Trans NY Times Writer Believes Little Women Author Louisa May Alcott 'May Have Been Transgender or Non-Binary'

[Turd Fergusen]

All the news that's fit to print..........

The author of feminist novel Little Women may have been transgender or identified as non-binary, an article by a trans New York Times writer has claimed.

Louisa May Alcott, who penned the semi-autobiographical book in 1868, likely did not identify as a woman, according to the president of the Louisa May Alcott Society.

Quoted in the New York Times, Dr Gregory Eiselein says he is 'certain' that the author of the popular novel identified as non-binary, and that she never fit 'a binary sex-gender model'.

The NYT article author, Peyton Thomas - who is a trans man and novelist himself - goes on to claim that Alcott could have even been transgender.

In the opinion piece, Mr Thomas draws on a quote given by Alcott in the early 1880s, where she says: 'I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman's body'.

He writes: 'She may not have known the word "transgender", but she certainly knew the feeling it describes.'

He also draws on her journal entries, in which she wrote: 'I long to be a man,' while in a letter she penned: 'I was born with a boy's nature, 'a boy's spirit' and 'a boy's wrath.'

For decades, academics have shied away from arguing that Alcott was transgender, stating it would be an inappropriate use of the term.

Many have rightly agreed that a woman in that era wanting to be a 'man' is more likely them desiring to be taken more seriously in terms of rank, opportunity, and education - rather than a want to change gender.

One key crux in the book is Jo March's character desiring to earn her own money - as a man would - so she tries her hardest to break through the gender norms of the time.

Full Article:

Little Women author 'may have been transgender' claims New York Times

Louisa May Alcott, who penned the semi-autobiographical book in 1868, likely did not identify as a woman, according to the president of the Louisa May Alcott Society.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Alxprkrkrls]

It’s an interesting take for sure. So many LBGTQ couples were described as “close friends” or “roommates”. She could’ve been trans or non binary or she could’ve been a woman who felt society’s definition of womanhood did not align with her spirit. We’ll never know but I do enjoy hearing theories.

 

[Sejanus]

Channeling Fred Gwynne...

 

[Symmachus]

I think it is dangerous to apply such modern terms to historic figures who lived in times where such concepts, and by extension the vocabulary thereof, was not a mainstream or even seriously considered issue.

Also, here is Sydney Watson's takes on the concept of the tomboy.

 

[cubby]

Many have rightly agreed that a woman in that era wanting to be a 'man' is more likely them desiring to be taken more seriously in terms of rank, opportunity, and education - rather than a want to change gender.

That is the way I think of her, wanting to make more of her life than a shy woman who worked her whole life to raise children, keep house and cook dinner. But if she were transgender, what does it matter 150 years later.

There were plenty of women who never wanted to fulfill the traditional woman role in life. Women who cross dressed and became doctors, lawyers, soldiers. I do think you can be cis female and still not want to be traditionally cis female.

For at least the last 50 years cis females have been told you can be who and what you want to be, not to encourage them to be transgender, but to encourage them to fulfill their potential as women. Anyone can be more than the sum of their parts, and still not be transgendered.

 

[Blizzard]

Human minds have existed in a variety of characters for the species' existence and it is sometimes character that has similarities to the sex they were not born as.

and guess what, they coped with what they were born with.

It's only now, that there's big money to be had by convincing people to tear their bodies apart (and inducing mental illness where possible) that this extreme focus on 'trans' is starting up.

Also now is a time when certain civilizations have stopped caring about what makes civilizations strong (vs weak and dominable).

I'm coming from the perspective of an atheist - secular humanist - but all the same, it is best to realize that the modern civilization we have today was only possible, and was created by, unifying the populations of large areas into countries and forcing the populations to work within cultures that utilized certain religions. These cultures and their religions encouraged centralized authority and population growth, despite the lack of real medicine, despite the lack of antibiotics, and despite a lack of education in the population. That's quite some feat.

Through those means, they encouraged "traditional" families and a sense of law and order. The religion and its culture was enforced, and heretical groups which could have operated like cults do today were excluded.

Like it or not, the concepts of being "gay" and "trans" were not huge movements in the above-mentioned and very-successful civilizations. Can you imagine if, in history, thinking of every person being 50/50% chance of falling at least a little to one side or the other in their personalities, if that tiny difference had been accentuated by organizations that profited $$$ from something like surgeries, and which didn't mind seeing the population decrease? If in history, traditional families had been dismantled (like exists today in certain countries) and families stopped having enough babies to approach replacement rate and that's not considering that they didn't have antibiotics back then?

The pushing of children to become gay and trans, and an entire industry profiting off of moving individuals away from "traditional" values, is a literal assault on the civilizations it's happening in. It's an internal assault that is happening because those in power feel so powerful that they are forcing a route of population reduction for people that can be convinced to go along with it.

So it's like, sure. Someone in history is documented as having had a character that was moreso male in a female body. But guess what. They dealt with it. There was no horrible pack of doctors and brain-fuckers messing with their bodies and heads, and society continued to expand and relatively prosper, despite the hardships of those times.
[automerge]1672245224[/automerge]

For at least the last 50 years cis females have been told you can be who and what you want to be, not to encourage them to be transgender, but to encourage them to fulfill their potential as women. Anyone can be more than the sum of their parts, and still not be transgendered.

This.

 

[knockout]

Simple response is, who cares, why do we need to have labels for everyone, people are people, some good, some bad

 

[cubby]

Thank you @Blizzard exactly what I wanted to say but didn't know how to put it as succinctly as you did.