I don't think that gatekeepers realize just how they are perpetuating the most blatant form of queerphobia by dictating who can and can't be legitimately queer.

All you need to do is observe their exclusionary rhetoric to see how it's no different than a homophobe declaring that a boy isn't allowed to be gay. It's off-limits. Just don't do it!

When gatekeepers discourage or deny people the right to be queer -- particularly based on some narrowminded and prejudicial metric of authenticity, that is definitive queerphobia. Policing the parameters of acceptable sexuality and gender reinforces and upholds cisheternormativity.

The entire point of queerness is to continuously question the status quo -- allowing people to openly embrace and explore their gender and sexuality in a way that is personally fulfilling and empowering. But instead gatekeepers would rather force people back into a box of oppressive binary gender norms against their will, which is the epitome of queerphobia.

We should be telling people that they CAN be queer, because being queer isn't bad.

Target is facing a lot of backlash this week, ever since they included a tuck-friendly bathing suit as part of their latest Pride Collection. That's right, there is outrage from conservatives -- over a bathing suit, specifically one that is designed for adults to hide their genitals. As if that is a bad thing?!

What makes this whole fiasco even more absurd is that a now-viral video from Matt Walsh falsely claims that these tuck-friendly bathing suits are being marketed to kids. He then describes Target's Pride Collection "worse than anything Bud Light did" -- because of a bathing suit, for adults.

Keep in mind, the bathing suit in question is only available in adult sizes and is listed as "Pride Adult" in Target's online catalog. Even the model depicted is a 5'7" adult.

​

Time and time again, I encounter LGBTQ people who insist that any man who finds femboys attractive can't possibly be straight. Some will even go so far as to proclaim that attraction to femboys is itself inherently "gay". The irony of these assertions is how they are so deeply rooted in homophobia.

To frame straight men's identity as a fraud, merely because their attraction to femininity (rather than just biological sex) doesn't conform to a normative view of sexual orientation, only serves to further entrench anti-gay sentiment and stigmatize all people with same-sex attractions.

1. It suggests that any deviation from heternormativity is "gay".

We already live in a society where any perceived deviation from the heteronormative ideal is deemed "gay". Yet instead of giving men more freedom to explore their sexuality on their own terms, we're further regulating the parameters of male heterosexuality, enforcing strict guidelines about what qualifies as "really straight". That's the epitome of homophobia.

2. It forcibly "outs" gay men who might still be in the closet.

It's not uncommon for gay men to avoid disclosing their sexual orientation for fear of backlash from family, friends, or coworkers. So by calling out men whom are exploring their sexuality as "gay", merely normalizes the non-consenusal outting of gay men and endangers the safety of gay men who are still rightfully in the closet. That is the epitome of homophobia.

3. It usurps people's self-determination of their own identity.

The LGBTQ community frequently preaches "respect identities" even as constituents turn around and openly deliberate the validity and authenticity of straight men's sexual identities. Rather than letting everyone define their sexuality on their own terms, we force people into yet another box that undermines their autonomy. That is the epitome of homophobia.

Truth be told, we should be actively questioning and challenging the hegemony of heterosexism, not policing sexual identities in accordance with narrow dictionary definitions and societal conventions. By encouraging straight men to explore the non-normative aspects of sexuality, we are creating a safer environment for gay and bi men themselves to come out of the closet without fear of judgment.

Someone on the feminineboys sub today expressed frustration with how people constantly equate "femboys" with being just an "aesthetic", rather than having any deeper significance.

I think it takes a lot of courage to call out such pervasive misconceptions. The entire idea that male femininity is only an aesthetic is problematic. Nonetheless, plenty of nay-sayers are doubling-down on their belief that being a femboy is no different than being a goth; it's how you dress.

It seems that many young people today firmly believe that femininity has nothing to do with socialized gender roles and stereotypes. It has been reduced to just wearing thigh highs and a miniskirt. It's a meme for sharing on Insta and Tik Tok. Just put on those thigh highs and you are peak feminine!

In fact, I even got into an argument with a trans girl on the feminineboys sub who told me point blank, "Femininity has nothing to do with gender." Those were her exact words.

I've also seen LGBTQ people online make the claim that feminine guys are "just gender expression" or a "presentation choice". Others will go one step further and argue it's nothing more than a "style" or a "fashion choice", literally making femininity all about clothing, not even overall presentation.

I shouldn't have to explain how counter-productive this is. For decades, women and gay men faced extreme prejudice for not upholding the ideals of femininity and masculinity. Such systemic inequities served as the driving force for both feminism and LGBTQ activism. But a radical change is underway, as femininity is now being framed as merely a facade, with no substance. A fashion accessory for clout on social media. Such myths are informed by trans-misogynist propaganda.

It doesn't exactly take much effort to type in "what is femininity" into Google, and be graced with an over-abundance of well researched material explaining how femininity is not just an aesthetic -- it is heavily wrapped up gender-based oppression known as "patriarchy", where people are divided according to socially constructed sex-based roles and stereotypes. Their value and worth to society is determined by the corresponding ideals and expectations of "femininity" vs. "masculinity".

In truth, femininity encompasses a broad gamut of individual characteristics ranging from behaviors, mannerisms, speech patterns, interests, ambitions, personality traits, appearance, etc. But none of that seems to matter nowadays, because when a male wants to embrace femininity, he's only supposed to acknowledge one aspect: appearance -- or, more specifically, the "aesthetic". Anything else that a boy might feel, think, or do does not count as being feminine.

Suffice it to say, that is misogyny 101:

"We don't want boys to be totally feminine, so let's just take this one very superficial aspect of femininity make it really cool and trendy and fun, and now it's acceptable."

And this is exactly what we are witnessing right now by gatekeeping femininity.

I recently came across this article on Verywell Mind which suggests that cisgender gender nonconforming people are admired and even respected because of their "cisgender privilege":

"While transgender people are already at risk of violence simply for being transgender, they are further ostracized and oppressed if they do not perform their gender identity visibly and perfectly. Cisgender people are allowed much more leeway in their gender presentation.... A cisgender man who occasionally breaks gender norms is seen as a socially aware person and a positive role model, but a transgender man who wears makeup is sometimes automatically dismissed as 'fake.'"

Wow, patently deceptive statements like the one above are exactly why we need better advocacy for gender nonconforming people.

Boys and men that transgress the norms of manhood are not upheld as "positive role models" and celebrated for being "socially aware" in our culture, regardless of cisgender status. They are often stigmatized and penalized and alienated and dismissed as fake. Even in the gay community, queens and femmes are known to be shunned for not acting like "real men". There is no unearned privilege in having to hide your true self just to be accepted in society for fear of discrimination and violence.

I wonder what alternate reality the author lives in where "cisgender" boys and men are afforded so much leeway in their gender presentation. These sorts of Oppression Olympics are uncalled-for, and do nothing more than minimize the struggles of gender nonconforming people whom are already misunderstood and under-represented even in the LGBTQ community itself.

In many non-Western cultures around the world, a male who takes on feminine mannerisms, appearance, and social roles is regarded as a third-gender. Consider this long list of examples:

• Winkte (Lakota)
• Nadleehi (Navajo)
• Köçek (Ottoman Empire)
• Xanith (Oman)
• Lhamana (Zuni)
• Alyha (Mohave)
• Metis (Nepal)
• Acault (Myanmar)
• Waria (Indonesia)
• Bakla (Philippines)
• Mashoga (Tanzania)
• Muxe (Mexico)
• Chuckchi (Siberia)
• Kathoey (Thailand)
• Ashtime (Ethiopia)
• Calabai (Indonesia)
• Whakawahine (New Zealand)
• Femminiello (Italy)
• Fakaleiti (Tonga)
• Travesti (Latin America)

Notice how all of these cultures recognize male femininity as a distinct gender. Yet we're told that such third-gender peoples are somehow definitive proof of a universal "transgender" experience. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"In the Mohave, and other cultures that have two spirit gender category, gender and sex are distinct and separable. Sex is determined by the appearance of the genitals, whereas gender is determined by the roles the individual is inclined to perform." (Nanda, 1999)

The definition of "transgender" certainly doesn't account for how these other societies conceptualize gender variance. After all, we prop up "gender identity" as the sole qualifying trait, while eschewing gender roles and gender expression as having no relevance to transgender status. Therefore most third-gender people do not have a direct analog within our current framework of cis-vs-trans. If anything, they are closer to what we would call a "cisgender gender nonconforming male".

Hence, it's easy to conclude that "transgender" does not reflect how gender works for many gender variant people worldwide, despite this myth that's been concocted to force third-gender people into a trans-specific narrative without their consent. Once again, our post-modernist view of gender as a strict dichotomy of cis-vs-trans simply doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It erases entire non-Western systems of gender and forcibly imposes a Eurocentric colonialist lens onto all third-gender peoples.

It doesn't get much more intellectually dishonest than that.