shades fills you in

In December, an NYT Op suggested that “Little Women” author Louisa May Alcott might’ve been a trans man. It caused a bit of a stir

The Times said claims like this can get pretty contentious. While it’s widely agreed that Alcott didn’t conform to gender roles and stereotypes, some feminists take issue with the idea of calling non-conforming historical figures trans just because of that

For example, this Hill Op really didn’t like the idea that Alcott might be trans -- it totally devalues her as a radical, empowering “woman ahead of her time”

Unherd was similarly anti: Trans activists are setting back the feminist movement by trying to co-opt women’s lives, art, and role in history

This Washington Examiner Op agreed: What’s up with trying to turn all these historical figures trans? Like, the word “tomboy” exists -- let’s use it

This Medium writer said, “Well, there’s definitely a queerness to Alcott’s life and writings -- but isn’t convinced she was trans. She could’ve been a lesbian, or just frustrated with her social position as a woman. Lots of different interpretations are possible”

But Into Magazine is convinced, and pretty excited! Any transmasculine person reading Alcott’s journals and letters would clearly and strongly identify with them, and if that brings them joy, what’s wrong with that?