#also I separated cis and trans men bc while they’re both just as much a man as the other

[hashtag-anthems]

I’m working on a paper on this topic and it got me thinking so I made a poll. This won’t be used in my paper but it will satisfy my curiosity. I’m including the main ones I’ve seen around here on tumblr and on Ao3, but that obviously won’t be all-inclusive so feel free to pick “other” and give me an essay in the reblogs or replies. I want to hear the people’s thoughts!

I’m impatient so I’m only leaving it open for a day so pls share if you vote

[fatalism-and-villainy]

if you're comfortable talking about it, can you elaborate (maybe in a very general sense) on how those posts are messing up their discussion of the nb experience? I'm curious and I also don't want to make the same kind of mistakes.

Sure, I don't mind explaining further. I don't think I can do so in a general sense, though - being on Pillowfort has made me much more inclined towards using specific examples. I think that's not really the done thing on tumblr, both because it's hard to link to things here when URLs can change, and because it's tacitly considered against etiquette (or, least, I know I instinctively flinch away from doing so). But I think a lot of discussions would be less inflammatory here if people were more specific about what they were complaining about, and I think this is a topic that benefits from close reading some examples, because a lot of it is subtle stuff in the wording that betrays a lot of broader and more pernicious assumptions.

So I'm not including these examples to chastise anyone, I'm just using them because they're useful illustrations of a bigger problem.

My post that prompted this, for context:

I have seen two posts in the last few days that conflate how nonbinary people get read by others with nonbinary people’s own personal relationship to gender and the nonbinary label. I’m so so sick of this.

Alright, post #1 (and I did find a thread where some people were pointing out some of the same issues I have with it, but I saw it reblogged with this addition on its own, so it's worth pointing out). OP's post:

if you call a nonbinary person cis bc they don't perform androgyny to a level you approve of i'm omw with a big hammer to shatter your kneecaps

Note the "perform androgyny to a level you approve of" phrasing - this is about others' perception of nonbinary people and of what constitutes androgyny. Now look at this addition:

This is incredibly important to remember. Nonbinary isnt just a middle ground or a third gender. Its not being in the binary. Thats it. That means something different to every nb person. So maybe someone does lean a bit more into their assigned gender at birth, they’re still nonbinary and calling them cis just because they arent preforming for you is transphobic- Yes even if you are trans too.

I agree that nonbinary people can have some kind of identification with their assigned gender, and that this doesn't negate their being nonbinary or trans - but, crucially, that's a different topic from what the OP was about. The OP was about how people look to others, and how they meet others' standards for what a nonbinary person should look like.

And what counts as "performing" androgyny is not only very subjective, individually and subculturally, but also full of double standards. There are people who would consider simply having visible breasts, or not trying to hide my body shape, as "presenting" as a woman, or not being androgynous, even if my clothes or hairstyle would be read as "masculine" on a cis man. (Side note: the way I often wear my hair is something I've mainly seen on men, and some nonbinary people as well, but because it's long on the top a lot of people would think "feminine". The gendering of hair is weird.) Similarly, I like wearing brightly coloured lipstick. This isn't because my identity is at all "feminine" or aligned with womanhood - I just like bright colours on my lips 😂. Additionally, there are nonbinary people who might get read as "androgynous", or whose gender might be harder to visually sort into a binary category, who do, in fact, feel some affiliation with their assigned gender. These are separable categories.

While the addition is alright on its own as an observation, I think adding it here actually undermines the point of the OP. The original post argues that others' perceptions are not the determiner of whether someone else "counts" as trans, and the addition, even while in agreement that nonbinary people who aren't "androgynous enough" count as trans... also falls into using others' perceptions as a determiner of another's identity.

The second post is here:

even spicier take: “non-binary” means a thousand different things to a thousand different people and therefore anyone of any sexuality could theoretically be attracted to a non-binary person in some capacity, so if you’re gay and someone you’re attracted to says, “i’m non-binary,” you don’t actually have to redefine your entire identity, you can just drink a cup of sleepytime tea and go right on being gay and into non-binary people.

So, this starts out with "nonbinary means a thousand different things to a thousand different people", which leads me to think that this is about relationship compatibility - i.e., that there are nonbinary people whose personal version of "nonbinary" doesn't preclude gay relationships or gay-identified partners. But the following statement implies a slightly different angle - "therefore anyone of any sexuality could theoretically be attracted to a nonbinary person in some capacity." The "therefore" doesn't follow for me, because "being attracted to someone" is very different from relationship compatibility, and doesn't have anything to do with how a nonbinary person self-identifies or wants to be socially positioned.

I think this sort of confusion is part of what makes a lot of conversations about "attraction to nonbinary people" so fraught - because there are several different scenarios implied in how this post is written. Are we talking about the possibility of a gay person actually forging a relationship with a nonbinary person? Are we talking about seeing someone in passing that you think is attractive who turns out to be nonbinary? The phrasing "if... someone you're attracted to says, 'i'm nonbinary'" implies this is a scenario in which the attraction started before learning that person's gender. But is this just a passing crush, or someone you happened to notice, or is it meant to be someone you're already in a relationship with? Because those are two different scenarios! If we're talking about the possibility of a gay person having a relationship with a nonbinary person, then what being nonbinary "means" to that person is relevant. But if we're talking about a gay person just being attracted in passing to a person who turns out to be nonbinary, then the attraction itself does not say anything about, or having anything to do with, that nonbinary person's self-conception.

Look, here's the thing. It's pretty inevitable that we all visually misclassify people from time to time, even cis people. Attraction is also internal and does not affect the other person at all. I don't think the possibility that someone you happen to find attractive might not actually be your preferred gender, or might potentially find your attraction distressing, need be a source of scrupulosity - just pay attention to their signals in your actual interactions with them and treat them how they've implied or explicitly stated they'd like to be classed. Similarly, I think sexual orientation is about patterns and general trends, and one person falling outside that pattern doesn't necessitate changing one's identity. But that says fuck-all about the identity or feelings of the nonbinary person in question. The idea that it does has the (probably unintentional) implication that a gay woman finding me attractive means that I must be "woman-aligned" or comfortable being classed that way in relationships, which is not at all the case.

Like, the separate implications the wording here in this post are all points I agree with: some nonbinary people find "gay" as an identity or social position to be compatible with their conception of themselves, and being mistaken about someone's gender or having an exception to your general pattern of attraction doesn't necessitate an identity crisis. But is it clear how treating one of those things as naturally flowing from the other has troubling implications? Nonbinary people vary widely in how we want to be classed, or feel comfortable being classed, in the context of relationships. But other people's involuntary feelings of attraction are absolutely not a comment on that. And treating them as if they are is incredibly harmful.

[midnightmxsings]

Everyone stand for trans bisexual icon Steve Rogers Honestly though this isn't just some random "haha I wanna score points with a community so I'll arbitrarily assign identities to various characters and yell at people who don't headcanon the same as me" (bc guess what??? I like him bc I AM both those things!! I headcanon this for /me/ not bc I'm afraid of some strawman diversity police) It's based on personal conjecture and an analysis of the character through the lens of performative, perceived, and actual masculinity so hear me out. So why? Would Steve Rogers of all people be trans? Well, to me, he's literally had a major bodily transition in his life, the serum. Pre-serum Steve was trapped in a body that, while should be accepted, is not what Steve perceives as strong enough to do what he wants to do. In short: he was a person in the wrong body. This obviously can be told in a lot of different ways, and in my case is definitely not meant to be body shaming anyone. In fact, one of the reasons why I love Steve so much is that pre serum Steve has similar physical characteristics to me. We're both around the same height (shorter than average) and around the same weight (90-110 lbs soaking wet). Then, he's offered a way for his body to express how he feels on the inside (the serum). He's given a speech about how men who never had strength know what strength can do and will appreciate it. This is also "perceived" power, since Steve is very powerful in his own right, but society doesn't see him as such. I personally see that as a metaphor for how a significant portion of society doesn't see trans men as real men because of their bodies. Even if they recognize trans men as trans men, they're seen as a separate gender group from cis men, even though we're all men. Same with Steve; he's an aspiring soldier but he's too weak to be a "real soldier". The serum is one way for him to reach his goals. And obviously this part is a little heavy handed but the serum is similar in a way to trans men taking T. Like its kinda obvious. Both change a person's body. In the case of Steve and the case of trans men, it's changing their body for good and externalizing their thoughts in a way that society accepts with open arms. It's difficult to deny that Steve is a super soldier after taking the serum. Likewise, it's difficult to deny that a trans man is a man after he undergoes a medical transition. So that's the perceived part. The performative part comes next. Basically, to me, trans men can appear with any body type. Any. Body. Type. There are fat trans men, skinny trans men, buff trans men, short, tall, you name it. We come from all walks of life. But when I look around in media, it's always the thin, traditionally more "feminine" or "young-looking" characters who are headcanoned most popularly as trans. Take OVW. People like trans junkrat but don't like trans roadhog. Why? Because a lot of people can't shake the idea of trans men being "born female", and therefore having more "female" bodies. Steve kinda blows that concept out of the water. You can't deny that post serum, he's a paragon of stereotypical American masculinity. Add on top of that he's trans, and he's a giant "FUCK YOU" to stereotypes about trans men being small and skinny and """""feminine""""". And finally: actual masculinity. Steve has always held the same unshakeable morals, just like how trans men have always been men. It doesn't matter if he's big or small: he's always gonna be Steve Rogers. That's what it's like to be a trans guy. You're always a guy, it's just that you can change your outward appearance to 1, be more comfortable with yourself and 2, have society actually recognize you for who you are. And then the bi part should be pretty fucking obvious bc he loved Peggy and he also loved Bucky ok I just??? SHARED LIFE EXPERIENCE??? THERES ONLY ONE GUY WHO I CAN THINK OF WHO EVEN REMOTELY SHARES LIFE EXPERIENCE WITH STEEB AND THATS BUCKY. ANYWAYS. IM EMOTIONAL ABOUT STUCKY. I'm also really emotional about Steve/Peggy tbh, they were really cute and like had some actual-chemistry type moments (unlike the stupid romantic subplot in civil war that was so rushed that I was hit by whiplash when the producers had them kiss) and also??? Peggy????? Big badass!!!! I love her. Anyways. Yes in summary: Steve exemplifies a trans man's experience by showing how masculinity is perceived, how a man's masculinity is performed before society, and how men actually experience masculinity, particularly for trans men. And also he's bi.