I've noticed the posthumous transing of many of our role models. Joan of Arc? Twans. George Sand? Twans. Rosa Bonheur? Twans. Louisa Alcott? Twans. Viking female warrior? Twans.

It's logical, from their bizarre worldview, of course. Once 'woman' means someone who loves pink and sparkles and high heels and being slapped and choked in sex and loving being humiliated and subjugated in general, then why would these new 'women' need any role models? Porn actresses, Stepford Wives and Barbie dolls will do just fine.

But in a way this is so clarifying! Because their ideology is truly backwards, regressive, and misogynistic, and their view of the world is one of patriarchal hierarchies as proper, only they wish to leap up in those hierarchies. It won't work, of course, not without bilateral radical mastectomy and life-long testosterone shots, and even then they need to pass and may have trouble with fertility. The rest of us vulva people, however, are assumed to adore being subjugated.

And yes, it's true that they have mostly abstained from transing male figures in history. They are not interested in attacking the male sex, after all.

The rest of us vulva people, however, are assumed to adore being subjugated.

Yep... I still have yet to hear a single woman who identifies as "non binary" explain what that means to her without her basically implying exactly this. I can't even fathom being that narcissistic and devoid of empathy

We should totally remake The Stepford Wives. Okay, instead of the men killing their wives to replace them with hot sexy housewife robots, what should the twist be?

They kill their wives in order to become the sexy housewives themselves.

[–] boogerita 7 points Edited

The protagonist wife somehow discovers her replacement robot, is able to hack it, and then it saves her from the husband’s attack? idk, I never read the book :)

They upload their minds into fembots, then kill their wives.

[–] OneOddBird 26 points Edited

The only male figure I have seen posthumously transed is the Roman Emperor Elagabalus. If you, unlike me, don’t have your heads up the asses of ancient Roman history chroniclers/commentators, Elagabalus was one of Rome’s mad emperors. He was a promiscuous teenager who enjoyed sleeping around with prostitutes, called himself the “wife” of his favorite charioteer, caused scandals by cross dressing and entering brothels so he could prostitute himself to random citizens, and reportedly offered money to physicians to remove his genitals and carve a vagina into his body (none of them took up the offer.) He was likely just an effeminate bisexual man and it is possible the stories were exaggerated by the roman public because they disliked him for being foreign born, but if everything is true he sounds like a textbook case of AGP…and trans people try to lionize him despite the fact that he was a corrupt and terrible ruler

[–] ProxyMusic 13 points Edited

It's not just men's fashionable styles from the 18th century that TRAs ignore. They ignore men's fashions from around the world for pretty much all of history.

At the time the Tudors reigned in England, fashionable men in England and Europe wore flowing robes and capes in luxurious fabrics and furs; lots of elaborate embroidery and lace, along with flourishes like feathers in their caps; and fancy tops called doublets and girdles to show off their shapes. Below the waist, they wore flared above-the-knee skirts, and hose (tights) to show off their shapely legs.

In the time of Henry VIII, the doublets emphasized men's width and girth, and their skirts often came close to knee. But later on, the doublets and girdles were tightly constructed to give the men the appearance of small, pinched-in waists and to emphasize the V shape of the male torso. Also, the flared skirts of previous eras were replaced by short puffed-out britches that looked like bouffant mini skirts.







Also, just for good measure here's Brad Pitt rocking some ancient Greek getups, including a skirt and crop top and one of the mini skirts he wore in "Troy":



Men giving a shit about how they look? Let’s bring this back

If I'm going to live around a bunch of misogynists, they should at least care about not being eyesores and threats to basic hygiene.

Lol, if any man wears similar clothing in woke central cities in the US, he'd be called a transwoman

Second portrait is seventeenth century. Voet died in 1689.

English Restoration (1660-1685) men are always the ones I think of when TRAs are spouting their bullshit. The height of male decorativeness with what idiots now think is a look that means “woman”.

Thank you for the date correction. I immediately think of the Rococo period and wonder why TRAs aren't transing all the rich Western men who could afford the bright embroidery. Those men are dressed more feminine than any woman I've seen in modern times.

[+] [Deleted] 6 points

Its because TRAs love taking female role models away and punishing women who don't perform stereotypical feminity by their modern, western standards.

Yes! Also being a ‘dandy’ was all the rage for fashionable rich victorian men. I guess it shows how you are ‘better’ and ‘more refined’ than the hardy factory men


I did come across an article that claimed trans people existed thousands of years ago and as evidence they used an old pot with a drawing of a bearded figure in a dress. Like you need to make so many dodgy assumptions to jump to that conclusion. So yeah they sometimes trans feminine men as well.

Edit: Found the article. It's more stereotypical than I remember.

Among the figures depicted on the bowl is a bearded man wearing female clothing shown sitting on the floor, a position that local iconography usually reserved for women, Cifarelli says. She thinks this may be a representation of a non-binary person.


I mean, don't monks (and vatican priests) still wear those long things? I don't know the word in English. Are they claiming all of them as trans then, too? Like, seriously. SO many women wear trousers. So what? My clothes don't affect my biology at all. I am wearing trousers right now. And if that would make someone call me trans, then they can go eat grass.

You can tell these eejits have never traveled outside their own countries in the West. Not just that, they've never even looked at photos of men in/from other cultures - and they've never cracked a history book, either.

[–] ProxyMusic 3 points Edited

That burial site is in Iran, where it's long been the custom for many men to wear beards and dresses as both everyday and ceremonial attire, LOL. In fact, this kind of clothing is one of the things that the Muslim mullahs of Iran (and other countries) are famous for.

One of the reasons that Reza Shah was resented after he took power in the early 20th century is that he instituted "dress reform" rules barring and limiting men in Iran from wearing their traditional dresses and robes. Just like Attaturk did in Turkey.

Shocking that someone working on an archaeological dig and interpreting the meaning of burial artifacts doesn't know this.







Men all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia and other places have always worn long gowns:



Very good point. If Hatshepsut was a man, Louis XIV was OBVIOUSLY a woman.

I’m surprised they haven’t tried that shit on his brother, Philippe I d’Orleans, who was a flamboyant bisexual crossdresser.

Let's not forget the late 18th C men, who may not have been wearing bright flowery costumes, but whose sensibility was sublime. Daffodils! Definitely in touch with their feminine side.

We don't even have to go that far back. Remember the 1970s? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Load more (4 comments)