again, I mean a politics that does not search for opportunities to integrate into dominant institutions and normative social relationships, but instead pursues a political agenda that seeks to change values, definitions, and laws which make these institutions and relationships oppressive. (Cohen, 1997)
Conclusively
Identity politics has focused primarily on Anglospheric politics so much so it has failed to see how the Anglosphere’s rhetoric has pervaded and dominated international cultures. How international persons and other marginalised groups such as immigrants and ethnic minorities, have co-opted such terms to interact within the Anglosphere and the global sphere. How it has impacted identity politics to queer theory and politics. Prompting inquisitions into the autonomies of individuals in their gender identities that may otherwise remain invisible and overshadowed by the Anglosphere’s intra-discourse.
Deterministic approaches to identity politics excludes queer experiences that do not align with local language and cultural models, overlooks autonomy in identity politics, and reduces the effectiveness of transformational identity politics.
Erasure of diverse experiences, silencing and attacks against publicising these and the liberation of choice, should not be reasoned with appeal to the hegemony.
Genuine transformational politics should not depend on exclusionist rhetoric that establishes monolithic identities and a privileged class upon its proximity to normative identities.
Choice, the autonomy of people in their identification, should be central to discourse. If the cisheteronormative society weaponise against queer persons the liberty to choose one’s gender, then the solution isn’t to deny we have choice or autonomy, but to question why that, to them, is a harmful thing.
The fight has always been about autonomy in identity. Not the removal of autonomy.
REFS
There is no such thing as ‘women’s representation’: intersectionality and second-generation gender and politics scholarship. By Ashlee Christoffersen & Orly Siow. (Christoffersen et al, 2024)
“Black and other feminists of colour have long argued that the category of ‘women’ is not neutral; indeed, it is ‘always already raced as white’ (Lewis, 2017: 117).”
“As part of the process of racially minoritised women’s exclusion from the category ‘women’, white women parliamentarians (including those advocating for gender equality) have been shown to have actively constructed the category in their own image (Christoffersen, 2024a). Contemporary examples of this process also abound within the rhetoric of female right-wing populist anti-gender politicians in Europe (see, among others, Farris, 2017; Sager and Mulinari, 2018; Bader and Mottier, 2020). Thus, the category of ‘women’ fails to encompass all ‘women’, even when it is qualified with references to diversity: ‘once you understand that embedded in the idea of “woman” are the normative values of white, bourgeois cisheteronormativity, then the entire fiction of “woman” is exposed’ (Christoffersen and Emejulu, 2023: 635). Therefore, despite best intentions, the term remains problematic as a starting point for gender and politics scholarship.”
“For example, in the field of political representation, not only do both white and certain racially minoritised women benefit from white supremacy, but they have also actively sought to maintain racial privileges by policing the borders of ‘womanhood’ and upholding the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ minority ethnic groups through processes of ‘post-racial gatekeeping’ (Saini et al, 2023). It is not therefore self-evident that ‘women’s’ or ‘diverse women’s’ inclusion should be the priority of efforts towards equitable representation. Gender as a social marker is always interlocking with others that change its qualities, meaning that neither ‘women’ nor ‘men’ are an inherently oppressed group. Gender is also not a binary category, as the burgeoning political scholarship on non-binary gender shows (see, for example, Solevid et al, 2021).”
Punks, Bulldaggers & Welfare Queens by Cathy J. Cohen (Cohen, 1997)
By transformational, again, I mean a politics that does not search for opportunities to integrate into dominant institutions and normative social relationships, but instead pursues a political agenda that seeks to change values, definitions, and laws which make these institutions and relationships oppressive.
Assimilation is killing us. We are falling into a trap. Some of us adopt an apologetic stance, stating "that's just the way I am" (read: "I'd be straight if I could."). Others pattern their behavior in such a way as to mimic heterosexual society so as to minimize the glaring differences between us and them….The myth of assimilation must be shattered…Let's make families which promote sexual choices and liberation rather than sexual oppression.
our multiple identities work to limit the entitlement and status some receive from obeying a heterosexual imperative.
(P9) rebuff what they deem the assimilationist practices and policies of more established lesbian and gay organizations. These organizers and activists reject cultural norms of acceptable sexual behavior and identification and instead embrace political strategies which promote self-definition and full expression.
Honestly I find the “I was born this way” rhetoric to be quite harmful when it’s imposed on everyone as a silencing tactic. As someone genderfluid and sexually fluid, I am not able to safely express my experience because others would invalidate it. Including MANY queer peoples who cannot comprehend how queerness can be a choice for some, and have been exceptionally cruel in trying to ostracise me when I do speak about my experience.
It is assumed as a normative queer experience and that anyone who speaks against this is automatically “betraying” the LGBTQ community. Being a BIPOC migrant, even identifying with a label on some level, involves a choice, even my preference for partners too. A part of it is socially conditioned, sure others are biologically correlated, and plenty of it could also involve choice.
“Sexuality/gender is not a choice” feels like a very Anglocentric concept as well and something that only developed in postmodern times within European society, when sexuality became seen as an innate static identity.
It’s also a reaction towards the psychopathologising eras of sexuality and gender, and how it occasionally surfaces in the Anglosphere but does dominate in other countries.
Many BIPOC queer activists have already said, “I was born this way” is a submissive statement that basically agrees “being queer is bad but I can’t help it so please don’t blame me”. This doesn’t cut at the root which is that being queer is NOT BAD.
The problem is not that sexuality or gender is a choice for some and isn’t for others. It’s that regardless of choice, it is disrespected and disempowered by a system that doesn’t support autonomy in personal identity, so why are we downplaying our personal power? Why not acknowledge that autonomous identity has always been a right to defend? And that queerness is NOT BAD regardless if it’s chosen or conditioned or innate?
It has always struck me as fawning to the system, instead of saying with one’s whole chest that YES. I am queer and it doesn’t matter if it was a choice, societal conditioning or a biological correlate; this is my personal autonomy and my identity.
Saying that it “isn’t a choice” also feels self-limiting. It seems to divorce from “queers who do make certain choices”, such as those who do choose to live out, to transition socially or medically, or to be vocal about their queer lifestyles. It feels like the lowest hanging fruit to reach for to protect oneself while easily separating from free choice, which are weaponised against queer folks ALL the time. And how choice is involved at different levels of queerness.
It doesn’t disarm anti-LGBT people. It agrees with their weapon of choice.
warning: discussion of kink (not explicit). The paragraph below is a good example of what to expect.
The intersection of kink and being virago is always an interesting discussion for me because I am a kinky virago. I really like power dynamics and I feel that extends to my relationships too.
When kink and virago are usually discussed, it’s usually in disdain for the femdom/domme archetype —which I understand— but I’d like to show another aspect of that intersection!
I like dominating. I like the power and control that it gives me. I like being able to decide things for my partner. I like imagining myself as dignified and commanding. And when I think of these things, I see myself with a bulky signet ring around my pinky; a sharp suit; and a low, authoritative voice.
See, the issue with femdom is less with the practice itself and more with how it’s socially positioned. Femdom, as largely understood, assumes a woman’s dominance is inherently feminine and sexual. But we’re not limited to femdom —I’m not limited to femdom— and, for those who are also into kink, I’d love to know how your virago identity interacts with it (if at all!)
I’ll probably write that phaedra essay two weeks from now. I ordered a physical copy for my to take notes in. The essay itself shouldnt be too long, maybe a couple paragraphs (~1000 words basically) but im really excited!!
Seneca’s Phaedra1 inverts the gendered expectations of its titular character. Through the way Phaedra expresses her romantic desires, relates to womanhood, and rejects traditional markers of femininity, Seneca gives us a woman whose internal understanding of herself is wholly masculine and –I will argue– can be seen as an intramasculine character.
As a mollis, I really wish I was wordy enough to post on Tumblr, but everyone on here the virago/mollis community just posts such long posts! :O
Where do you guys find the words?
Haha, there are a lot of long posts here! But I promise that’s not any sort of expectation or requirement at all. For me I think it’s because I’ve been stuck with these thoughts for so long with no one to say them to, so now that I have this blog to voice them, my posts end up being really long 😂
Anyway you should totally join us!!! Your non-wordy posts are just as welcome as any other, promise!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Being trans and GNC is like having bricks thrown at your head repeatedly only by saying masculine trans woman are disliked by virtually everyone for the crime of not being feminine enough to be considered a woman.
being a virago/masc woman SUCKS for me a lot sometimes, cause I struggle to relate with other mascs and stuff. I'm not really dominant, nor do I wish I was muscular or taller, my taste in fashion is much different. I'm shy and more so passive, I mainly have atypical dysphoria, I have atypical euphoria as well, and aside from that I wish I was skinnier and more boyish, I like being short, I don't mind getting called pretty or beautiful.
I'm happy that other people can relate in the community, but I guess I just feel like I'm not enough or not even relatable myself. I feel invisible or overshadowed, I guess I feel a bit alienated and a little disconnected, like i'm the odd one or smth.
You're not the only one. There are experiences that other Virago have that I struggle to relate to. I really respect and envy those among us who were always sure of their identity and who didn't conform to societal expectations of femininity—even if it would be difficult because being masc is just who they are. For me it wasn't an option to be masc because I didn't even know I could be. I was tomboyish growing up even though I didn't dress like it because of the women in my family. I had a phase where I did try to conform to femininity because of pressure from said women and the social alienation I was experiencing.
Even though I failed completely at being a feminine woman I still carry a lot of the feminine traits I picked up trying so hard to be femme like the way I talk or the gestures I make sometimes. I also can do makeup...if not very well lol.
But I don't think you even need to be the most masculine woman out there to be Virago. Women who are femme or androgynous can use the label. I also think masculinity is a spectrum, you know? I still want to build muscle but I also want to keep painting my nails black and wear eyeliner like a 2010s emo boy lmfao and we know how they were treated by society. There are also mascs here that don't necessarily fit traditional masculinity so there's no one way to be masc.
All of this is fine! You don't need to be the most macho, or hetgnc person out there. We all live under the same system of placing femininity so easily in our hands. So don't stress too hard about figuring everything out, because the hard part is accepting yourself not to be feminine.
I want to remind you @rat-girlthing that you are enough! Your simple existence is enough to show all of us how deep things can go for ourselves, so even if we may not be the same, we may relate to you more than most elswhere.
"i'm soooo glad that this new female character finally proved that you can be feminine and powerful! because media usually doesn’t let strong female characters be feminine!” yeah that is so crazy btw what planet do you live on and how can i get there
Like do you get how those images are different. One isn’t objectively better than the other or anything but the allinity feel between them is Different and I need people to know that you can be the second one as a woman without “really just being the first one deep down”
Been using eyeliner to make my eyebrows look bushier and I don’t know if it actually masculinizes my face or not but I feel like it does…? Anyone with experience wanna weigh in?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"i'm soooo glad that this new female character finally proved that you can be feminine and powerful! because media usually doesn’t let strong female characters be feminine!” yeah that is so crazy btw what planet do you live on and how can i get there
The ppl making these kinds of comments DON'T watch ''women's media'' and only watch male-hegemony preserving productions who write women as '''''interesting deviations on the Standard Character'''''. 😮💨
Look at the examples they share next time & see it happen Live for yourself. 😐
Why are you ao hellbent on dividing a peaceful community by making up labels?
Stfu, like please.
It's not dividing when you're calling out bigotries that have always been present within queer spaces. Just because GNC people exist and you date them, and they're apart of your history, doesn't mean they've been treated well.
Butch/Stud Lesbians have many horror stories about the struggles they face from other women who are supposed to love them. Bi Masculines are discarded from our communities. HetGNC people experience attraction totally differently than mainstraight GCs. Gynarchophobia is a verry prominent thing in this world. The word itself is long overdue.
It's a basic fact that Masculine Women are treated worse than Feminine Women. It's a basic fact Feminine Men are treated worse than Masculine Men. As GNC people, we are collectively gaslit by GCs.
Simply calling it out injustice gets us exiled from spaces we help build.
I really hate femboys. I hate the term femboy. I hate how racist white men infest their community. I hate how they've managed to water down, basterdize and ruin the world's perception of genuine gnc queer men.
As a white gnc queer man it's normalized we have to degrade ourselves to sexualized cuphobic and transmisogynistic depictions of what we are.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Your allinity shouldn't depend on your partner's allinity. Stop killing GNC kids because you're insecure. Stop killing GNC trans kids because you're insecure.
GNC liberation must happen. In many countries being gnc is a crime, toppled by the explicit erasure of trans existence. GNC people are removed from consideration within the LGBTQIA+ coummunity. We are much more likely to be targetted by both our governments and local community.
This video is a perfect model of how conservative society views GNC men, one of the less extreme cases where a man simply speaks talks about makeup of all issues.
This is GNCphobia. More specifcally, Cuphobia, the bigotry against GNC men and extreme femininity.
"The Gendered Line" as I call it exists to keep women subjugated, support bioessentialism, and perserve the social institution of opression. Abrahamic religion doesn't predate GNCphobia, it only codified preestablished social prejudice into a piece of text that'd inform laws to supress us.
In these times Gncphobia as bigotry and institution are seperate, yet ollaborating alongside transphobia. The most vulnerable is GNC Trans Women and Men even in the most accepting queer spaces. GNC women are just 'men', yet trans men aren't. Other trans men call their feminine brothers 'women'. Our understanding of gender and allinity is purposefully piss poor.
In feminist circles, queer ubcultures, school, work, education, income, GNC people always get the shorter end of the stick in comparison to their GC counterparts.
GNC liberation starts by looking at your gender, and standing up as who you are as a genderqueer person first. Prioritizing the complete deconstruction of misogyny from presentation and identity and being proud of who you are.