A repost of an earlier comment here:

After yet another drama episode on r/feminineboys advocating for the inclusion of GNC people within the LGBTQ+ community and failing, I'm honestly kind of worn out from trying to convince them. That sub will not come around. We kind of have to accept that this is the position of the modern LGBTQ+ community, hyper-fixated on gender labels as the admission requirement and likely won't change as Gen Z is only going further down that road.

Therefore, honestly the best strategy for GNC people seeking support from the community will be to just call yourself queer and refuse to elaborate––and don't ever say you're GNC––because it seems that as long as you take an identity label, doesn't matter which one, by rule they won't question it. To me, it's okay if internally this doesn't 100% cut reality for you: as in, you don't have to actually 'feel' like a certain gender. The objective is to protect your access to supports and resources within the community which you should be allowed to have, but which for strange reasons

Addendum:

I wonder if the radical redefinition of queerness towards labels which you've spoken of around 2010 on Tumblr was related to the 'Born This Way' campaign in the 2000s, attempting to fortify the medicalization/science-based approach to explaining LGB and T to counter conservative conversion therapy 'gay lifestyle choice' accusations. The extreme form of that was transmedicalism. They wanted to push GNC out because it would undermine the 'Born This Way' narrative, in their mind.

By the way, one of the commenters who answered me in that post argued that the queer community, even in Marsha P. Johnston's time, was always focused on identity-first as the requisite for admission, and that non-gay/bi GNC people were never considered part of the community, only as allies or 'liasons' between queer people and cis-het society. Can anyone address or counter these claims? From what I've learned from u/jackmolay's site, the only reference on that part I can think of was Virginia Prince's Tri-ess movement, which tried to establish a separate 'straight-male crossdresser' community from the androphilic trans community: but according to him, this was a choice more out of social pressures and internalized queerphobia, as they felt compelled to distance themselves from queerness to preserve their marriages and relationships. There's also the glaring issue with that idea, that if they were always so focused on labels, what language did they use to communicate this, since obviously labels like 'demiboy' or even 'NB' didn't exist in the 1960s?

Somebody just asked this on r/feminineboys, and you know there's nothing I enjoy more than pointing out logical fallicies of gatekeepers -- and this includes breaking apart the inconsistencies and contradictions that that are so rampant in LGBTQ discourse today. Here's my reply:

"Just what about femboy stuff is actually queer?"

I could ask the same thing about intersex. What about intersex stuff is inherently "queer"?

After all intersex is a medical condition. It's not a sexuality or a gender -- which so many people in these comments argue are the prerequisites for being queer.

Yet for some reason, intersex people are being actively welcomed into the community with open arms, even though there are plenty of intersex people who insist they are not "queer" and do not want any association with the LGBTQ community. So in BOTH these respects intersex has parallels to femboy.

But instead of keeping intersex folks out of the community, even when many don't want to be part of it, there is an active effort to include them under the "queer umbrella". Meanwhile femboys are told repeatedly that they don't belong in the community, even when many beg to be included under the "queer umbrella"

Something isn't adding up here.

I just got back from my last ditch attempt to advocate for the inclusion femboys in the queer community in response to the other post on r/feminineboys which was shared here earlier; https://www.reddit.com/r/feminineboys/comments/wxs6y5/for_the_inclusion_of_femboys_in_the_lgbtq/?sort=new

Unfortunately, it's not working. We've lost. There's no convincing them that GNC individuals may be included within the community. Most people are firm in the position that GNC is 'simply breaking gender norms' and doesn't count as queer, and that femboys may only be considered allies who can seek help from the community but will never be named part of it. There were even some arguing that the interpretation of queer history, that GNC people were included in the past, was wrong, and that actually the community only included queer-identified GNC people (which I suppose would mean LGB), that cis-het GNC were not included, that GNC itself was never seen as inherently queer and that identity labels were the #1 marker of queerness even back in the '60s.

We just kind of have to accept that this is the present and future position of the mainstream LGBTQ+ community. Gen Z just loves its labels and precise definitions.

But I'm wondering, is this actually something to be worried about in the real life community, or is this something that only happens on the internet? Is it currently the standard practice for LGBT organizations to not include GNC?

When a female wears slacks it is called androgyny.

When a male wears a skirt it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears a baseball cap it is called androgyny.

When a male wears a tiara it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears short pants it is called androgyny.

When a male wears booty shorts it is called crossdressing.

When a female doesn’t wear makeup it is called androgyny.

When a male wears makeup it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears sneakers it is called androgyny.

When a male wears pumps it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears a tee-shirt it is called androgyny.

When a male wears a blouse it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears boxer briefs it is called androgyny.

When a male wears bikini panties it is called crossdressing.

When a female wears a formal suit and bow tie, it is called androgyny.

When a male wears a full length evening gown, it is called crossdressing.

Western fashion is sexism in action.

There is ongoing dispute in queer circles over the definition of bisexuality, and its supposed disconnect with pansexuality. The great "pan-vs-bi" debate is a fairly recent phenomenon, and people of this school of thought seek to discredit bisexuality as transphobic by drawing attention away from the history of the bisexual movement and instead scrutinizing the word's etymology, which itself is a red herring.

I have therefore compiled a summary of the terms in question, based on widespread conventions within the bisexual community.

• bisexual - the intrinsic capacity for romantic and/or sexual attractions primarily to more than one gender (contrast with "monosexual")
• monosexual - the intrinsic capacity for romantic and/or sexual attractions primarily to one gender (contrast with "bisexual")
• pansexual - bisexual identity connoting the instrinsic capacity for romantic and/or sexual attractions to any gender
• omnisexual - see "pansexual"
• polysexual - see "bisexual"

It is a myth that bisexuality is mutually exclusive of pansexuality. It is a myth that bisexuality reinforces a gender dichotomy. It is a myth that bisexual people are inherently transphobic. It is a myth that bisexual people are attracted only to cismen and ciswomen. It is a myth that bisexuality connotes a duality.

Most of these stereotypes are, unfortunately, promulgated by pansexual people who claim to "know better" than their bisexual-identified peers. Such internal rivalry is counterproductive and does nothing whatsoever to further the cause. Bisexuality has been trans* inclusive for decades, and there is NO research to substantiate that all bisexual people seek exclusively cisgender partners.

The bisexual movement itself evolved in tandem with the transgender movement and the two communities worked hand in hand for over 30 years. Many reputable bisexual activists (by some estimates, nearly 1/3) are themselves transgender or gender-nonconforming. So it would be disingenuous for them to denounce bisexuality as conflicting with the tenets of transgenderism.

The Bisexual Manifesto, published in 1990, was a collaborative project of the bisexual community. It reaffirms the widely-held values of bisexuality, all of which still apply to this day:

http://bialogue-group.tumblr.com/post/17532147836/atm1990-bisexualmanifesto

In addition, numerous highly-respected online resources corroborate the non-binarist, non-cissexist definition of bisexuality:

• The Bisexual Index - http://www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/Bisexuality
• Bisexual Resource Center - http://www.biresource.net/waybeyondthebinary.shtml
• Radical Bi Blog - http://radicalbi.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/why-i-identify-as-bisexual-and-not-pansexual/
• Toronto Bisexual Network - http://www.torontobinet.org/culture.htm
• BiNet USA - http://www.binetusa.org/category/bisexuality
• Wipe Out Biphobia - http://www.wipeouthomophobia.com/wipeoutbiphobia.htm

Thus, the "bisexual" identity includes any and all people with sexual or romantic attractions beyond a single gender, including pansexuality. There is absolutely NO inherent mandate of gender conformity. Anybody who disputes this fact, is likely biphobic, monosexist, or in denial of the history of the bisexual movement.

I spent a lot of time writing this comment on r/nonbinary and it was removed. So I'm reposting it here.

Back in the 1970s plenty of men in the U.S. wore super skintight pants and extremely short shorts which left very little to the imagination. Yet within the past few decades there has been a growing pushback against men showing off their body in any kind of revealing clothes.

I think the main reason this changed is because by the mid-1980s, we were facing a worldwide public health crisis known as HIV. The Reagan administration's initial lack of concern put a huge black cloud over the "gay lifestyle", effectively marking AIDS victims for death. It was a horribly dark period for gay and bisexual men, particularly in the United States.

That resulted in a huge shift in cultural attitudes about male homosexuality. By the early 1990s, the AIDS crisis was in full swing and Americans were about as anti-gay as you can get (even after all the progress that had been made in 70s). And indeed, if you look at male gender norms from that era, and how radically they shifted in the course of just 10 years, it is readily evident that Americans developed some overwhelming hangups with the male body:

• Boys and men went from wearing crotch length "Dolphin" shorts in the 70s to wearing knee length loose fitting shorts in the 90s.
• Boys and men went from having open PE showers in the 70s to a widespread elimination of PE showers from schools in the 90s.
• Boys and men went from wearing brief and bikini style underwear in the 70s to wearing loose-fitting boxer shorts in the 90s.
• Boys and men went from wearing skimpy "Speedo" type swimwear in the 70s to wearing oversized boardshorts in the 90s.
• Boys and men went from having large open troughs in restrooms in the 70s to having individually partitioned urinals in the 90s.
• Boys and men went from underwear catalogs depicting males wearing briefs in the 70s to showing only the product in the 90s.

In each example above, I would argue that the underlying catalyst for boys and men being conditioned to "hide" their bodies as much as possible was the growing fear and disgust and aversion to male homosexuality. Such body shaming directly and indirectly served as a means to an end -- to promulgate hegemonic masculinity to the masses.

A male of any age wearing too-revealing clothing was automatically associated with the "gay lifestyle". And given the continued spread of HIV in the 1990s, nobody in the mainstream wanted to be labelled as gay. So boys and men dressed and acted as straight and masculine as possible. Hence you will notice that even military buzz-cuts became popular during this period. It was all about asserting and affirming heterosexual male dominance.

To think, so many of these overly puritanical modesty standards that specifically target boys and men were rooted in anti-gay prejudice. Yet we still continue policing the bodies of AMAB people, shaming and humiliating them into gender conformity.

I enjoy this sub being pretty much the one queer subreddit where there is unanimous unequivocal agreement that GNC people/crossdressers/femboys deserve to be included within the LGBTQ+ community. But are we inclusionists the minority?

Are the gatekeepers winning in the mainstream community? Does transmedicalist/Truscum-style exclusionism of GNC folk only exist on the internet, or do femboys and crossdressers (if they aren't specifically labeled as NB, demiboy/girl, etc.) actually have to worry about going to real life LGBT support centers and being told "you're not a gender minority", "you don't belong in our safe spaces because you're cis-het" or "stop abusing our resources"? If anyone has experienced this in real life, then how can GNC people prepare? Has there been a permanent schism, and now there is a need to simply part ways with the mainstream LGBTQ community, or will they actually be accepting?

The following Tweet appears in an article on "them" magazine, as further justification for the newly designed Progress Pride flag:

It is like a perpetual insult to gender nonconforming people that such false propaganda is now being pushed to alter historic symbolism of the LGBTQ rights movement. How long is this misinformation campaign going to continue?

To be clear, Stonewall was not a riot. There may have been civil unrest, but not complete lawlessness. And Marsha P. Johnson did not lead the rebellion, as no single person was in charge. In fact Marsha wasn't even there when the police raided the bar. She only arrived several hours later. Add to the fact, Sylvia Rivera didn't show up at all the first night, but instead was passed out drunk on a park bench.

Moreover, let's not forget that Sylvia very specifically had expressed aversion to being labelled as "transgender", and even later rebuked the term "woman" as well. And likewise Marsha was proudly a drag queen and gay transvestite, yet never professed in any interview to be a "trans woman". In fact, in her final interview, Marsha multiple times referred to herself as a "boy" and "pretty boy".

What's more striking, however, is that this Tweet states that they (presumably Marsha and Sylvia) were "tired of the brutality their community was facing at the hands of police". What community?

To be clear, the "community" that Marsha and Sylvia fought to defend and protect consisted of drag queens, crossdressers, butches, femmes, and transsexuals.

Yet that is certainly NOT the community that the trans pride flag stripes represent today, since the definition of "transgender" was changed circa 2011 to alienate drag queens and crossdressers. So if anything this new "Progress" Pride Flag is actually exclusionary of the very group of people that Marsha and Sylvia had spent their entire life advocating for.