The sorrows of young famous nonbinary femmes
Brilliant piece in Vice titled Why Can’t My Famous Gender Nonconforming Friends Get Laid? Oooooh gosh I don’t know – is it because they’re famous for smelling funny? Because they’re so frantically busy being famous no one can volunteer to get them laid? Because being famous isn’t automatically the same thing as being sexually alluring?
It’s a cool Saturday night in my East Village apartment, and Alok Vaid-Menon has just created a Tinder account for me, while Jacob Tobia bats their eyelashes in the background.
Poor Jacob, no takers for the batted eyelashes in the background.
Alok and Jacob are two of the most publicly visible gender nonconforming femmes I know. As a performance poet, Alok has just gone solo after touring in dozens of cities in the US and abroad as one half of the poetry duo Darkmatter. Jacob was named to 2016’s OUT 100, has made a web series for NBC, and been the subject of a GLAAD-nominated episode of MTV’s True Life. Both are trans-identified, but belong somewhere in between genders, and they’ve amassed huge social media followings as gender nonbinary, femme, and fabulous human beings. They’ve become celebrities in their own right, with Jacob regularly walking down the red carpet at LGBTQ galas and Alok featuring in the Janet Mock–narrated HBO documentary The Trans List.
That’s totally celebrity. Absolutely. It puts them right up there with Alec Baldwin and Beyonce. They are so so so famous. And yet nobody wants to date them.
It’s a reliable source of ennui in our group chats, and as the elder among my nonbinary pals, I’ve been giving Jacob and Alok dating advice for weeks.
And yet, even with the ennui, they still can’t get anyone to knock boots with them.
[W]hat I learned during the social experiment that followed is that Jacob and Alok, like many gender nonconforming femmes, live in a world where admirers applaud them for their radical politics on social media, and people they’re attracted to associate with them because of their slayworthiness and social capital, but refuse to make love to them, or at least fuck them well.
Thus for the first time in human history we are confronted with people who cannot persuade anyone to have sex with them. This is unheard of! It’s unnatural!! People should be forced to have sex with them!
This piece will make them even more famous, so maybe that will do the trick.
Here’s an article in a similar vein, I think…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/23/goth_culture_needs_to_embrace_the_gender_identities_of_all_its_members.html
The comments there were refreshingly skeptical…
I was already laughing reading this post, but then nearly sprayed wine over my keyboard when I saw the picture in the original article. Very strong overtones of ‘Find the Fish’ indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGBZnfB46es
There is an assumption of being entitled to sex that has a faint odor of MRA-grade, 100% cis male privilege about it.
Can anybody enlighten me as to what “slayworthiness” means?
Well the writer has a very approximate idea of what most words mean so I suppose she was trying to say knife skills or way with an omelette or stylish dressing – something like that.
I probably just misgendered her. Them. Him.
Has it occurred to them that they only appeal to an extremely rarified clientele? Trans people are already uncommon, and in my (limited) experience, most among that group simply want to go about their lives in an ordinary fashion, blending in rather announcing to the world how nonconforming they are.
Gee I dunno. I’m a straight male, but I still know plenty of attractive women with great personalities I don’t want to have sex with. Why? I dunno. Sexual attractiveness is like that. If all these people is after is a good fucking, and they don’t really care who does it, why not help each other out? No one owes anyone sex.
I’m reminded that I’ve heard Hollywood celebrities (both men and women) complaining that they find dating hard and that (women especially) they just don’t get offers.
I find the whole idea of political fashion very wrongheaded. “Woke” functions in the same way as “cool”, except with a political meaning as well as a fashion one. It doesn’t work because fashion is inherently non-rational and unserious (which is partly what makes it fun, if you’re into it) but politics should be serious and intellectual; and because fashion is about finding the line between conformism and innovation in terms of personal expression, but obviously that is an inappropriately superficial approach to politics. And just as capitalism has infected feminism with its rhetoric of choice, celebrity culture has infected activism: Kim Kardashian and Alok Vaid-Menon are both “social media influencers”.
Slay = to succeed, to be amazing, to be the best.
I’m assuming slayworthiness = slaying, the expectation of slaying?
New slang always sounds silly to olds like me, but slayworthiness sounds especially silly.
@7, yes. So much yes. I take politics very seriously, simply because it actually affects peoples lives in ways from the mundane to the literally life and death. I practically scream in frustration when people say they voted for stupid, petty, ignorant, irrational and ephemeral reasons; or worse, don’t vote at all.
In other news: Straight men don’t want to sleep with men, story at 11.
It’s notable, though, that when it’s men being rejected by straight men, the reaction is “oh poor me”; but when it’s men being rejected by lesbians, the reaction is “DIAF you bigot!” Notable but not surprising.
It is, isn’t it. It was all terribly nonspecific about who these people are who won’t have sex with the slayworthy femmes. Maybe they’re all from Ruritania.
rob@6
“If all these people is after is a good fucking, and they don’t really care who does it, why not help each other out? No one owes anyone sex.”
Indeed. I find myself thinking – and sometimes suggesting – this very thing whenever I hear of a group of males (MRAs/transwomen/slayworthy femmes) aggrieved that women with particular characteristics (young conventionally attractive women/lesbians/masc boys) won’t have sex with them as often as they would like.
It is usually clear that these males feel they are being unfairly discriminated against, and feel sorry for themselves and/or enraged without noting their own hypocritical sense of entitlement in the matter.
I confess that I didn’t read the piece very carefully. But doesn’t this boil down to being shocked that the label you choose for yourself doesn’t have the power to change someone else’s perception of you? I can call myself Clooney-esque, but that won’t make people think I look like George Clooney.
Ben, for what it’s worth, you are exactly as sexually attractive to me as Clooney! Which, funnily enough, is exactly as sexually attractive as I find the slay-worthy one. Uptight and discriminatory of me I know.
@beauvoir’s baby #7
THANK YOU. I’ve been trying to find words for this for the last little while and you said it better than I could.
Style is not politics. It isn’t profound self-expression. Cross-dressing is not all that transgressive anymore, and as an end in itself it’s no more meaningful than a personal preference for warm colors over jewel tones. Some people need to get over themselves.
By the way, I hear that Alok wore a sari in India, and when women there weren’t impressed he called them privileged.
I am super glad that some people found my comment helpful, but upon re-reading it now I notice it could be expressed more clearly! But yes, fashion and politics do not mix.
That takes an especially brutal kind of introspective, self-pitying fuckwittedness.
From the article: “What they need is to be found deeply, undeniably fuckable.” SERIOUSLY?! What they NEED? To be found (i.e. viewed as) fuckable? How is that a need rather than a want? Ugh.
@18: It certainly *could* be a need, but it isn’t one that anyone is obligated to fulfill.
People in this frame of mind conflate personal needs with rights and entitlements.
Simply whining about being “femmezoned” points to their essential toxic male pattern entitlement.
This old git has a dictionary (male priveliged, it’s got a dic!) that defines ‘slay’ as ‘to kill’, and ‘worthy’ as ‘deserving of’. I’m sure that this is not what these ‘fabulous’ people mean, but they’re not doing trans people any favours by describing themselves as worthy of being slayed.
Just read (some of) the linked article, got as far as ‘Tinder has just added 37 gender identities’ and gave up. Thirty seven? A load of bollocks (non-gendered bollocks, of course), in my ever-so humble opinion. Scrolled down as far as the photograph of the three ‘fabulous’ and famous people. Hmm, is ‘famous’ another one of those words that have been re-defined recently?
A bunch of overgrown, attention-seeking childen playing dress-up and crying ‘Look at me, look at me’.
Does a human being have the right to live their life with no hassle while wearing whatever clothes and body adornment they want? Damned right.
Does a human being then have a right to demand other human beings find them “fuckable”? Well, no. Sorry, darlings, not a single person is obliged to find you attractive, much less to have sex with you. It doesn’t matter whether you’re plain ole cis (with or without issues relating to attractiveness, cleanliness or personality…), a trans person who has had to have hormones and surgery because of deep and abiding psychological trauma dependent on the body you were born into, or a fancy-schmancy gender-queer fashion plate. If people don’t wanna fuck you then you’re shit out of luck.
You have three choices. If being fuckable is the most important thing to you, then turn yourself into someone who is more mainstream fuckable (very hard, maybe impossible, if you’re the kind of trans person I described, and that truly sucks), work on your clothes, your presentation, your personal hygiene – but most importantly on your personality. Sorry MRAs and the like – the main reason you aren’t getting laid has nothing to do with mastery of NLP, or Alpha status, it’s more that you’re a bunch of unpleasant arseholes. Nice guys do get laid. Maybe not as often as you’d like, but certainly more than you do.
It’s probably worth noting that most people have a bit of a radar for the guy (or gal) who wants a fuck and nothing else. It tends to put a lot of people off when they pick up on that.
Your second option is to embrace your “identity”, or the body you have, and do the personality work anyway. Maybe you’ll find the lack of sex was never entirely to do with that identity, and more to do with being an unpleasant, self-obsessed wanker.
Thirdly, decide you’re perfect just as you are, and other people are stupid for not appreciating how fabulous you are. Learn to live with the lack of sex.
Steamshovelmania, to add a fourth;
Don’t blame or criticise straight men for not wanting to have sex with you. It doesn’t matter how fabulous you look, most straight men have no interest in having sex with a person who has a penis, and you have no right to call them out for that. They are not being transphobic, they are simply not bi-sexual, and no matter what label you give your own gender, your penis is not attractive to straight men.
Fifth, as per the linked article, I don’t know where you get the idea that straight men are most likely to be sexually adventurous. Maybe adventurous with women, even to the point of experimenting with dildoes and such, but I think that you need to set your sights on the bi\gay community.
Sixth, for God’s sake do not try picking up straight men without mentioning your genitalia. Hoping that a man will be so turned on that he will be too far gone to care when the surprise package is revealed could lead to a whole lot of heartache and, depending on the man and how much understanding he does or doesn’t possess, a lot of physical pain.
Yeah, I was amazed by the idea that straight men were the most adventurous regarding gender. They’re not moving in the same circles I am, that’s for sure. Classically, mainstream masculinity is waaay too insecure to tolerate ambiguity in gender presentation.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but it’s not really an additional choice! It’s a good piece of advice generally (though I think all that was covered by, “no one is obliged to find you sexually attractive”). Let’s give an overview and suggest it’s a really good idea to let your partner know what genitalia they will be encountering before a romantic date takes place. Assuming there is likely to be confusion about it. Many lesbians are no happier at the idea of a dick in their bed than many cis men. And a gay man is unlikely to be comfortable coming across an unexpected vulva… This is basically just a subset of informed consent.
Of course, this is a cliche that trans people complain about – the idea that they would end up in a sexual situation with someone without knowing how that person feels about a trans body. The argument I’ve heard, and it’s fairly convincing, is that they get enough shit without inviting it by doing something so dumb. (Maybe that’s another reason these guys are having problems. Word can get around… it may explain why they’re on Tindr too.)
I do find it interesting that they seem to think sexual orientation is culturally defined. (While trans is biological, totes obvs). In general we tend to assume that orientation is at least mostly innate. The actual science for that isn’t great – almost as bad as the science of trans, for that matter – but there’s certainly evidence that our proclivities are fully set by the time we reach adulthood. I do tend to the idea that most people are slung along the Kinsey scale while, to date, the ones nearer the het end tend to get fully shoved along that way, leaving only the strong homosexual scorers at the other end. After all, bisexuality doesn’t exist…
I looked at their photo. I saw 3 unequivocal guys. Regardless of their choice of clothes, if I wasn’t into men, I would not want to sleep with them – or date them. That’s not saying anything bad about their choice. Like the people they complain about, I applaud their non-conformity. But admiring their fashion statement is not synonymous with fancying them and nor should it be expected to.
I did have a quick look at the article…maybe too quick to notice, but I guess they themselves are only interested in men? That sounds a little close-minded to me. (My unsubstantiated sense is that women tend to be more diverse in attractions than men, so I’d have thought they’d have better luck with female people, of whatever gender/identity.)
There was a time in life, when I too was preoccupied and concerned by how others perceive me. That was in my preteens and teens, after which I grew up. I also learned some important lessons about people’s opinions, how much control I have over them, and how little real effect it has on my life. It continuously baffles me how important it seems to these people, that others perceive and/or think about them in exactly the way they want to be perceived/thought about. They seem to object even to “wrong” thoughts, let alone someone accidentally picking the wrong pronoun. Can they read minds? Are they psychically wounded every time someone sees them out and about and classifies them as being the wrong gender? What about if someone thinks they dress like an idiot with no taste, is that bad too? It all just seems like so much juvenile “but what will others think” preoccupation. Or is that just a side effect of people living their lives on social media in what seems to be an eternal popularity contest?
I just don’t understand.
I was also rather irritated by the impression, that these non-binary femmes are unique creatures in that they are having a hard time finding sexual partners and struggle with feeling desired and attractive. Well, join the bloody club mate. I can’t decide whether they’re completely lacking in self-awareness, or just have no awareness of the rest of humanity.
It’s somewhat “normal” for people to be self-centered in their youth…unless they live in such desperate circumstances that that’s not even possible, as much of the world’s population does. But this level and amplitude and baroque decoration of self-centeredness is pretty appalling. My guess is it’s an unavoidable byproduct of the internet & social media, but god damn it’s awful.
Maybe (it’s just occurred to me) in the future adults as self-obsessed as Trump will no longer be an anomaly.
The horror.
Thanks, Ophelia. That’s my nightmare for tonight sorted out
:-()
Steamshovelmania, re. insecurity about ambiguous gender; I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I am a straight male and have never felt sexual attraction to another person with a penis. However, I have always felt secure in my own sexuality and have never felt threatened by those of ambiguous gender or gay/bisexual men. I spent many years working the doors at pubs and clubs, including my town’s only gay club. I had no problems with any of the customers there, I didn’t mind the men and trans-women giving me a hug, and turned down their offers of something more gracefully (unlike some of my colleagues), I would happily play along with their flirting without feeling uncomfortable or threatened..I made a lot of friends from within that community, many of whom I still see regularly on a social basis.basis.
I think the point I’m trying to make is that whilst there are certainly a lot of masculine men who do feel threatened somehow by the GBLTQandwhateverotherlettershavebeenaddedthisweek people, there are a lot more of us who are simply secure in our heterosexuality and just aren’t interested in experimenting with other types of sexuality.
That said, it’s easy for me to say; I’m an old geezer who has had just the one sexual partner over the last 30 years and, whether or not my wife out-lives me, I very much doubt I’ll ever have sex with anybody else of any orientation anyway.
And in what world does,
translate as, “All men are insecure in their sexuality?”
I chose the modifiers I used deliberately.
I am shocked, shocked! to discover that there is more to dating than coming up with (supposedly) clever flirtatious dialogue. As Rick Springfield once sang, “And I’m lookin’ in the mirror all the time, wonderin’ what she don’t see in me/I’ve been funny, I’ve been cool with the lines/ Ain’t that the way love’s supposed to be?”
What a strange world indeed, where it is possible to admire someone’s personal and intellectual qualities without wanting to fuck them.
If Jacob thinks that it looks smashing to combine five-o’clock shadow with a floor-length dress and high heels, em is expressing emself and we must be supportive, because we mustn’t judge how someone else presents to society.
If you do not find Jacob attractive, then you are a shitty person who needs to get past your prejudices.
Jacob is entitled to appear however Jacob chooses to (or feels compelled to); you are not entitled to have aesthetic preferences or opinions regarding Jacob’s appearance, even if you are polite and keep them to yourself.
Yes, it’s a modern-day Algonquin Round Table. Much social capital. So slayworthy.
Bizarre that they would choose to pronounce it that way, instead of “FEM – zone”, which seems like a natural pronunciation and tracks its soulmate, the “friendzone” that MRAs whine about. But then, maybe that’s the point — the femmezone is much, much different than the friendzone. One is about being entitled to have sex with people who have spent time with you socially, and the other… hmm.
Strangely, in the entire history of the universe, this has never been said about “binary, gender conforming” people. No one has ever lamented that their supposedly “cute, smart [cis het] friend” can’t find someone.
Chokelaugh on the Algonquin Table bit.
Steamshovelmania, I wasn’t trying to suggest that’s what you were saying. I can only apologise for my ambiguous writing.
I had to look that up. Funny.
Slayworthy, that kind of wit and creativity is.
The photo in the article made me look up the fashion show scene from the movie Liquid Sky. Some years ago I traded email with Clive Smith who worked on the music. He said the director Slava Tsukerman liked the digital distortion in the 8-bit sound of the Fairlight CMI (an early digital sample keyboard system that was the highest-end product at the time), and the director asked him to play up that distortion.
@Dave Ricks, thanks for the reminder that this style of self-presentation isn’t exactly new–plenty of people were doing this in the ’80s. And I should remember since I lived through it!!
The lack of introspection and self-awareness seems to be exceptionally strong among the “woke”.
People who claim that the use of language is so important that incorrect words can “literally kill” someone perhaps ought to think twice about using a violent metaphor such as “slayworthy” as a term of praise.
Also, as seen in this article and elsewhere, it seems that many young woke trans and non-binary people often express a sexual preference for cis and/or heterosexual partners. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them having that preference, but one does wonder if/when it might occur to them that others might also have such preferences.
@Acolyte #30
Then I stand corrected. My apologies!
Thank you, Steamshovelmania.
Wow! Did we really just clear up a slight misunderstanding amicably? No shouting or pile-ons by angry mobs? We should give lessons on certain other sites :-)
ROTFL!
I think I know the site you mean… I used to be a long time reader, very occasional commenter. I rarely check in these days partly because of the dog-pile effect you describe, and partly the allied problem that Dissent Is Not Allowed. Wanting discussion seems to be automatically X-phobic and everyone seems committed to playing the oppression olympics. What happened to Ophelia was the last straw for me. This site is much more interesting and most posters are worth giving the benefit of the doubt.
I think it’s really important, when posting on line, to be very aware that one’s deathless, carefully chosen prose is likely to be misread. Humour rarely comes across… a problem for us Brits as we can rarely write a sentence that doesn’t contain some form of self-deprecating undertone, or subtly snarky commentary. And the deathless prose one writes is often in reponse to something one has skim read and inadequately digested. And comments are often fired off without enough thought. The internet is a poor arena for real communication.
So, if I have snapped, or misinterpreted, and someone has the grace to apologise then I can do no less. It’s a lesson that could be spread further…:-D
Theo Bromine @ 39 – indeed. That’s part of what I mean about the grotesque level of self-centeredness. THEY complain about not being found hot by all & sundry, but of course they have no such duty to others. Everything runs in one direction.
“What they need is to be found deeply, undeniably fuckable.” SERIOUSLY?! What they NEED? To be found (i.e. viewed as) fuckable? How is that a need rather than a want? Ugh.
But being fuckable (to straight guys) is the very greatest compliment you can possibly pay to a laydee-person, and is therefore the greatest goal for any given laydee-person. Ergo, NEED.
Also, “baroque decoration of self-centeredness” is rather excellent.
Thenk you.