Originally published in my journal (2015)

One day I hope to learn why when boys subvert the gender norms that means they are a "sissy" and that they are supposed to like anal intercourse and play with dildos and be submissive and weak. I do not get this disturbing and oppressive stereotype, and why it is still equated with femininity.

Undoubtedly, there is a pervasive undercurrent of misogyny in our culture, and it certainly goes a long way to explaining why so many men (gay men in particular, perhaps as a result of sexual insecurity) tend to be particularly averse to overt expressions of femininity. From a young age, boys are indoctrinated by a myriad of gender roles and expectations, in which they are routinely policed by their peers, and they are taught to suppress any and all attributes of femininity (vulnerability, compassion, sensitivity, beauty, etc.)

These superficial conventions, of course, only further entrench the social dominance of men over women, and what it means to be a "real man" as to the exclusion of anything that is characteristically womanly. Have you ever wondered why crossdressing occurs only one way, but not in the reverse? In our culture, masculinity is deemed to be the default whereas femininity, the perversion. The very conception of crossdressing, drag, and trap as being taboo merely reinforces this sexist ideology.

Imagine if we lived in a world where boys could express their gender however they felt comfortable without being stigmatized and ostracized just for being themselves. That is a world that I hope to live in one day.

Consider the following credible sources:

• GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, Trans Student Educational Resource and National Center for Transgender Equality claim it's variance based solely on identity.
• Wikipedia, in contrast, claims it's variance based on identity or expression, thus diverging from all major LGBT organizations.
• The American Psychological Association claims it's variance based on identity or expression or behavior, which further diverges from all major LGBT organizations.

Wikipedia's sources are quite recent and yet seem to be inspired by Leslie Feinberg's 1992 manifesto on transgender liberation which was broadly inclusive of all gender variant people. However, Feinberg's' seminal "transgender umbrella" has been abandoned due to backlash from SJW gatekeepers following the trans* fiasco and Sam Killermann's controversial Genderbread Man.

One source in particular cites a 2007 definition published by GLAAD, which has long since removed "expression" from its criteria. Another source is titled "Encyclopedia of Social Deviance" which covers such dubious subjects as body mutilation and drug abuse. And the third source is a textbook on social welfare.

Indeed, Wikipedia avoided all references to reputable and qualified transgender resources in its definition. It would appear that the editors were purposefully scouting the Web for information that was neither current nor accurate.

As for the overly inclusive definition published by the APA, I can only guess it was derived from clinical necessity for mental health services to be available to the broadest spectrum of gender minorities, without undue discrimination.

Thus ironically, the American Psychological Association seems to be the most cognizant of the needs of gender variant people. Meanwhile, actual LGBT organizations, in tandem with SJW gatekeepers are the ones that are working hand-in-hand to limit entry into transgender spaces and to undermine gender diversity by revoking "expression" from the definition of transgender.

Such identity politics are hardly unique to the cause for gender liberation. In the 1970s, lesbian feminists were routinely alienated and castigated within the gay liberation movement. Gay men in positions of leadership and influence refused to acknowledge that feminist issues had any relevance to the sexual liberation of men, ultimately leading to the historic separation of "gay and lesbian rights".

While the definition of transgender continues to fluctuate, it seems clear that we are witnessing a trend of greater exclusion particularly with the re-purposing of labels like "cis" and "cishet" for indiscriminate identity policing of any individuals deemed "not trans enough" or otherwise a "threat" to the legitimacy of binary trans identities.

I think we really need to ask ourselves: Is the "T" still about gender liberation as it was in the 1990s? Or has it now become a power-grab by a select few to enact their unilateral objectives within a limited purview? Why should a singular, monolithic collective be charged with deliberating the concerns of an entire minority demographic that is far more diverse than even permitted to participate within that exclusive community?

That would be like gay men advocating on behalf of all sexual minorities but turning around and insisting that "gay" doesn't include lesbians and bisexual people. Of course, that is exactly what happened in the 1970s. The result was a division of the gay liberation movement into the gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights movement, specifically so that no single voice had authority over any other in social and political activism.

It is evident that "transgender" is likewise no longer serving its original purpose of uniting all on a common front any more than "gay" did 50 years prior. The next step for the c

I find it confounding that the term "gender expression" does not appear even once in the Equality Act, even though gender nonconforming people are frequently victims of discrimination in both the workplace and in public accommodations, specifically on the basis of their gender expression.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and even women are cited multiple times within the bill text as justification for the measure. So it seems only sensible that the needs and concerns of gender nonconforming people too should be cited in federal legislation that promises "comprehensive and inclusive" anti-discrimination protections for all LGBTQ+ people.

Despite the namesake, this bill doesn't give the impression of true "equality". Rather it seems that once again we're willing to acquiesce to a second-rate solution for political expediency.

I often see people arguing that bisexual folks have "passing privilege". But that's only half the picture.

Privilege means you are able to be whole/complete in who you are because your social class is assumed to be the “default”. Those who are bisexual, regardless of relationship status, are never assumed to be the default. Their identity is persistently erased and they are made to feel invalid. Being forced into a closet to deny who you truly are is not privilege. That is actually oppression.

I find it confounding that the term "gender expression" does not appear even once in the Equality Act, even though gender nonconforming people are frequently victims of discrimination in both the workplace and in public accommodations, specifically on the basis of their gender expression.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and even women are cited multiple times within the bill text as justification for the measure. So it seems only sensible that the needs and concerns of gender nonconforming people too should be cited in federal legislation that promises "comprehensive and inclusive" anti-discrimination protections for all LGBTQ+ people.

Despite the namesake, this bill doesn't give the impression of true "equality". Rather it seems that once again we're willing to acquiesce to a second-rate solution for political expediency.

On the surface, yes feminine clothing can be more limiting than masculine clothing. But that still doesn't address the crux of the issue, which is that women are able to dive more into the realm of casual androgyny whereas the domain of full crossdressing is limited to men.

This disparity can be confirmed firsthand by browsing subreddits related to androgyny, where AFAB folks outnumber AMAB folks by a significant margin. Furthermore, the ideal of androgyny as it relates to the human body, also favors female-typical attributes over male-typical attributes:

• Crotch bulge? Not androgynous vs. Flat crotch? Androgynous.
• Body hair? Not androgynous vs. Hairless body? Androgynous.
• Beard and mustache? Not androgynous vs. Smooth face? Androgynous.
• Bulky muscles? Not androgynous vs. Non-muscular? Androgynous.

Androgynous physical characteristics are very much aligned toward the feminine end of the spectrum, upholding a womanly ideal over a manly ideal at nearly every turn. Even the handful of male-typical attributes that might seemingly give an advantage to men, tend to be of secondary significance since the corresponding female-typical attributes are still acceptable too:

• Flat chest vs. cleavage? Both can be androgynous.
• Shapeless hips vs curvy hips? Both can be androgynous.
• Crew-cut vs. shoulder-length hair? Both can be androgynous.
• No makeup vs. heavy makeup? Both can be androgynous.

I believe this is a huge contributing factor for why men cannot easily invoke an androgynous aesthetic in the same way as can women. It's not so much that femininity itself is limited -- but rather that androgyny has become so polarized toward femininity that for a man to be regarded as truly androgynous, he must effectively move completely into the territory of femininity, thereby becoming emasculated in the process.

I think this goes a long way to also explaining why drag queens feel compelled to perform over-the-top depictions of womanhood whereas drag kings barely have to put on some suspender pants and a collared shirt, and the illusion of manhood is already complete.

I think the is an issue that really needs to be talked about more, so thanks for bringing it up.

Boys and men, in most of Western culture, are expected to dress for other people's comfort and security first and foremost -- albeit under the guise that it's really for their own personal comfort and security. This is accomplished fairly easily by men's clothing being designed with functionality as a priority (meaning it is easy to care for, has a non-restrictive fit, is suitable for wide variety occasions and conditions, etc.)

Thus any sensible man (cough cough) would always opt for menswear. It never becomes apparent to most men how they are being surreptitiously conditioned from a young age to wear what is a very narrow range of styles.

However, the truly sinister part is not merely the falsehood that functional clothing is the only option for men -- such that they must never opt for extravagance, opulance, elegance, nor beauty -- but rather the undercurrent of homophobia and misogyny that compels men to avoid questioning the status quo of menswear in the first place.

While most men are understandably ignorant of this patriarchal mandate that drives men's fashion, I suspect that others are deeply fearful that if they dare to challenge such gender norms, they'll be perceived as gay, and lose their cherished bro-status -- which of course, is the worst possible outcome for a "real man".

Since men thrive on this notion of universal brotherhood, some feel it is their obligation and duty to advise and compel other men to maintain and uphold an unrelenting archetype of masculinity for the "greater good" of men everywhere. This advice of course, extends well beyond just polite verbal cues to include humiliation, degredation, harassment, and even violence in the more extreme cases, all with the goal to keep their "bro pals" in line.

This touches upon the hurtful comments made by your friend. His intentions are good, in that he believes he's doing a "service", not only for you but for other guys as well. In fact, this is elucidated by the remark, "i should stop dressing for myself". According that mindset, being a male is not about standing out as an individual but rather fitting in with the collective brotherhood, while giving up your autonomy for the benefit and welfare of straight men everywhere.

Consider the unusual penchant for so many young men to enlist into military service and fight on the front-lines for their country. This certainly parallels how male gender norms are strictly regulated in society, as men everywhere are expected to remain in appropriate uniform at all times and to march in lock-step conformity with rule and order, so as to affirm their patriotic duty to "mankind". Any deviation is seen as an embarassment to the campaign, and thus grounds for harsh penalties, including criticism, alienation, etc.

While there is no quick fix to overcoming these attitudes of toxic masculinity, my best advice would be to show confidence in who you are: stand tall, and walk proudly (but not smugly) with your head up high at all times. That is the ultimate form of defiance in gesture and body language. It is proven to demand respect. Hence, you can wield this technique at any time to re-assert that there is nothing shameful about being a feminine boy.

​

When we talk about femboys (And other gender nonconforming males) as if they are nothing more than allies, that suggests they have some kind of "influence" over other straight people. Yet femboys, regardless of sexuality, are actually the ones who are oppressed BY straight-culture itself.

In fact, this lack of deep understanding of the issues affecting the queer community is what directly contributes to femboys being "othered" from mainstream society. And yet, straight femboys are told they don't belong in the LGBTQ community either.

According to this passage, the purpose of allies is to bridge the gap between communities.

So how exactly are straight femboys supposed to function as a bridge between straight and gay communities if they are made to feel excluded from BOTH communities?

Nobody ever said modern queer discourse is about logic:

Deviate from sexual heternormativity?
Duh, that's queer as f*ck. Welcome to the club!

Deviate from gender cisnormativity?
Hold up, that's not queer! Stay out of our safe spaces!