#whereas women have to make up like 80% of a space before men start agreeing with the women

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

That documentary American Nightmare is crazy. Like imagine being the victims of something like that and everyone from the media to police to the FBI are like, damn, that is crazy. So crazy it didn't happen. You're lying, you killed her--oh...She turned up alive...Uh...She's lying. Wait, uh...oops. Never mind. This other cop who actually bothered to do her job and talked to all the women other cops ignored caught the guy. Um...anyway you're both alive and not in jail so we're just gonna pretend this never happened. I mean it's not like we could have known; there was a movie where the lady set everything up and was lying! How can you expect us to have actually investigated what was reported to us?

At least that one reporter had a conscience. And he actually did forward the emails he got to the police, so, y'know, he at least was doing his job. It's funny how when something like this happens, the people who did the least, all things considered, are the ones to step up and be like, yeah, I fucked up, and the ones who made blunder after blunder from sheer laziness and their own tunnel vision are just like no comment, that didn't happen, and our internal investigation found no wrong-doing on the part of us.

[genderkoolaid]

I recently listened to the Jules Gill-Peterson episode of Gender Reveal. In it, she argues that the histories of transmasc and transfem people are essentially disconnected until the 80s or so, in part because transmascs migrated to rural areas and went stealth, whereas transfems moved to cities like New York and San Francisco and formed communities. (This brief summary does not do her justice, please read the transcript or listen before responding.) What do you think of her argument? Do you have any historical records that confirm, refute, or complicate it?

So generally I agree with her. Obviously this is specifically about US history, but I agree that transmascs historically have sought isolation to stay stealth where transfems have formed a lot of communities (although thats not to say there havent also been stealth transfems in history). She does bring up transmasculinity in lesbian spaces although its very brief. I kind of wish she focused on it more because I feel like acting as though trans men who lived in stealth isolation from other queers is The transmasc historical narrative erases a lot of the complex ways transmascs lived, and lesbian spaces have always been a MAJOR part of that. Drag masculinity was one way historical transmascs could engage in transmasculinity, and also took place largely in cities & drag kings absolutely interacted with drag queens, so I don't think there wasn't any places where historical transmascs & transfems shared spaces. But she's also a transfem and it makes sense that her focus is more on transfem history & its intricacies.

Honestly I think that the idea that transmascs going stealth vs transfems finding community isn't the interesting thing here. That's whatever. What's more interesting in my opinion is the questions of

Chicken or the egg (ha): do transmascs go stealth instead of forming communities because there were no communities and therefore no awareness that others existed, or was there no community because everyone went stealth?

What is the origin of this difference between transmascs and transfems? What factors influence the difference in our histories?

Listening to modern non-western transmascs talk, I've gotten the idea that part of this comes from how women in patriarchal societies have more restrictions, and often aren't allowed to go out on their own, which limits their ability to find queer spaces and connect with other transmascs. I think there might also be something to be said about the idea that cis society may tend to react to transfems with "you should be cast out" and transmascs as "you should be fixed", but that's just an idea + it's definitely not black-and-white.

Going back to the first question, I'm inclined to believe that they lack of community/awareness came first: I think part of the reason for so many trans men going stealth is because many of them weren't aware other trans men existed, so they had a mindset of "I have to find a way to survive without being outed", whereas transfems knew other transfems existed and so their first step was "find other people like me". I imagine that's also the reason for the difference between stealth trans men and lesbian trans men: maybe people who weren't aware of lesbian spaces were more likely to go stealth, and people who were aware of lesbian spaces joined them for the same reason transfems sought out other transfems. See this quote from a Korean trans man:

"[T]here is nobody that we can really call “older generation.” In Korea FTM identification and transition only began when they learned that such a thing was possible. Before they felt like they didn’t belong in their bodies. The lack of words made it impossible for them to understand what that feeling meant. FTM trans people that are older than me, those in their 40-60s, understood their situation late. Most of them had lived their lives as lesbians until the 1990s. When the Internet started providing information, only after this began, they understood who they were and started treatment."

That's also why the transmasc community only really started after transmascs started getting widespread attention (coinciding with the rise of the Internet as well), because suddenly younger transmascs weren't either becoming butches or going stealth- they knew others existed and wanted to find them. (As a side note: I got the idea for a historical fiction story exploring the idea of some kind of "transmasc secret society", because I'm sure there was some point in history where at least a few guys found each other).

I think its important to ask these questions lest we fall into the trap of "transmascs just love their male privilege and want to preserve it and have never done anything for the trans community, unlike transfems, who are the real trans people". That ignores how transandrophobia has shaped the behavior of transmascs.

I do have another criticism: maybe she's doing this on purpose, but I feel like its extremely oversimplifying the history of how people treated crossdressing women to say that it was seen as just a cool thing. There was definitely a different attitude to the idea of women crossdressing for survival, but (and this might be kind of nit-picky but its something that gets on my nerves so humor me):

If you weren't crossdressing for survival, that was a problem. I am of the opinion that a good amount of women/"women" who would make this argument when they got caught crossdressing were doing so because "'I'm doing it to survive!" would probably get you some sympathy, but "I'm doing this cause I like it!" would get you. you know. jailed for crossdressing & labeled an invert. And there is an expectation there that, if you no longer need to do that to survive, you would stop doing it, and to insist on continuing to do that would, again, get you labeled an invert.

I just in general really really dislike hearing people say "well the patriarchy wants everyone to be a man" because No It Does Not. its similar to that post that goes "bi women are told they should be lesbians and lesbians are told they should be bi but the actual goal is for there to be no queer women at all". Cis women might be told they would be worth more if they were men, but thats another case of generalized "man" being used to erase cisness. Cis women need to be cis women (and therefore wives & mothers), thats why women/"women" are so heavily controlled. You may have cases of "father wanted a boy so he makes his daughter live as a son" but that has always been seen as abnormal or even cruel. The idea of invert women and women who crossdress as man because of their ~evil sinful desires~ is not new (One scientist estimated "that one woman in every 3,000 is the victim of this strange mania")

I think crossdressing women historically were reported on with a sense of awe partially because I think a lot of people didn't realize how easy it is to pass and so the idea of a man being secretly a woman, or vice versa, was something unbelievable (a lot of old news articles about these people I've read spent a lot of time focusing on how no one could tell and being shocked at them voting & marrying women). Also because a lot of them were only outed in death so there wasn't a living person to confront or arrest. But I think we should hesitate to take news reports that saw them as some interesting headline to mean "people thought they were cool and treated them well" (especially in situations where we only have stuff like headlines & we may not know exactly how people felt about the person). Looking through my hoard of historical trans men resources, you have stories like Augustus Baudouin, a 17 year old who was outed after being put in prison for robbery. After being placed in the women's ward, his "repugnance to appear in women's attire" was so great that he hung himself. Even if the headline called him "extraordinary", being outed ended with him dead (in a way that grimly mirrors transmasc suicide deaths today). Christine Vensettie was also arrested so he could be forced to get "treatment" for his crossdressing. Edward De Lacy Evans's story shows a bit of what "treatment" can mean (namely, medical abuse & sexual assault) and was literally put in a freak show.

This isn't to say that the violence and repulsion Western society has long held towards transfems isn't bad or anything, just that I feel like portraying the history of society's reaction to female crossdressers like this ignores a lot of complexity. Also "the patriarchy wants women to be men" is like the #1 TERF belief when it comes to trans men, so I'm always on edge whenever anyone says it or something like it because it contributes to the belief that society really is trying to influence young girls to transition. I think people, when talking about passing trans men, always focus a lot on what happens when we pass and talk far less about the consequences when we don't.

Anyways this got much longer than I initially planned lmao. In general I agree with her, she obviously knows a lot and I'm also sure this was just a snippet of her beliefs on this topic. In my opinion one of the big questions about transmasculinity to work through is that of our history, because its so easy to compare it to transfems and see how little there is in comparison. And I think, besides just wanting to know more about our history, its important to investigate this to understand more about how transandrophobia works. Erasure is one of the biggest parts of transandrophobia and exploring why our existence has been erased in the past, and how that erasure has impacted our lives, will help us fight erasure today and in the future. So I hope to see more people going past just "transmascs tended to go stealth" and examine the factors which influenced this & why, across the world, transmascs tend to be erased and isolated while transfems tend to have communities and specific terms.