I often hear people use the phrasing of “fem-presenting” or “masc-presenting” as shorthand for women and feminine people or men and masculine people. However, this phrasing still tends to flatten gender to one of two categories, while also being insensitive to the way non-cis people are treated based on how they are perceived, regardless of their identity.
Firstly, using “fem-presenting” to describe women and feminine people puts all women and all feminine people in the same category. In theory, this would include all women (feminine, masculine, butch, trans, and androgynous women) as well as all feminine nonbinary people. But where does this leave masculine women? Are they “fem-presenting” simply because they are women, or are they “masc-presenting” because they don’t perform femininity?
Similarly, “masc-presenting” would include all men (masculine, feminine, trans, and androgynous men), as well as all masculine nonbinary people. Are feminine men “masc-presenting” because they are men, or does their femininity count as “fem-presenting”?
As much as I understand and love broad terms, this case should be an exception. The terms “fem-presenting” and “masc-presenting” suggest homogeny in how these groups present, how they are perceived, and how they experience that perception. However, such a wide range of people cannot possibly all be perceived in the same ways.
For example, a feminine cis man and a masculine trans man are both arguably “masc-presenting.” However, the cis man is much less likely to be interrogated about which washroom he uses. How either of them presents is irrelevant; how they are perceived (often how well one can pass) is what matters.
When talking about trans peoples’ lived experience, how one is perceived certainly can be influenced by how one presents, but not always. For example, a trans guy can take hormones, dress masculinely, change his name, do all the traditional steps of transition (although medical transition may not be a goal for all trans folk). None of those steps guarantee that he’ll pass as a cis man in every scenario. Lumping him in with cis men as “masc-presenting” assumes that he’ll have the same level of privilege afforded to cis men, which is just untrue.
Not only are different “fem/masc-presenting” people perceived differently within the same group, but many people are perceived differently day to day. A trans guy with long hair may bind one day and be perceived as a feminine man, then not bind the next day and be perceived as a masculine woman. Should he count himself as “fem-presenting” or “masc-presenting,” or should it change with his appearance (or perceived presentation)?
The terms “fem-presenting” and “masc-presenting” just replicate the gender binary—I’ve never heard anyone say “androgynous-presenting.” That’s not to say there aren’t androgynous people: there are, but they are often forced to choose a side (or a side is chosen for them).
If these categories have so much diversity within them, and arguably more overlap than consistency between categories, are these terms more harmful than helpful? To me at least, they seem to be just more politically correct ways of saying you think someone is mostly a woman or mostly a man, regardless of their identity or lived experience.
The terms “fem-presenting” and “masc-presenting” just aren’t useful. These terms, which allegedly promote inclusion, ultimately reinforce the gender binary and create more confusion than clarity.