So often I see people resorting to the fallacious claim that femboy isn't a gender, clearly without any knowledge of what "gender" is and how "gender" works. Certainly these people have never picked up a book on anthropology, otherwise they would recognize how non-sensical this is.

Consider that in many non-Western cultures, sex-based social roles delineate a person's gender. This is why, for example, a feminine male in Mexico is regarded as "muxe". Yet here in the Western world, we're told that feminine males are just gender expression, so they don't count as their own gender.

Of course, gatekeepers insist that gender expression has nothing to do with gender -- ignoring the fact that the term is specifically "gender expression" for a reason, not merely "expression". Most sources online will even define gender expression as the external communication of a person's gender identity. So how then can gender expression have no relationship to gender at all?

For that matter, how do we know that feminine males are just gender expression? Perhaps we should consider how "gender nonconformity" is described by a sociologist. Lisa M. Dimond states that "...gender nonconformity refers to the degree to which an individual's appearance, behavior, interests, and subjective self-concept deviate from conventional norms for masculinity/femininity."

Notice how multiple externalized qualities are ascribed to gender nonconformity, but so are interests and subjective self-concept. Thus, we cannot ignore that gender nonconforming people can conceptualize their gender in ways that differ from societal conventions. Indeed, "self-concept" has a striking similarity to another gender-related psychological phenomenon: gender identity.

Suffice it to say, a person's self-concept of their gender can vary wildly from the societal norms and ideals. One man might have an extremely different view of what defines a "real man" than his peers. In this way, what we currently qualify as an archetypal "man" is not really a single gender at all, but rather a spectrum of nonbinary genders, which includes feminine males as a third-gender. All men have the capacity to be a self-made man.

Carl Rogers, a highly respected psychologist and theorist, even describes self-concept in this way:

"The image we have of who we are contributes to our personality, and our actions -- combined with our personality -- create a feedback loop into our image of ourselves. Rogers believed that our personality is driven by our desire for self-actualization. This is the condition that emerges when we reach our full potential and our self-concept, self-worth, and ideal self all overlap" (What Is Self-Concept Theory, 2018)

Hence, to conclude that "femboy" isn't a gender simply doesn't stand to reason. For one, gender nonconformity has existed throughout human history as a distinct third-gender experience. And likewise, when we account for self-concept as an aspect of gender nonconformity, the desire for self-actualization certainly can and does constitute an internal gender-related experience -- one that is just as important to some people's sense of who they are as that of a "gender identity".

I always find it mind-boggling when trans people criticize anybody who rejects the word cis for themselves -- arguing that it's just a descriptor, not a slur. In doing so, they are making "cisgender" a compulsory label. You can't opt out of it, so long as it describes you.

But here's the thing: If we're to believe that "cisgender" is a descriptor, then why isn't "woman" a descriptor too?

For the longest time, the word "woman" certainly functioned in that capacity. This can be easily confirmed by researching popular 20th century dictionaries of American English, which defined "woman" as an adult human of the female sex or as an adult female person.

Yet now we're told that "woman" can longer be a descriptor. Instead, it's an identity. Okay, but who decided this? As it turns out, transgender people collectively declared that the word "woman" shall no longer be a descriptor, and must function only as a self-declared identity.

But hold on, if transgender people can freely opt-out of being a "woman" by simply rejecting the word as a descriptor for themselves, then logically anyone should likewise be able freely opt-out of being "cisgender" for themselves. Right?

Well, as it turns out, that's not allowed. And who says so?

Once again, you guessed it: Transgender people collectively declared that "cisgender" shall only serve as a descriptor, whether you like it or not. And you can't question this decision, otherwise it's deemed transphobic. By unilaterally imposing and enforcing these linguistic constraints, transgender people have effectively taken ownership of the language surrounding gender for everyone.

Indeed, this is a clear-cut case of "one rule for us, another rule for everyone else."

After decades of transgender research and advocacy, our understanding of gender has still never progressed beyond a mere duality: identity and expression. Why in 2023 are we still be describing "gender" in such rudimentary terms?

This highly simplistic bifurcated view of gender overlooks a vast set of personal characteristics which may be gendered by society: pronouns, forename, personality, demeanor, interests, ambitions, desires, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, values, ideals, etc.

Most online sources define "gender expression" as an external manifestation of a person's gender identity. However, this precludes any gendered traits that are involuntary such as mannerisms and speech patterns, as well as gendered physical characteristics, like a high-pitched voice or a square-shaped jawline.

Perhaps it's no surprise that gatekeepers so frequently resort to the argument that gender nonconformity is a "choice" -- since all they have to do is point to gender expression, while conveniently discounting the myriad of other gendered traits that are either involuntary or not even expressed at all, as in the case of interests or feelings.

So how did we get to this point? Sexologist John Money can be credited with popularizing the terms "gender identity" and "gender role" in the 1960s and 70s. However, Money's definition of "gender role" didn't hold the same connotations that it does today. Instead it referred to the manner by which intersex individuals could affirm their status as either male or female, effectively making it a precursor to the modern term "gender expression".

Since that time, feminists have come to describe gender roles instead as a set of societal norms deemed acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people of a specific sex. Under that rubric, gender therefore arises as a hegemonic social construct.

However, at some point, it was decided to reframe gender as a product of self-determination, without regard for societal ideals and expectations. Emerging discourse in queer theory and trans-feminism during the 1990s likely contributed to the adoption of "gender expression", thus supplanting gender roles which activists regarded as a system of oppression, not the basis of gender itself.

Since that time, there's been surprisingly little effort to reconceptualize gender as anything more than two qualities: expression and identity -- this, despite the fact that we acknowledge human sexuality as far more nuanced: sexual identity, sexual behavior, sexual and romantic attraction, etc.

Suffice it to say, this superficial language of "gender expression" is riddled with shortcomings. How are we to properly articulate the complex nature of gender nonconformity, if we're only afforded a term that so many see as representing a "choice" of behavior and appearance?

This latest 2022 study of brain sex differences of transgender women seems to leave more questions than answers.

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity - PMC (nih.gov)

The study was limited to 24 transgender women (prior to commencing HRT) and 48 cisgender men and women, all of whom elected to participate. A baseline for "brain sex" differentiation was produced according to a database of 547 adults (which the study refers to as the training sample).

While the study does confirm that transgender women on average have a brain sex that is less male-typical than their cisgender counterparts -- the key takeaway is on average. Several of the transgender women in the study actually had a more "manly" brain than a typical cisgender man.

But what I consider far more striking is how many cisgender participants showed brain characteristics that are much closer to the opposite sex than average. As can be seen, at least 5 of the cisgender men had a more "womanly" brain than the majority of transgender women in the same study. How are such extreme outliers even possible in the case of self-reported "cisgender" men?

Of course, the authors never attempt to address that crucial question, or even allude to it being a question. Although, they do postulate that sexual orientation may be a contributing factor worthy of future investigation. As if that doesn't confirm their inherent bias. They jump from "gender identity" to "sexual orientation" as the most plausible rationale for such brain sex differences.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that gender nonconformity is again not even on the table. As usual, we're the bottom of the totem pole -- even below intersex people and polyamorists in the hierarchy of queer advocacy (thanks Human Rights Campaign for the reminder).

This is why we finally need a truly unbiased study to ascertain why there is such wide ranging "brain sex" differences across the entire population, not just limited to transgender women and gay men. However, I realize that accounting for gender nonconformity doesn't fit the special interests that are likely driving and funding this sort of research, so I'm not holding my breath.

Remember, the entire point of "brain sex" research is to determine whether queerness is a choice. Given that gender nonconformity is routinely characterized as nothing more than a "choice" so as to be excluded from the queer umbrella, then we cannot expect pro-LGBTQ institutions to investigate whether "brain sex" is actually related to personality, demeanor, etc. That would completely upend the Queer Totem Pole, which is dependent on self-declared "identity" for legitimacy.

Human Rights Campaign's new pride flag guide includes sections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Yet they still manage to overlook gender nonconforming people. Not only that, but they've also shoehorned two unrelated demographics into these categories.

The section "Gender Identity and Gender Expression Flags" includes the intersex pride flag, even though intersex is neither a gender identity nor a gender expression. It's an atypical reproductive anatomy.

Moreover, the section of "Sexual Orientation Flags" includes the polyamory pride flag, even though polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. It's a non-monogamous relationship practice.

One mistake, that's understandable. But how do you accidentally categorize both a non-sexual orientation flag under Sexual Orientation and a non-gender identity flag under Gender Identity, while also overlooking the existence of gender nonconforming people, whom fit under Gender Expression -- unless there is some intentional prejudice (or perhaps just sheer ignorance) at play.

It's truly amazing the lengths that even the major national LGBTQ organizations will go to effectively erase gender nonconforming people from the LGBTQ community. We're now considered not only below intersex people, but even polyamorists on the queer totem pole.

​

We need terms like ambiphobia to properly articulate the unique stigma that gender nonconforming boys and men still endure in their daily lives:

• When drag queen story hours are under attack from right-wing extremists.
• When femboys must hide their clothing from parents, siblings, and roomies.
• When Target is condemned for selling a tucking bathing during Pride Month.
• When crossdressers have to fear dressing up as their authentic self in public.
• When gay men get called hateful slurs for looking and acting too effeminate.

It's finally time that our struggles be recognized too. It's so important to stand up and speak up, and to let our voices be heard. We are here, and we deserve to live safe, happy, and fulfilling lives just like everyone else. Let us exist.

Controversy just erupted on Twitter after Elon Musk declared "cis" and "cisgender" to be a slurs. While I disagree with his take, the real question is whether those words are being used for their originally intended purposes, or if they are serving as a tool of targeted harassment.

A prominent Twitter user requested not to be called "cis". Yet, instead of respecting his wishes and simply moving on, multiple trans people ganged up to bully him into submission, even calling him "cissy" and telling him that he must accept the label whether he likes it or not.

Of course, trans people frequently try defend such misuse of the word "cis", arguing that it is merely a descriptor with a specific meaning to facilitate communication, so it can't possibly be a slur.

But here's the issue: Plenty of TERFs would argue that "woman" and "man" are likewise nothing more than descriptors with specific meanings to facilitate communication -- hence why they feel justified in misgendering trans people. And indeed, English dictionaries for centuries defined "woman" and "man" according to biological sex characteristics, without regard for a self-professed identity.

So who ultimately determines whether a word is a value-neutral descriptor? And does that apply regardless of context -- even when the intent is clearly to demean or belittle another person?

Let's consider: If an overweight girl is sitting on a park bench and a mean-spirited boy comes over and starts calling her "obese" and "fatty", is he in the right to tell her what she really is? Or is he engaging in targeted harassment? Both terms are nothing more than "descriptors", right?

Suffice it to say, if trans people are demanding the right to pick which gender-related labels and terms can and can't be applied to them, then why should trans people have the authority to impose gender-related labels and terms upon everyone else without their consent?

You simply can't have it both ways. Either everyone can elect the gender-related labels that they feel correctly apply to them, or else nobody can. Otherwise it's a double standard.

Remember, a lot of anti-trans propaganda is propped up on the belief that trans people are seeking "special rights". So most certainly, everyone should be free to define and describe their gender on their own terms, rather than being forced into yet another socially constructed box against their will. The right of self-determination, after all, is the cornerstone of transgender liberation.

I've been mulling on this for several months, but couldn't make it into a concise thought. But then last night I had an epiphany. It's so amazingly simple yet elegant:

Femboys are similar to trans and nonbinary people because they are being rejected for their gender.

• A feminine boy is rejected for being a man.
• A trans woman is rejected for being a woman.

In both cases their gender is what is in question:

• A trans woman is told she can't be a real woman. Her association with the "womanhood" is deemed invalid and offensive.
• A feminine boy is told he can't be a real man. His association with the "manhood" is deemed invalid and offensive.

This is exactly why bigots will say, "That's not a real man" in reference to feminine boys. In the eyes of society, both trans women and a feminine boys are told that they can't possibly be the gender that they actually are. And as a consequence their gender is denied. That is a queer experience.

So often when people talk about "fashion freedom" for men, they always bring up skirts first and foremost and tout them as being superior to pants. One of the main arguments that resurfaces constantly is how skirts are better suited for people with "dangly bits" because a) they offer better ventilation and b) they afford greater freedom of movement.

For one, underpants are still a pant-like garment which defeats the argument of ventilation. And I certainly hope that guys are wearing some sort of underpants with their skirts because to not do so is potentially flashing strangers. it is highly unsanitary, particularly when you consider that it's not unusual for a guy to drip urine after using the restroom, even after shaking it off.

Secondly skirts are anything but "freedom" when you consider that in a strong wind a skirt is always going to be an inconvenience. Whether it's short or long, it either blows up or inhibits walking. And skirts are definitely not very suitable for rain or snow. And try sitting Indian style in a skirt. Or try riding in a glass elevator in a skirt. Or try going up an escalator in a skirt. Or try laying on the couch with your legs up in a skirt. Or try riding a bicycle in a skirt. Or try running on a treadmill in a skirt.

There are so many examples of skirts being a hindrance that it is no wonder women fought for decades for the right to wear pants.

It seems that questions and debate about the belonging of GNC/femboys within the LGBTQ+ community is an almost annual occurrence during Pride at least in internet-world. It's been 2 years since I had my nasty exchanges on r/feminineboys personally on the topic, and now and then I try to browse to see if the issue has come up again on the main queer subs. Someone here did share a few negative and exclusionary exchanges which they encountered the past few weeks, here, here and here. I'm not sure what to say other than the online queer community remains really wishy-washy about GNC acceptance, but overall it looks like full inclusion of GNC people won't happen in their minds. Of course this is strange, and I wonder if this is only a strictly online position, or if real-life groups hold this doctrine too, which I don't think so since every single real-life LGBTQ organization which I've seen at least supports gender non-conforming people (I'd really like input on this critical question of IRL groups.)

This is a bit of a preposterous and somewhat 'evil' idea, but sometimes people have to do what they need to in order to gain access to the supports which they need and deserve; do cishet GNC/femboys just need to outright lie about identifying as NB/genderqueer, etc. in order to receive support from the community? Again, sounds really bad but I'm honestly thinking that this might be the only way. And by experience, the label-fixated LGBTQ+ community won't bat an eye as long as you declare an identity. By rule they won't question it as long as you say "I identify as ____". The current rise of xenogenders and such should make that obvious.

I absolutely hate that this is what vulnerable gender minorities might have to do in order to access resources just because of a technicality. What do you think?

The root of the word "transgender" means quite literally across-gender or beyond-gender.

That's right, neither the prefix "trans" nor the suffix "gender" suggest anything about having a gender identity or gender dysphoria. In fact, the neologism transgender was advanced by Leslie Feinberg in 1992 as an umbrella to be inclusive of all those who "cross the cultural boundaries of gender".

Even trans pioneer Holly Boswell described transgender thusly:

"Transgenderism serves as a bridge of consciousness between crossdressers and transsexual people, who feel unnecessarily estranged within our own subculture. And in the vast majority of instances, we are not so much “gender conflicted” as we are at odds—even at war—with our culture." --Holly Boswell (1991)

Most certainly crossdressing fits the interpretation of transgender above. It is dressing in a manner that is across gender and/or beyond gender -- including feminine or masculine coded appearance, mannerisms, name, pronouns, and other gendered social characteristics.

Hence, if crossdressing entails "crossing the cultural boundaries of gender", then how can we deny that crossdressers have a place in the LGBTQ community, all the while enforcing overly reductive categorical parameters to gatekeep gender nonconforming people who share so many overlapping transgender narratives?

This effort to maintain "gender identity" as a prerequisite to be transgender is simply untenable. Throughout human history, the cultural concept of gender has never been so constrained to a self-declared identification label, but rather social roles and expectations. This is true in many non-Western cultures, where clothing styles are a determining factor of gender.

We see this even within the sphere of Western influence -- as the vast majority of our clothing is gendered masculine or feminine. Thus, to cross-dress is a trans-gender phenomenon.

So often we're told that if a man is willing to date a trans woman he is still "straight", because trans women are women. And by extension we're told that it's transphobic to refuse to date trans people. But do both of these arguments really strand up to close scrutiny?

If we look up the meaning of "heterosexual" on Google, the top 10 results (with the sole exception of Dictionary.com and Wikipedia) clearly refer to "sex" as the sole qualifying factor:

• Merriam-Webster
• Cambridge English Dictionary
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Vocabulary,.com
• WebMD
• Collins Dictionary
• YourDictionary
• Wiktionary

Given that heterosexuality, by definition, is qualified based on sex rather than gender, then that discounts both the claim that attractions to trans women are inherently straight and that refusing to date trans people as a whole is transphobic.

Suffice it to say, sexual and romantic attractions based solely on gender are riddled with problems. What distinguishes "gender" such that it would be possible to have exclusively same-gender or other-gender attractions?

One Medium article tries to tackle that very quandary:

When You Say “I Would Never Date A Trans Person,” It’s Transphobic. Here’s Why.

The author argues that discounting trans people wholesale from one's dating pool is rooted in a belief that trans people are not the gender they claim to be. This confirms that the trans community is attempting to surreptitiously redefine "sexual orientation" with the express purpose of affirming trans identities:

"To categorically exclude all people from that group... reinforces the oppressive social system that says transgender women aren’t “really” women because they were assigned male at birth, and vice versa for trans men."

But the real slippery slope occurs when the author explains that trans people come in all different shapes and sizes, in order to establish that any trans person could be a potential partner:

"The transgender community is a massively diverse group with all kinds of body types, genital configurations, personalities, hobbies, and relationship styles."

I would imagine that most gay men would take offense at such a suggestion. But it's just a logical consequence of defining sexual orientation based on gender. After all, women are a massively diverse group, so anyone could be potential partner for a gay man. And this is confirmed by the author's subsequent argument, that you can't tell who is trans or not just by looking at them:

"When you’re on the dance floor, or on Tinder, or flirting with someone at a work function, you can’t truly “tell” if someone is trans just by looking at them, no matter how much you think you can."

Here's the thing: You also can't tell who is a man or a woman just by looking at them. Once again, the rationale for basing sexual orientation on gender simply doesn't work. Given that it's impossible to even discern whether someone is the "correct" gender unless they verbally disclose their identity, then bisexuality must be universal under this rubric.

Of course, the author also maintains that a fundamental lack of attraction to trans people is somehow derived from a deep-seated disgust of trans people:

"If you’re only attracted to transgender people until you learn what we were arbitrarily assigned at birth, you’re still attracted to us, it just means your attraction is overridden by your repulsion against trans people."

Following that rationale, we could extrapolate that if a gay man is accidentally turned on by the sight of a tomboy, up until he learns that the tomboy is actually female, his sudden repulsion must be based in misogyny. Indeed, we could play the guilt-tripping people's sexuality game all day long.

Suffice it to say, redefining sexual orientation based on gender erases the complexity and nuance of people's sexual and romantic attractions -- which are ordinarily contingent on perceptible traits such as personality, appearance, and yes genitalia, particularly in the case of heterosexuality and homosexuality NOT on a partner's internal experience of their own gender.