bean,I wouldn’t deny your experiences with FTM/trans guys.If that’s what you’ve observed then I guess that’s how those particular individuals were in those contexts.However, I think it is problematic to claim the vast majority of any group of people is one particular way. That would be like me saying something like “the vast majority of women are nice”. In order to agree with such a statement I’d have to agree about who a “woman” is and what “nice” means.I think “woman” is a fairly open category while others would say it isn’t at all.Ariel Levy does not distinguish adequately between bois and FTM’s she seems to lump them together unfairly.Some FTM’s do not even identify as trans at all or FTM for that matter. .I really don’t think she did enough research to start characterizing people in the generalized manner that she does.I certainly wouldn’t take my own research to be the universal truth.I ‘m comfortable saying that some lesbians,some FTM’s, act in certain ways or hold certain beliefs but certainly not all or a majority.I don’t think it is a good practice to put people in boxes ,to totalize,or to stereotype,as tempting as it is sometimes,and of course I think the other important question to ask would be why do these people act this way and for what purpose? Feminist theories and practices can alienate people especially if they are misinformed about its purpose and goals to begin with. I would want to hear from these FTM/trans guys or bois who are misogynist as you describe them ,to hear them talk more about their identity and what they perceive their relationship is to those they are attracted to. Levy does not take a richly detailed or deeply thoughtful approach in her book to any subject really.Since Ftm’s and bois are part of smaller communities who face serious marginalization from various parts of society she should’ve treaded very lightly here,but she did not.

Yes, and you can choose whether or not to do these things. Feminists like bean can criticize you for choosing to do misogynist traditional-masculine things and applaud you for choosing not to do them, without placing a constraint on your behavior that is either as heavy or as unjust as the one rightwingers seek to burden queers with. It’s not transphobic or bigoted in general to say that some things are choices, when they in fact are, or to argue that they are bad choices, when they in fact are.

So if you’re biologically female but you identify as male (which is not a choice), that’s not an excuse for adopting the misogynist properties of traditional masculinity and hooting at women on the street and attending monster struck rallies and shit like that (which would be a choice).

Gosh I hope not. I don’t hoot at women or attend monster struck rallies (whatever they are. Did you mean to write “truck”? I’ve been to a couple of biker rallies, as part of the hired entertainment. There seemed to be a lot of women in that culture, but I am not. I’ve never even ridden a bike.)

None of my male friends hoot at women either; they probably wouldn’t remain friends for very long if they did.

But it never occured to me that I was excluded from traditional masculinity by this. Gosh. Maybe I should practice my hooting. (Not.)

Anyway, back to what bean said:

It’s not simply the fact that they choose masculinity that I see [misogyny]. I see this in what they say, how they act, and what they do. It’s like they’re in competition with the worst of the frat boys — and they’re definitely “winning.”

I don’t see her saying anything about “identifying as male”. I agree that she’s not saying that “choos[ing] masculinity” is objectionable per se. However she quite clearly is framing it as a choice, and it’s still not clear to me how this differs from a typical rightwing framing of the issue.

Maybe there’s no difference in the framing as such. Maybe the only difference is that she doesn’t regard it as objectionable per se, and the rightwinger does. I don’t know.

So if you’re biologically female but you identify as male (which is not a choice), that’s not an excuse for adopting the misogynist properties of traditional masculinity and hooting at women on the street and attending monster struck rallies and shit like that (which would be a choice).

Exactly. I mean, assuming Bean wasn’t making a completely different point.

And like you say, I didn’t mean to come off as though I was ignoring the historical connection between conventional masculinity and misogyny; there are other options, but they depend on a more flexible definition of masculinity than is always acknowledged.

Most of us are trained to some extent, and most of us engage in some kind of self-conditioning throughout our lives. If there were no calculated aspect to masculine presentation, or conventionally male presentation, there would be no such things as passing tips.

Masculinity does not automatically come with being male.
Femininity does not automatically come with being female.

So if you’re biologically female but you identify as male (which is not a choice), that’s not an excuse for adopting the misogynist properties of traditional masculinity and hooting at women on the street and attending monster struck rallies and shit like that (which would be a choice).

Please forgive me, Bean, if I’m putting words in your mouth that don’t belong there, but I think this is your meaning. Hopefully this makes things a little clearer for Daran.

So you’re talking about FTM trans, and you seem to be saying that the “trans” part of that is not a choice, but the “FTM” part is a choice. But if they could choose not to be FTM, then they wouldn’t be trans, no?

This can get confusing, in part because “transmasculine” is sometimes used to mean, “spectrum of male identities among ftm and ft? people,” which necessarily includes transmale high femmes.

Masculinity =! maleness, which means that you can be transmale for reasons not related to choice but still choose the ways in which you present yourself as male. I certainly didn’t choose to need to transition, but I chose and continue to choose how I behave as a man; at the moment, my choice is to not be masculine.

Moreover, bean is not saying (so far as I can tell) that it’s offensive to her when ftms choose to present themselves as masculine, so long as they do not choose a masculinity that defines itself through abuse or denigration of women. There are other options out there, and other ftms opt into them; not all men are frat boys.

I know a number of FTM trans…It’s not simply the fact that they choose masculinity…

So you’re talking about FTM trans, and you seem to be saying that the “trans” part of that is not a choice, but the “FTM” part is a choice. But if they could choose not to be FTM, then they wouldn’t be trans, no?

Do you regard “choosing to be masculine” to be more of a choice than other purported choices you identified. Do you regard it to be more of a choice than “choosing to have a gay lifestyle”, etc?

By the way, Amp, I’m getting a “Gateway error” when I try to post, although the posts do seem to go through anyway.

It’s not simply the fact that they choose masculinity…

So you agree with rightwing critics that LGBT a lifestyle choice, rather than an inate characteristic?

mostly i thought the book was like the Cliff Notes of what it should’ve been. she left out any reference at all to most of the “sex positive” writers and activists that (as i always understood it) were part of that gap-bridging between those earlier feminists and now; she makes it sound like it’s -all- just corporate/patriarchal backlash. i thought, at the time. i need to read it again, i expect.

i just wondered if someone writing from the perspective of an (out) lesbian/queer person would’ve maybe taken a different tone, not so much maybe the bois per se, but the stuff about the “hetlez” chicks supposedly only making out for the boys’ benefit. i always thought: well, how do we know they’re -not- enjoying themselves, also? that that isn’t a stepping stone, for some of them, the first acceptable chance they’ve had to try being erotic with another woman. or for that matter, just casually bi and/or get off on exhibition?

anyway. more later.

I came across this discussion and I thought I would add to it. I have done a research project for an M.A. I interviewed young FTM,butch,and masculine identified trans individuals about their masculinities. I didn’t think anyone I spoke was a misogynist at all. In fact I was told there is intense pressure within some lesbian community circles for individuals to be feminine not masculine at all.FTM’s who had spent a lot of time identifying and living as lesbians noted the cult-like atmosphere of some radical lesbian feminist circles.The individuals I spoke to were very politically aware and their identifications with masculinities and men did not make them misogynists. I read Ariel Levy’s chapter on bois and I think her assumption is that identifying with and acting like a particular masculinity makes you a misogynist,non-commital masculine stereotype.So she just looked for who and what fit her agenda. I see no compelling evidence to the contrary. If I follow her logic then a butch or an FTM who wants to adopt a particular kind of masculinity and for some any kind of masculinity at all it seems then that they must be brainwashed dupes of the patriarchy. That’s what the notorious transphobe Janice Raymond said about FTM’s and wrote a whole book about how evil MTF’s are and how all trans people are sick, duplicitous impersonaters. Butch-femme relationships got the same kind of nasty treatment in the 70’s and 80’s. After reading her whole book I think Levy’s message is the same as that of the gender essentialist cultural feminists like Susan Brownmiller ,Andrea Dworkin,Sheila Jeffreys,and Janice Raymond. They don’t understand irony or subversion,and they believe strongly in two sexes,genders,and sexualities.They hate any desires that don’t fit their views.This is not a progressive or thoughtful group of thinkers to be inspired by and Levy is not an integrative feminist she doesn’t see how everything she discusses from pornography to trans identity is an issue of intersectionality. While I agree that women and bois need far better representation and that people should not embrace roles that may limit them in important ways I find Levy’s book superficial overall,it’s “radical feminist lite” complete with all their flaws.Levy needs to examine her own privilege in speaking about people who lack her institutional and class powers.She is I believe a non-trans white upper class straight American woman.She’s holding a lot of privilege there and does not acknowledge it at all from my perspective.

New York Mag. has been the reporter of NYC trendiness since it began. It doesn’t want to report on FTM lawyers or pastors or scientists or….. (any FTM who spends more time thinking about job, home, partnership or family responsibility, etc than about sex).

What do you think these bois might look like if they were more in touch with their intimate selves?

Oh, fine. Lob me the easy question, why doncha?

:p

I get an overriding vibe from my community that transitioning is part of the new hipster scene. Although I don’t think there is direct correlation between the two, that’s how it plays out around here. And what I mean by transitioning is those kids who start out at 17 or 18 sneaking into the lesbian bars/hang-outs, living a few years as lesbians, and then either philosophically transitioning to a transgendered ethos, or physically transitioning through surgery or T to a transsexual reality. So what I meant is that I see what looks like a highly personal (and deeply intimate) transition playing out in an almost pop-culture, club like atmosphere. That being said, transitioning has to happen somewhere!

I’m not trying to imply that these young adults lack insight or self-reflection. What I see is a strange correlation between this intimate transformation and the public manifestations of a roughly configured boi-culture.

Ok, and so in writing that I don’t think I’m any clearer than I was before. I need to think about this.

I don’t hang out with bois like the ones she describes or the women who seem interested in them, and that means leaving behind a lot of community space they inhabit.

And this, of course, has increased the number of feminist and gender-progressive bois and transmasculine people I know. Being young and single and in a position that gets fetishized from many sides, of course I’ve come in contact with plenty of assholes, but I’ve probably had greater opportunities to find people I can stand.

Can both be true? That Levy wrote about an experience that, within certain communities, is widespread enough to stop being a stereotype, and that you are nothing like the community of bois that others experience?

Yes, although I really don’t want to lose sight of the fact that the article was a hack job that didn’t acknowledge diversity in any way, shape, form, or place. (I also don’t think that had to do with an accident of geography for her–New York’s a big place, and the interview with the single ftm was almost certainly just that; I’ve seen that token extrapolation before. I think she was being sensationalistic and lazy.)

However, it seems like there’s probably some observational selection at work. Communities organize around political beliefs, too. I don’t hang out with bois like the ones she describes or the women who seem interested in them, and that means leaving behind a lot of community space they inhabit. I also see a lot of overlap between queer-politicized and preferences outside butch-or-boi/femme.

I’ve learned a lot from you Piny, precisely because you diverge quite radically from the bois and the transgendered kids I know and their philosophies. *If* all I had to go on was my face to face interactions with the bois in my lesbian community, I would not be able to conceive of you or your politics.

I appreciate that. I’ve gained a much more diverse picture from interactions with feminists and queer women online, as well–including some of the people I initially dismissed and people I have no access to IRL.

And here’s the little kicker (at least for me) — I can see how the bois in my neck of the woods might just very well embrace the truth that you, as Piny, bring to the table. But there seems to be a social pressure at work that keeps this honesty at bay, so that transgenderism and bois are about social positioning, and not about the relationships of individual persons with their own deeply intimate selves. Bois, around here, seem to want the middle-class bad-boi/frat-boi lifestyle. And maybe that’s much more about age than gender. But it is large enough to not be a phenomenom; it is a lifestyle and an ethos. And as challenging as transitioning can be, or as challenging as transgenderism is, a lack of social critique and a blind eye towards community expression is questionable at best.

I’m not sure it has that much to do with transitioning per se; I get the sense that the negative pressure has much more to do with being male or masculine. You could argue that there’s even more of a reactive impulse for transpeople to deal with, but I’m not sure it makes that much of a difference given the amount of gender adherence I see on the part of most people. I think that it is possible that this is adolescence, either in terms of youth or new change, but I know that people don’t always grow out of immaturity unless they’re challenged. I don’t excuse misogyny–or apoliticism that condones it–for any person at any point in life. What do you think these bois might look like if they were more in touch with their intimate selves?