#shywrites

Rated E! No warnings apply 💕

OK A Y If you insist, because we all know once I get started I probably won’t shut up about this.

Also I couldn’t call it ‘proof’ as much as I’d call it “understanding social constructs of the 18th century” I’ve mentioned this in passing a few times so I guess it’s finally happening, I’m finally ready to fight 16 year olds on why John Laurens was historically a top.

SO Despite being forward thinking men, John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton were still a product of their time. I.e. they had that lovely 18th century sexism against women. It’s to be expected, and we see it as clear as day when it comes to how Laurens handled his Wife situation with little respect and how Hamilton handled his affair with little regard for both his wife and mistress’ well being in the pamphlet. It’s clear women still were viewed as objects to own. And that’s just that.Anyways,Hamilton was raised on an island where Sodomites were likely exiled to. So it’s a pretty safe assumption to make that he grew up exposed to the relationship between two men. Because of that he likely had the freedom of some kind of experimentation in that sexual desire. So he’s a bit more open to the subject of positioning.However Laurens wouldn’t be. He was purebred American Southern man. So there is no way Laurens would, in that mind-frame, willingly demean himself into a “women’s position” (aka bottom.) whereas Alex would have been more open to it, thanks to being raised around a bunch of condemned sodomites.

Heres something for the 3 ppl who like wrioneuvifuri

Rated E

(Will have piv if that’s not ur thing)

How was he supposed to deny her words when Robin confirmed them himself? “I still don’t believe Robin can be our enemy.” She finally spoke up, as if she was reading everyone’s minds.

While I would love to kick back, relax and read a goddamn book, thanks to that anon, I’m here to serve some knowledge on Hatshepsut with a side of fucking etemology and linguistics.

————

So transsexual (later replaced by transgender is a relatively new term coined in the 20th century in the early 1920s by one man named Magnus Hirschfeld (a physician and sexologist— and most importantly a very outspoken activist for sexuality)

Gender binaries is even a newer coined identity, the earliest record we have of nonbinary identities is 1995. So in the time of Hatshepsut the trans and nonbinary Identity wouldn’t have existed, however that doesn’t necessarily mean that gender dysphoria didn’t exist.

Now Hatshepsut is commonly referred to historians as “the queen who became a king.” Her husband/half brother died shortly after the birth of his son leaving Hatshepsut as queen regnant. It’s a fancy term for “your mommy makes all the decisions until you’re old enough.” However Hatshepsut quickly crowned herself pharaoh— which was absolutely unheard of due to the fact that during that time Egyptians believed that their gods decreed a Kings role could never be fulfilled as a women.

To which Hatshepsut told them all to fuck right off and proceeded to be one of the longest ruling pharaohs of her dynasty. The economy flourished, She was phenomenal at war and lead them into an era of peace. Oversaw so much construction and repairs. Rebuilt buildings and memorials. Generally did a lot of work for the country.

Now here is where we get into the gender discussion and inferences. The first and foremost important thing she did was change her name from Hatshepsut- which meant foremost of the noble ladies, to the male version Hatshepsu. Which means that she genuinely altered her name to assume a more manly and traditional role as a pharaoh. Now most of the time with rulers they had ceremonial garb and your normal every day garb, and while were sure she probably wore the normal sleek tight dress that female queens or regents are depicted to have worn, the importance is how she presented herself ceremonially. Hatshepsut was often depicted in a male form, with a beard, male body, and wearing the traditional king’s kilt and crown. And while it’s unsure on the logic behind it- it’s very safe to say that Hatshepsut wanted go down with a legacy that would be respected by future generations. If they depicted her as a woman she would have likely been written off as another regnant. However that’s not the case here. We recognize Hatshepsut for doing something absolutely unheard of— like altering her identity to be more kingly. Her statues while wearing traditional pharaohs clothes still potrayed her as female. However, more importantly in many statues her breasts are covered by her garb, or her arms are crossed against her chest and unseen.

Now does that mean Hatshepsut was trans? Not exactly, as trans wasn’t a coined term yet, but it’s safe to assume Hatshepsut had some nonbinary traits. We regard her as Hatshepsut, not Hatshepsu. Historians in their efforts to straightwash every important historical figures helped create her identity as a female ruler, built entirely around the heteronormative and gender binary. None of us were alive in 1437 B.C. to ask her herself what she preferred to identify as.

However we respect her for being a strong female leader that her son tried to eradicate from existence, and while there are so many questions we can ask about Hatshepsut, the Pharaoh belongs in the queer category of history because at the end of the day she defied societies gender norms in her time and ours.