There are two major topics I deal with when researching and writing about this theme:
1. What are the models that people had to understand and conceptualize their identity?
2. How much can we trust the evidence we are given about that understanding, considering the circumstances in which that evidence was recorded?
Regarding #1, this is an area where I tend to lean to the "social constructionist" side. While I firmly believe that romantic and erotic impulses are unconsciously grounded (whether in genetics, epigenetics, environment, or--as seems most likely--some shifting combination thereof), I think it's pretty clear that how people understand and frame their impulses in that regard is strongly shaped by the cultural models they are offered.
As a fairly recent example, I think that the demographic shifts in what proportion of individuals identify as a butch lesbian or as a trans man may be better understood in terms of the availability of the cultural models, rather than as drastic shifts in the distribution of the underlying internal experiences.
For that matter, the rise of the cultural model of being non-binary or gender-fluid has made that self-identity much more widely available than when people would have had to invent the concept individually from scratch. (Which they did, on a regular basis, with concepts like "third sex".)
The cultural model of "passing woman" (i.e., AFAB living--though not necessarily identifying internally--as a man) has been available for a fairly long period in western culture. (At the very least, from the 15-20th centuries, possibly earlier depending on how you interpret it.) During various parts of that period, the cultural model of "woman who romantically/erotically desires other women" was also available, but somewhat less commonly. Sometimes the two were imagined as intersecting, sometimes not. And the two models weren't always equally available, depending on place, time, and class.
And all that is without tossing in the cultural model of "hermaphrodite" which may, in some cases, have been inspired by physiologically intersex individuals, but in many other cases seems to have been used to categorize all manner of gender transgressions (as well as being rooted in a vast ignorance of the variety of genital appearance). At the times when "hermaphrodite" was available as a cultural model, people used it as an identity tool, both for themselves and for others. When it ceased to be an accepted cultural model, people generally stopped using it.
So it's my perception that the individuals who fit into the category "passing women" are unlikely to have all had the same motivations or the same internal impulses that led them to the choice. Rather, in each case, it may have been the available cultural model that best fit that person's needs at the time.
Which moves us on to consideration #2.
Looking at people's life stories (as opposed to their formal testimony), it's clear that there were a lot of different motivations for passing: economic, pragmatic, romantic/erotic. Strict notions of appropriate gendered behavior applied to a lot of aspects of life: to occupations, to desire, to behavioral affect.
A large number of passing women indicated that they were driven by the greater economic opportunities available to men (or by active avoidance of prostitution as an occupation). It's even possible that some of the passing women who had romantic or erotic encounters with women were doing so purely as part of the disguise, rather than from romantic/erotic desire.
We also have a number of stories where a person strongly articulates something that can best be understood as transgender identity. And we have an enormous number of stories where we have no first-person testimony as to how the individual understood their identity, or where that testimony is clearly shaped to the expectations of the audience under duress. (This goes in both directions: people affirming a female identity after passing, and people maintaining a male identity in the face of physiological examination.)
[Oops, comment got too long. Will continue in 2nd comment.]
no subject
1. What are the models that people had to understand and conceptualize their identity?
2. How much can we trust the evidence we are given about that understanding, considering the circumstances in which that evidence was recorded?
Regarding #1, this is an area where I tend to lean to the "social constructionist" side. While I firmly believe that romantic and erotic impulses are unconsciously grounded (whether in genetics, epigenetics, environment, or--as seems most likely--some shifting combination thereof), I think it's pretty clear that how people understand and frame their impulses in that regard is strongly shaped by the cultural models they are offered.
As a fairly recent example, I think that the demographic shifts in what proportion of individuals identify as a butch lesbian or as a trans man may be better understood in terms of the availability of the cultural models, rather than as drastic shifts in the distribution of the underlying internal experiences.
For that matter, the rise of the cultural model of being non-binary or gender-fluid has made that self-identity much more widely available than when people would have had to invent the concept individually from scratch. (Which they did, on a regular basis, with concepts like "third sex".)
The cultural model of "passing woman" (i.e., AFAB living--though not necessarily identifying internally--as a man) has been available for a fairly long period in western culture. (At the very least, from the 15-20th centuries, possibly earlier depending on how you interpret it.) During various parts of that period, the cultural model of "woman who romantically/erotically desires other women" was also available, but somewhat less commonly. Sometimes the two were imagined as intersecting, sometimes not. And the two models weren't always equally available, depending on place, time, and class.
And all that is without tossing in the cultural model of "hermaphrodite" which may, in some cases, have been inspired by physiologically intersex individuals, but in many other cases seems to have been used to categorize all manner of gender transgressions (as well as being rooted in a vast ignorance of the variety of genital appearance). At the times when "hermaphrodite" was available as a cultural model, people used it as an identity tool, both for themselves and for others. When it ceased to be an accepted cultural model, people generally stopped using it.
So it's my perception that the individuals who fit into the category "passing women" are unlikely to have all had the same motivations or the same internal impulses that led them to the choice. Rather, in each case, it may have been the available cultural model that best fit that person's needs at the time.
Which moves us on to consideration #2.
Looking at people's life stories (as opposed to their formal testimony), it's clear that there were a lot of different motivations for passing: economic, pragmatic, romantic/erotic. Strict notions of appropriate gendered behavior applied to a lot of aspects of life: to occupations, to desire, to behavioral affect.
A large number of passing women indicated that they were driven by the greater economic opportunities available to men (or by active avoidance of prostitution as an occupation). It's even possible that some of the passing women who had romantic or erotic encounters with women were doing so purely as part of the disguise, rather than from romantic/erotic desire.
We also have a number of stories where a person strongly articulates something that can best be understood as transgender identity. And we have an enormous number of stories where we have no first-person testimony as to how the individual understood their identity, or where that testimony is clearly shaped to the expectations of the audience under duress. (This goes in both directions: people affirming a female identity after passing, and people maintaining a male identity in the face of physiological examination.)
[Oops, comment got too long. Will continue in 2nd comment.]