I've been thinking about those women I learned about in history class growing up, women who wore trousers even when that often resulted in them getting arrested, women who adopted a man's name and passed themselves off as men, women who took on every social marker of manhood both in public life and in private life, but women who the textbooks assured us were, at the end of the day, women. Maybe, the textbooks would tell us, maybe the women were trying to be taken serious in careers that were off limits to women, or maybe it was a feminist protest of the system, or maybe they were just really really lesbian, but the important thing to remember is that they were immutably women, no matter what she may have said herself.
And I like to think that the more enlightened people of today, the kind of people who read posts about gender on Tumblr, would generally agree that these historical figures were men. We would discuss how these historical narratives of women who performed every social marker of manhood were shaped, often maliciously, to deny these men the right to be who they really were even in death.
And yet, if you show these enlightened readers a person born under the sign of Mars, who despite this chases every social marker of womanhood, who calls himself a woman and takes a woman's name, many of them will nod their heads sagely and agree that this man is a gender-nonconforming king, that maybe the real gender punk is accepting that our natures are immutable and our parents were correct, thay perhaps we should consider that they are a trans man.





