Sooo just a reminder:

Dresses were the norm for boys in 100+ years ago, and the color pink was a color for boys as well.

Oh yea and in the 1700s it was normal fashion for men to wear high heels.

But hey, lets make up whatever fake history we want to make gender norms sound like they have always been the same and that "cross dressing" and "drag" are somehow new inventions.

@freemo

*sighs*

They were still conforming to the gender stereotypes of the time. It's important to remember that it's 2023, not <1923

@realcaseyrollins

No not always. The high-heels was not at all common for men to wear until the king decided to wear them (cross-dressing) at which point other men began adopting it as a fashion norm, but only after.

We also have countless famous figures who cross-dressed throughout history.

@freemo

True.

As we do today. However, it's not known that we had people across history identifying as the other sex while cross-dressing. It's not cross-dressing that's unprecedented, but rather identifying as the opposite sex while doing so. Although, there are some fringe historical cases in which this has occurred...

* cue Nero & Sporus reference as a #Succession fan *

@realcaseyrollins

Huh there are tons of historic examples of people who were of one sex identifying as another sex... we have whole stories written about it.. Joan de arc is among the most famous.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins did she go around calling herself John or something? A strong woman identifying as a woman doing things atypical of her gender is not the same thing as identifying as a male.

@thatguyoverthere

Actually yes, John was the name she used when she was presenting as a man.

@realcaseyrollins

@freemo @realcaseyrollins ok. I still think that there is a stark difference between donning a disguise and pseudonym for a specific purpose (getting into the military) and actually believing that everyone **has** to treat you how you feel regardless of how you present (whether intentional or otherwise). If she had been found out to be using a disguise and fake name, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a huge social uproar to change the policy of the military to accommodate her identity.
Follow

@thatguyoverthere

How much of it was a disguise or pseudonym vs them actually identifying is not recorded. Their personal motivations wasnt really recorded as far as I know, in fact much of the details are lost to history.

@realcaseyrollins

@freemo @realcaseyrollins well then trying to draw a comparison to today where we have a lot more information and know more about motives and such is kind of a stretch. Just the fact that she's recorded as a female historically speaks volumes to the fact that at least society was not generally accepting of that kind of behavior at the time, even if it was allowed to slide for her. There have been eunichs throughout history too, but we don't generally consider them women who've had "bottom surgery"
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.