I already know what you’re getting at but arguments in favor of breaking gender stereotypes aren’t made invalid if the person who originally made them ends up identifying as trans. I know that lots of people like to use situations like that as “evidence that people who break gender stereotypes are just trans-in-denial” and/or a justification for harassing GNC folks (r/egg_irl and r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns were especially awful about that back in their heyday) but it’s very important to recognize that GNC people are valid in their own right, and trying to generalize them as transgender is hurtful and enforces the toxic gender stereotypes that hurt people.
Oh and before someone tries to twist my words around. No a trans woman wearing a dress doesn’t enforce gender stereotypes, what enforces gender stereotypes is to say a person (i.e. a femboy) is trans because they wear a dress without their input on the matter.
I agree with your point. But a guy who wears a dress isn’t inherently a femboy. Which I know isn’t what you’re saying but it can be interpreted as having that implication.
That is a good point, a person who wears a dress isn’t necessarily a femboy. Some certainly are but plenty also aren’t.
It wasn’t my intention to imply that wearing a dress makes someone a femboy and I can see how it enforces gender stereotypes to a deree. In the end a skirt or a dress is a piece of clothing, which inherently do not have gender and saying someone is a femboy for wearing those clothes isn’t great if the end goal is to break away and be free from these stereotypes.
Oh I’m definitely not trying to make a statement about gender identity or any sociological ramifications thereof - at least, I don’t mean to. In not thinking about my comment that way when writing it, I hope there isn’t a mean-spirited reading of it!
I was thinking more in the realm of comedy, how jokes are constructed, and what makes them funny or interesting. This classic line from a legendary comedian has recently had a new wrinkle added to it, and I find that interesting. I am curious to hear Izzard’s take on it, if indeed she’s even given it a second thought. (I imagine she has, but I wouldn’t dare assume to know her mind)
Hope that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
“They are not women’s clothing. I bought them. They are mine.” Eddy Izzard
Ah, but now she’s Suzy Izzard, this line has a whole new context in which to be explored
I already know what you’re getting at but arguments in favor of breaking gender stereotypes aren’t made invalid if the person who originally made them ends up identifying as trans. I know that lots of people like to use situations like that as “evidence that people who break gender stereotypes are just trans-in-denial” and/or a justification for harassing GNC folks (r/egg_irl and r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns were especially awful about that back in their heyday) but it’s very important to recognize that GNC people are valid in their own right, and trying to generalize them as transgender is hurtful and enforces the toxic gender stereotypes that hurt people.
Oh and before someone tries to twist my words around. No a trans woman wearing a dress doesn’t enforce gender stereotypes, what enforces gender stereotypes is to say a person (i.e. a femboy) is trans because they wear a dress without their input on the matter.
I agree with your point. But a guy who wears a dress isn’t inherently a femboy. Which I know isn’t what you’re saying but it can be interpreted as having that implication.
That is a good point, a person who wears a dress isn’t necessarily a femboy. Some certainly are but plenty also aren’t. It wasn’t my intention to imply that wearing a dress makes someone a femboy and I can see how it enforces gender stereotypes to a deree. In the end a skirt or a dress is a piece of clothing, which inherently do not have gender and saying someone is a femboy for wearing those clothes isn’t great if the end goal is to break away and be free from these stereotypes.
Oh I’m definitely not trying to make a statement about gender identity or any sociological ramifications thereof - at least, I don’t mean to. In not thinking about my comment that way when writing it, I hope there isn’t a mean-spirited reading of it!
I was thinking more in the realm of comedy, how jokes are constructed, and what makes them funny or interesting. This classic line from a legendary comedian has recently had a new wrinkle added to it, and I find that interesting. I am curious to hear Izzard’s take on it, if indeed she’s even given it a second thought. (I imagine she has, but I wouldn’t dare assume to know her mind)
Hope that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your thoughts