20181222.0430

On 11 December 2018, Maria Anglin's "Time for 'Tomboy' to Go Away" appeared in the online San Antonio Express-News. The article offers a rumination on the term "tomboy," situating it in the context of the events that gave rise to the rumination. A working meaning for the term is advanced, and history and context of the term are discussed. So are the problems with the term "tomboy," including the discriminatory underpinnings of the term itself. Anglin adds a note about the relevance of labels and their ability to influence--strongly--self- and others' conceptions before ending on a call to move away from the term "tomboy" entirely.
I know there will be some who will lock onto Anglin's comment that "It's not meant as an insult, of course. Tomboy is a well-meaning holdover word from generations ago" and decry the rest of her article--which evokes a wonderful sense of family, a seeming South Texas aunt talking in the living room or out on the front porch--as being "social justice whining." "Even she admits it's not meant as an insult," they'll say, "so why is she complaining?" But these are often the same people who, while bemoaning the "overly sensitive" behavior increasingly prevalent 1) neglect to remember that people fought duels over perceived insults not too long ago, sometimes fatally, 2) neglect to remember the many times that they complain about being shut out through something "not meant as an insult", and 3) get themselves into a tizzy based on people who act differently from them being in the same area of the world. Because even they, when wounded by a thing not meant as an insult, realize that intent and effect are not at all the same thing.
If we set up a thing as being different--and according it a distinct label does so by its very nature; the "normal" is unmarked, and the unmarked gets the privilege of being "normal"--then we set it up for censure. Any difference attracts attention, and attracted attention is never all to the good; there are always detractors, there are always jealousies, and there are always those who, because they are asshats, will look for targets. Such labels as that Anglin discusses help illumine potential targets. And if people deviate from the "norm" in ways that do not harm others--because a little girl liking to run and climb and jump and play outside does not harm others, any more than does a boy who likes to play with dolls or have painted nails--why should they be made targets?
And there is another issue. "Tomboy" is not the norm, but it is not especially censured. Boys who tend towards what are commonly called feminine activities are called other words that are censuring--and worse. Among the many resonances of that different regard is the oft-repeated bit that masculinized activities are perceived as better; a girl suffers less to be boy-like than does a boy to be girl-like. So it is not only those called "tomboy" who find themselves under an onus; those who are not, those who are more girl-like, are shown that their normalcy is a weakness. And it may be true that such machinations are subtle, requiring attention from a particular vantage to emerge. But we do not decry a number of other problems that can only be seen and addressed from one angle; it makes little sense to decry yet others for such cause, when instead people ought to do more to adopt the perspectives that fixing such problems need.