viragoposting

[viragoposting]

I feel at times my language doesn't accurately account for how I feel about my identity and the label, so it feels a little odd. I do also see that I'm not entirely on-point with my messaging at times knowing there's a disconnect between me and you guys.

I want to do better. Could you all offer some feedback on my recent posts? I'd really love to hear what we can come up with.

[viragoposting]

I may have worded things a little loosely in the first post. I apologize deeply for the poorly explained analogies, I could have went more in depth to navigate the sensitivities of other experiences than my own. I intended the post to be offhanded, so this time around I'll coherently address my point of view.

(I am also not refering to anyone in thread as a Tomboy)

My issue: I felt as though we are too harsh on those who use Tomboy as a label and quick to discredit their internal experience with masculinity. The queer community should have better support and understanding for these women, who are still GNC through and through.

First off, my gripes are with how the term is applied to others and how it's seen, rather the identity itself and those experiencing it. I am defending the latter from the former. As I said, it's a vaslty different experience to be called something, then identify with it. When I'm speaking of Tomboys, I am speaking of the women that comprise the term: Gnc straight/bisexual women. Previously, when I had mentioned "womanly masculinity", I had meant they were cis women. Again, I had poorly written it and may have disturbed large portions of my audience. I'm deeply sorry for how I handled the catergorization and will do better to be more careful on handling identities correctly and more delicately in the future.

A key part of my point agrees with you all: Fundementally speaking, the axis of masculinity is the same.

My critique relies as to why do we in the queer community tend to view it as a lesser identity linked to femininity, when we know the whole point for Tomboys is for it's relation to masculinity.

We tend to focus Tomboys gender presentation rather than the internal sense and resonance to masculinity more than anyone else. Even when we do, we see it as 'not valid' because of x/y/z. Even inside the greater queer community where we often do things to affirm our gender that aren't required. Like surgery, interests, voice etc. It'd be a little disingenuous well knowing that a good portion of us have at one point used interests, behaviors, etc to closer our connection to our true selves. Sometimes the way we go about these things are wrong, but we address it as such without invalidating our internal experiences entirely.

This led me to my question:

So What makes Tomboy the outlier? Why is it seen as 'lesser' even when its more commonly used by straight women?

We look at Tomboys and compare them to other masculine figures (mainly hypermasculine men) not because we actually know if they have a connection to masculinity. Just because we tend to associate women with femininity, and have tendencies to nitpick when it doesn't match up to our "standard". When these women aren't hyper-masculine presenting, or have muscular body types, dress exactly masculine to a tea. Their whole relation to their internal sense of masculinty is just thrown away or belittled. Even without those factors we're quick to assign them femininity at all costs. We forget to give empathy for how they process and present their own masculine traits as they see fit relative to their experience in the world. Even if that be through video games, suits, or even action figures etc. By and large, They still have an internal sense of masculinity like the rest of us and use mediums to explore it.

Even on the offhand it's not that, when they say they have a connection, why can't we respect that?

Even if the point of Tomboy as a label is for masculine women and used by them, We wouldn't know if anyone has a sense or connection to masculinity, so why assume not so? We tend to see them from a lens of cisheteronormatvity rather than the loving arms of the community in which we respect and uphold diverse experiences.

As cis women, they tend to be associated with feminity regardless.

With gendered stereotypes, it can boil down to that with any sort of gender preformitive action or interest. I'm just wondering when will it be enough for anyone to see their experiences as valid. Would they to graduate from the term as well? Would it make them masculine if these same people used a slightly different term yet with the same internal feeling? How can we gauge what someone is feeling internally?

I'm aware language has larger a part in this story, but the schism between common understanding and common internal feelings is too great to not acknowledge the label Tomboy as the cradle for most GNC Het women. We prioritize information about them, but never directly from them.

Again, the bastardization of the word came from outside parties other than the ones who use it as an identifier.

As a former Tomboy, and knowing many others. Cis women struggle with coming to terms with their masculinity, often in a world that is already harsh to them. Many of these women struggle more if they still have attractions to men, only knowing of the Tomboy label and commonly associating other terms as gay identities that wouldn't take them in. Although they may use another label, why is masculinity denied to them due to traces of what is already assigned to them by default, or due to incorrecly going about being masculine-like, or even just assuming they're not masculine.

The reason I changed my mind about the term is because I realized it would repeat the same things I heard spouted to me as a kid. Even by the people who were supposed to be there for them, they're still expected or assumed to be feminine inside because they are women.

I know this term can be have a negative reation based on how it was used to incorrectly catergorize ourseleves or our pereonal journeys with gender. But it also serves as the home for many masculine women finding their footing in the cruel world that doesn't support them at all.

We should love and cherish them and their desires. Many Tomboys are dogs without a home, and we should at least affirm them where they are.

I've been thinking for awhile. But I may have to do a long post about it.

Generally, I changed my mind about the great "Tomboy Discourse". Oftentimes in queer spaces they're used as an example of women who are playing with gender, or being feminine instead of seeing it for what it is.

I feel as though there's a misconception that masculinity is directly related to men and their bodies or centered around them. Most people go hypermasculine and then sort the rest into femininity.

I'm not saying the masculinity that women have vs men have can't be similar or the same. But gender is a spectrum where masculinity for women can be different and have difffering axis. The difference between trans men and butchness for example. One is identifies with manhood masculinity, one identifies with womanhood masculinity. woman is a Woman. Tomboys can caputure a sort of "boyness" or a woman having their own version of the such.

Within the community, Tomboys are labeled as a "feminine diluted masculinity" which I think can be a little bioessentialist and oversimplification of things.

If treated and used by as a label, I feel like it has it's own sort of energy and gender swag to it. Without "Tomboys", I don't think there'd be a foundation for where Virago as a definition.

In fact, since it's not considered a concrete gender label, I feel most Tomboys might flock to Virago.

[viragoposting]

Yeah I agree. I think the confusion stems from the difference on how the word is used and the viewpoint on who says it. Sometimes its used as a genuine label and experienced like how I explained. Other times people use it as a classifier for all women doing anything outside of femininity. There's definitely a difference experiencing being one, which I'm reffering to.

I personally don't think Virago may be 1:1 similar, however. Since the key factor with being one is an altered view of traditional gender roles.

I've been thinking for awhile. But I may have to do a long post about it.

Generally, I changed my mind about the great "Tomboy Discourse". Oftentimes in queer spaces they're used as an example of women who are playing with gender, or being feminine instead of seeing it for what it is.

I feel as though there's a misconception that masculinity is directly related to men and their bodies or centered around them. Most people go hypermasculine and then sort the rest into femininity.

I'm not saying the masculinity that women have vs men have can't be similar or the same. But gender is a spectrum where masculinity for women can be different and have difffering axis. The difference between trans men and butchness for example. One is identifies with manhood masculinity, one identifies with womanhood masculinity. woman is a Woman. Tomboys can caputure a sort of "boyness" or a woman having their own version of the such.

Within the community, Tomboys are labeled as a "feminine diluted masculinity" which I think can be a little bioessentialist and oversimplification of things.

If treated and used by as a label, I feel like it has it's own sort of energy and gender swag to it. Without "Tomboys", I don't think there'd be a foundation for where Virago as a definition.

In fact, since it's not considered a concrete gender label, I feel most Tomboys might flock to Virago.

[viragoposting]

Btw don't blame me for putting #virago in everything, I just want to dominate the tags😭

[viragoposting]

Thinking of how to describe tomboys...

I've been thinking for awhile. But I may have to do a long post about it.

Generally, I changed my mind about the great "Tomboy Discourse". Oftentimes in queer spaces they're used as an example of women who are playing with gender, or being feminine instead of seeing it for what it is.

I feel as though there's a misconception that masculinity is directly related to men and their bodies or centered around them. Most people go hypermasculine and then sort the rest into femininity.

I'm not saying the masculinity that women have vs men have can't be similar or the same. But gender is a spectrum where masculinity for women can be different and have difffering axis. The difference between trans men and butchness for example. One is identifies with manhood masculinity, one identifies with womanhood masculinity. woman is a Woman. Tomboys can caputure a sort of "boyness" or a woman having their own version of the such.

Within the community, Tomboys are labeled as a "feminine diluted masculinity" which I think can be a little bioessentialist and oversimplification of things.

If treated and used by as a label, I feel like it has it's own sort of energy and gender swag to it. Without "Tomboys", I don't think there'd be a foundation for where Virago as a definition.

In fact, since it's not considered a concrete gender label, I feel most Tomboys might flock to Virago.

[viragoposting]

(READ WHOLE THREAD FOR CLARITY)

I've been thinking for awhile. But I may have to do a long post about it.

Generally, I changed my mind about the great "Tomboy Discourse". Oftentimes in queer spaces they're used as an example of women who are playing with gender, or being feminine instead of seeing it for what it is.

I feel as though there's a misconception that masculinity is directly related to men and their bodies or centered around them. Most people go hypermasculine and then sort the rest into femininity.

I'm not saying the masculinity that women have vs men have can't be similar or the same. But gender is a spectrum where masculinity for women can be different and have difffering axis. The difference between trans men and butchness for example. One is identifies with manhood masculinity, one identifies with womanhood masculinity. woman is a Woman. Tomboys can caputure a sort of "boyness" or a woman having their own version of the such.

Within the community, Tomboys are labeled as a "feminine diluted masculinity" which I think can be a little bioessentialist and oversimplification of things.

If treated and used by as a label, I feel like it has it's own sort of energy and gender swag to it. Without "Tomboys", I don't think there'd be a foundation for where Virago as a definition.

In fact, since it's not considered a concrete gender label, I feel most Tomboys might flock to Virago.

[viragoposting]

I'd say definitively, we're part of the LGBTQ+. Especially due to how discouraged our identities are from cisheteronormativity, and how our desires aren't "conventional" by some standards toppled with the fact that this community has a distinct culture/way of doing things (like our attachment to certain online spaces and terminology).

(Also, yeah. I tend to fear I'm universalizing too😭)

Hi! I'm a hobbyist writer who wants to reperesent different types of love in my (still braindumping) postapocalyptic romance fiction project and when i saw ur posts it really clicked for me what i was trying to portray my MC as (i'm not sure if she would be part of the LGBTQ community), i would love to share with you about it and troubleshoot anything i might misrepresent if thats ok w/ you

Oh, that sounds wonderful! I would love to do that, I’m flattered you thought to ask me!

Which identity are you referring to wanting to represent? I post about a variety of hetGNC experiences here, but I can only provide concrete personal experience about being an intramasc Virago in a masc x fem RR (role reversal) relationship. I wouldn’t know as much about the experience of intrafem Viragos, for example.

As for whether we’re considered part of the broader LGBTQ+ community— I think so? I believe by definition we fit under the “Q,” which covers identities deviating from heteronormativity iirc. But, I also think that someone could choose not to consider themselves LGBTQ, like how some nonbinary people don’t consider themselves transgender, maybe? That would be a good discussion to have, I don’t think we’ve touched on that yet specifically!

If you don’t mind, I think keeping the conversation open to some of my followers to comment on as well could be helpful, too— given that our community is quite new, I’m prone to accidentally universalizing my experience where it shouldn’t be.

Also, little note: I might not be very fast at responding until the 27th of this month— until then, I’ll be in school full time and working, so my time on Tumblr is fairly limited. Still feel free to ask away though! Just know that the conversation might be slow until I have a bit more freedom haha.

[viragoposting]

Sure! Though, Mori sounds a little bit like the death root word. Muri/Mulie should be fine! Though, I'm not exactly sure who'd adopt it, I think it'd be great to see you guys come together to use it.

has anyone suggested muliebris for men? from my understanding it was used in a derogatory way at times but thats... well. sadly very common historically

No, I don't believe anyone has! You know, that could be fitting actually-- Virago has historically been a derogatory term as well, probably for the same/inverse reason if I were to guess. I think that was part of the point of adopting it, to reclaim it, and assert that masculinity doesn't have to be an insult to a woman. It sounds like Muliebris has a similar meaning. How is that pronounced, by the way?

[viragoposting]

I'm thinking about making a book...

...Or landing an interview with a journalist that'd give good enough coverage to not hurt.

[viragoposting]

Thoughts on dating as a virago woman?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel like they're in a similar hole.

It's obviously no secret that the dating pool is slim, even then you have to worry about the quality of the person you're with. It's no small task tbh...

[viragoposting]

I came from a repost to find this blog! I resonated with it, but I have a question/story.

Is it bad that I view genders and roles as more "matriarchal" in relationships? For backstory, I relate a bit because my great grandmother snuck in and fought in the civil war to stand in for my great grandfather. Ever since then, the women in our households held authority, even through 60s black american south. Every household coming in takes the established name from women. I take great pride in this, however:

Do you think this dominance only mimmicks patriarchy?

No actually! (and what a cool family you have, anon!)

Like in a previous post, I mentioned how queerness and choice played into this identity and how we view roles. Patriarchy is oppression and a reflection of the world we live in. Those on the other hand of it, usually knows how it operates and the punishment that follows after for not following (misogyny and the like). "Matriarchy" emerged from this same world informed by the harm Patriarchy caused. Due to it not really being an established form of opression, in practice it wouldn't operate the same. Especially since Patriarchs are hostile to women as a whole and can easily cause harm or harassment to them, where the reverse doesn't work the same way.

I personally don't find harm in the word Matriarchy (In fact, I bet most of anyone would be intriged HetGNC or not! Especially since it's constantly talked about) I think it could be a good temporary descriptor on how certain HetGNC people view things.

If you want my take? From experience, I think humans can be matriarchal in nature, too.

But I don't really advocate for structures, just to be proud of the parts of yourself that the world doesn't give enough love yet!

[viragoposting]

I've been using your blog as inspiration.

I've been trying to wrestle with the fact that I like men but I want to be the main one leading things and it feels...real.

I'm feminine, but I felt nervous since what would other women think of me. In today's conservative culture I feel its expected of me to not want this and perfer a provider man. It'd be a lie if I said that society hasn't engrained this shame into me to not have a desire like this.

Growing up I sort of thought my brain was just wrong for wanting to live a reversed up life.

I always got so angry seeing how other queer groups could live freely with whatever dynamic they choose, but not me. I'm so glad u exist girl

No yeah, I'm here for you guys! At first it was a little lonely feeling like I was speaking for a really reaaallly small group of people!

Also. Please anon, love yourself more! I want you to feel accepted here and see that you're not alone.

[viragoposting]

Hi, do you know if there's a term for masc women attracted to masc men, and/or masc women attracted to both fem men and masc men?

You're looking at it!

[viragoposting]

Identity on Het/Bi Masculine women

Fine!

Relational Dominance

This I don't get. Why is having a sexual role so important to you guys?

I feel as though this is bait, but I'll bite.

And btw! It's not always 100% sexual. It's a complex view on how gender roles are percieved.

In the strictest sense, women in society are disallowed authority over men, labeled as 'other' for directly challenging patriarchal standard: The forbidden rule of "Woman Must Serve Man".

It's frank that this isn't a choice given to us, but a standard that demands compliance regardless of desire.

As such, women start repressing.

All this and more makes alot of this experience uniquely queer. Which is why it's included and talked about.

[viragoposting]

Thoughts on dating as a virago woman?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel like they're in a similar hole.

It's obviously no secret that the dating pool is slim, even then you have to worry about the quality of the person you're with. It's no small task tbh...

[viragoposting]

I finished the caard!

If you ever are in need of explaining who you are, please use it! It took awhile to simplify it down, but this should be a wonderful introduction to HetGNC sexuality and the complexities of human desire!

[viragoposting]

Seeing people adopt this label just makes me CRY OML

I love you guys so much you wouldn't believe how even knowing you exist makes me feel comfortable in my own existence.❤️❤️