How to get out of an uncomfortable egg culture situation with this one simple trick.
Real talk: Calling people eggs is a violation of the egg prime directive, and is considered invalidating as you are trying to say that a person is not the gender they identify as, that their identity is invalid. Don’t call people eggs, like ever, it’s extremely uncool.
The big problem when it comes to trying to help people who exhibit “signs” like what you’re saying is that the Venn diagram between signs of being Transfeminine, and Gender-Nonconformity is almost a complete circle. And when overlapping sections are used to claim someone is trans, or could be. It ends up coming across as invalidating not only to their identity, but it also comes across as enforcing gender stereotypes. As if wearing a dress, wearing makeup, presenting feminine, makes someone a girl.
CW: GNC invalidation
Like what this meme is trying to implicitly say:
Whenever people bring up signs, they sometimes bring up the ones that don’t overlap, but oftentimes they do not. Oftentimes they go for easy ones and roll with it, and that’s where the problems come from. Frankly we need less gender stereotypes in the world, not more of them. The overlapping sections of the Venn diagram should be considered radioactive.
Also like you said it needs to be done in a therapeutic setting where they are safe and can pump the brakes whenever they wish to stop. Something that isn’t afforded to them in egg situations online.
What I mean by this is that, for a person to think they can get between someone and themselves they have to break the cardinal rule about respecting people’s gender identity. I’m not denying the challenges of denial, it can be very hard for people. I’m saying that suspecting a person is in-denial has to be treated with care and isn’t and cannot be a provision to violate that cardinal rule of identity respect. They also need to be respected as a person and that means their thoughts and feelings need to be listened to. Something that doesn’t happen at all in situations of “egg cracking”.
I am inclined to agree with you that there is a problem in that transfems are inclined to generalize their experiences and project them onto others, particularly people who fit certain characteristics like feminine boys. I think a good analogy would be the common way cis people assume feminine boys are gay, rather than that they are trans. Transness for cis people is often unthinkable or so stigmatized you shouldn’t suggest the possibility, while gayness is more common and “easy” explanation for a boy’s femininity.
However, I still tend to think that the flow here is wrong - a trans identity is much harder to assert in this society than a cis one, so I would think we should be more sensitive about creating an environment that is even over-corrective in its support of trans identities. The idea that what we really need to do is stop using a trans interpretive framework for trans-coded behavior seems like the wrong direction, people are already being denied that trans interpretation by everyone else in society.
This doesn’t mean that toxic or aggressive “egging” as you call it is justified, but I think it makes sense why so many trans people do this considering they are reacting to a hostile culture that tries to deny them trans experience and reality. I do think it does mean that we should at least have some tolerance for trans people who think from their experiences, from a trans lens that is. Particularly for less obvious or indirect forms of egging. I guess I am worried here that an extreme over-application of the egg prime directive would result in trans people being punished for their trans perspective and potentially reasonable interpretations, even if we agree that they really shouldn’t be projecting those things onto others.
I’m just not sure we can avoid that people see things in patterns and use generalizations - it makes communication more efficient and feasible even if it can be damaging at times. I guess my point is that we can’t take extreme positions on either side - we can’t and shouldn’t eliminate stereotypes entirely, even if stereotyping can obviously be problematic and damaging.
Yeah, I pretty much agree that etiquette online should include not directly telling someone they are trans. However, I think trans people in denial do need help sometimes accepting that they are trans, which is why I think egg communities exist online in the first place - the cognitive dissonance of the trans person results in seeking communities that will understand and affirm them even when they are not fully on-board with being trans yet. You see this in gay communities too, men who refused to admit they are gay and refuse to identify as gay, but who continue to engage in the gay community online. The cognitive dissonance doesn’t stop them from needing connection to the gay community, and it is not entirely wrong to interpret them as gay even as they refuse to identify that way. Sure, it might be rude or toxic to repeatedly and directly override their self-identity as straight, but it also wouldn’t be entirely right to deny their gayness either or to censor people who are engaging in any discussion that tries to help them see how they might be gay, etc. There is a big difference between telling someone what they are confidently and just giving a person your impressions and letting them determine their self-identity still, but both might be considered overriding or “egging” in the trans context.
I agree with you on this, but to be honest that’s not what I understood you to be saying, what you said was:
I certainly think I was in-denial of being trans to my partner, for example - and I did have a kind of responsibility to figure out my shit to reduce harm to them as well as myself. In a way we do have duties we cannot neglect when it comes to how we identify. I agree with you of course that this isn’t unilateral or extreme, again I keep noticing black and white thinking from you where there aren’t grey areas - either identity is entirely in a vacuum lest we are subject to toxic coercion - the reality is probably in-between. My partner could not force me to identify as trans and it wouldn’t be right for them to coerce me to help see that I was trans, even if I did have a kind of duty to not harm which I was doing by being in denial. It’s messy, not clean-cut.
I get what you are saying, but when one defines or perceives actions of gender non-conformity as being “trans-coded behavior” it validates and strengthens gender stereotypes, and undermines efforts to break down gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes which do indeed hurt the trans community, as this view often can turn on them very quickly. I’m not a fan of promoting gender stereotypes as something “trans friendly” which is what the idea that they are “trans-coded behavior” does. It makes them more valid than they are or should be. That’s why, like I said, the overlapping area of the venn diagram should be treated as a hazard zone.
Honestly I think that might be a real concern and ultimately some very well might be. However in a lot of ways many already are. People who express transmedicalist beliefs are often barred from many trans communities and spaces, and this one isn’t an exception. People who express misogyny or transmisogyny as a form of gross euphoria, or ‘ewwphoria’ as it’s known colloquially, find themsleves excluded from spaces, again, this one isn’t an exception either. It is unfortunate that people who might very well need support just as much as the others are punished for their own views. However, in these cases they are expressing sentiment and behavior that is harmful to the others. Ultimately a line must be drawn to protect those who are vulnerable, and the moment others start getting hurt is where the hammer comes down.
I’m in agreement we can’t eliminate stereotypes entirely, but I do think efforts to eliminate gender stereotypes are noble and should continue. Ultimately gender stereotypes heavily restrict the way people are allowed to present themselves, and as I already said do bite trans people in the ass too. We might not be able to escape all stereotypes, but we should try to cut back on or eliminate the most harmful ones.
Actually I see this as just as problematic as egg culture in general. What you speak of is indeed very toxic and can be deeply hurtful to the people non the receiving end. The nail in the coffin being that it was the driving force behind a lot of biphobic sentiment in LGBTQ spaces, saying that Bi people are just gay-in-denial. Actually as an Ace person who used to participate in general LGBTQ communities I personally experienced some of this with people saying I’m a “Celibate” and gay-in-denial. It didn’t last, I told them to fuck off, but still that IS toxic. I’ve seen very similar fallout in egg communities with Nonbinary and Genderfluid people being casualties, in addition to people who are just Gender Non-conforming.
So while it is important to help people come out, it needs to be done in a way that isn’t hurtful, or worse, discriminatory. Enbyphobia and Biphobia are very often byproducts of this type of overzealous cracking.
I agree, real life is messy and not always clear cut. Which is a big part of why the egg prime directive exists. To stop it from getting even messier. Everything is a tradeoff ultimately, the question is whether the drawbacks are worth the gain. I and many others seem to think that the egg prime directive offers gains by making people feel safer to express themselves without having to worry about their identity being debated or challenged by others. Not everyone will agree of course but you can’t win them all unfortunately.