Gender essentialism is a social cancer.
Just saw a post on Lex that was basically a transmasc person asking the queer community at large to stop excluding them because they pass as a cis man. They asked that we maybe stop coming down on trans men, masc NBs, hell, even trans women who don’t know they’re trans yet.
And…yeah. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable ask. Tbh I think that should also include cis men who aren’t straight, because they are part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
I think what’s vastly more important than whether someone has a masculine identity is whether or not they’re explicitly being toxically masculine. Wanting more body hair isn’t toxic, wanting a flat chest isn’t toxic, wanting to enjoy more “masculine” activities and be seen as one of the guys isn’t toxic. SIMPLY BEING A MAN IS NOT TOXIC.
Anytime I’ve seen someone insist otherwise, it’s been someone closely tied to—if not within—radfem/TERF circles. The logic that leads people to say masculine traits == bad is the same as the logic that results in having penis == bad, yet for some reason the former is treated as common sense even in queer circles. We’re supposed to be rejecting gender norms, not reinforcing them dammit.
What’s bad, what’s toxic, is possessiveness. Needless aggression. Unchecked jealousy. Entitlement (especially sexual entitlement). None of these are inherently masculine traits.
It’s one thing to be cautious of cis men, who more often than not have accepted masculinity as the default rather than a conscious choice, and may have learned more toxic traits as a result. But you don’t know who is or isn’t trans.
You don’t know how that “cis man” actually identifies. Even if you do, you don’t know whether or not he’s examined his gender identity and decided he’s happy where he is. You don’t know whether or not he’s actually possessive or entitled or aggressive. Making such assumptions is no better than assuming that a woman will be shy and submissive.
You don’t know, and it’s not your place to decide.