# Talk:Femboy

Unless much substance is added, I think this would be better off at Wiktionary. A. Rosenberg (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recently edited this article changing the first sentences from "Femboy... is a slang term for a male or non-binary individual who express themselves with traditionally feminine behaviours." to "Femboy... is a male or non-binary individual who express themselves with traditionally feminine behaviours." This was to put it in line with the policy described in WP:ISATERMFOR, which states: "Most Wikipedia articles are not dictionary entries, and opening sentences like the above ought to be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Editors should boldly replace these cumbersome phrasings ("is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to") with the more direct "is" construction". I don't see how this article would be an outlier in that sense, how is this article's scope distinct from what the articles for, say, butch, dandy or even boy do? Also, according to WP:REFERS, "the introduction is using a term, rather than mentioning it", meaning the article should be about what the word refers to, rather than the word itself, as that is what Wiktionary is for. Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. However, we do have articles about words themselves and pieces of slang; in a broader sense, something like Jazz (word) doesn't really belong on Wiktionary; in a narrower scope, see something like Twink (gay slang), or Femme. When I wrote this, I put it in the latter direction, where we're focusing on the word itself; indeed, that's how it's discussed in quite a few of the sources, especially the academic papers. I don't think femboy has enjoyed as much usage as a noun that dandy, for example. If you want to try rearranging the article to focus on what a femboy is, feel free, but right now, the majority of the article is about how the word is used and its associations so I think it would be a bit strange if the lede just went in a different direction.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with wikipedia editing and discussion etiquette, but I am very familiar with the history of this term from 2010 - present. 
The sentence "Around 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan" is not accurate and should be revised. More effort should be made to provide a complete history of the term's evolution since the 1990's. The term was frequently used in online communities connected to yaoi well before 2018. Its use before this time was very widespread, to the extent that sources to cite should not be difficult for anyone to find, regardless of their familiarity with the term. 2601:642:C003:8780:E866:8D84:D36C:65CE (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: Firstly, sex and gender are completely different things.

Just because an individual has a penis does not mean that they are male.
Just because an individual has a vagina does not mean that they are female.
Besides genitals (external sex organs), sex is defined by presence of many anatomical structures such as gonads (internal sex organs e.g. testes, ovaries), accessory reproductive organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, prostate, etc.), sex hormones, secondary sex characteristics, etc.
I know that anatomy has nothing to do with the article.
But differences between sex and gender must be stated.
Male ≠ man
Female ≠ woman
Intersex ≠ non-binary
This is because sex and gender are different things.
It is possible for people to be born without any gender, and they are called agender people.
But it is impossible for people to be born without a sex.
what does intersex have to do with anything?
Many intersex people are non-binary, and can also use "femboy" as a label.
You said "we're talking gender here"; "male" is not a gender; "male", "female", and "intersex" are sexes; "man", "woman" and "non-binary(ies)" are genders, along with the agender trait.
The lead sentence can either be:

"A femboy is a male or intersex individual..."

"A femboy is a man or non-binary individual..."
I think that the latter is better because the article mentions gender, and not anatomical sex. 
Also, it would be better if all instances of sex are replaced with gender, except for the fact that sex has nothing to do with being a femboy. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 15:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: Hello! Honestly, what you said at the beginning surprised me. I am one of the main editors of transgender topics at ptwiki, and I am literally questioning my gender identity! I'm genuinely sorry if my first impression was that I was transphobic; the complete reverse of that! I know well the distinction between sex and gender. Here we just had a misunderstanding regarding the usage of the word "male". Wikipedia's own article for Male states: "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity." And currently, the word "male" in the femboy article links to "male gender". So it is clear that "male" is referring to gender here. That's why I said we were talking gender there. I'd also note that we could be excluding AFAB male or non-binary femboys — which are completely valid — if our lead referred to male sex and intersex instead. Like you said, "sex has nothing to do with being a femboy", so we should indeed only be mentioning gender. The current lead is perfectly fine considering "male" refers to gender here; however, I'm not opposed of changing "male" to "man", if it clears up confusion. Skyshiftertalk 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyshifter: The article for male is not a Wikipedia policy. It is WP:VAGUE and confusing to use words, that generally refer to sex, to refer to words that generally refer to gender.
The usage of "male" to refer to the "man" gender, and usage of "female" to refer to the "woman" gender cannot be justified, because if it were, then "intersex" could also be used to refer to "non-binary", but it isn't. There is no valid reason for such ambiguous usage of words, since it rather causes confusion to readers.
This ambiguity in usage of words, for sexes and genders, is rather discriminatory, and, to be fair, transphobic in some cases.
Unfortunately, most Wikipedia policies such as MOS:GENDER, MOS:GENDERID, MOS:LEAD, etc. do not differentiate between sex and gender.
I think it would be better if we propose changes to these policies at WP:VPP, which I have been thinking about for some time. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyshifter: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Sex and gender distinction in policies, but we need more support for such changes. Also, these changes are not limited to only policies, but also, essays, Wikiprojects, and all other pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
I believe that such changes are absolutely important for gender-neutrality, sex-neutrality, and inclusivity of all people.
As a fellow LGBTQ+ ally, I sincerely and humbly request for support for this proposal. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 18:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@CrafterNova: Sorry for not responding to your ealier comment, I forgot. I don't think I have a formed opinion on the matter. From what I've seen, it does seem that terms like "male" and "female" can refer to gender very commonly in English, so looking from that perspective, it doesn't seem outright wrong to use the terms that way. Language can change over time, and it seems that "male" and "female" can refer, respectively, to "man" and "woman" nowadays. However, as a non-native English speaker, I can possibly be missing the nuances of the meanings or differences between the words male and man, and female and woman. Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
"male" doesn't inherently mean AMAB. I would argue that transgender men are male despite being AFAB, for example. "male or nonbinary" and "man or nonbinary" IMHO mean roughly the same thing.  Tdmurlock (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel we should remove this; "Reddit has hosted both sexual and non-sexual femboy content: r/feminineboys was started in 2012 and has two hundred fifty one thousand members by February 2024; the site also contains the pornographic r/FemBoys."
I feel this is more of an "expression" thing as opposed to "presence", and tbh is this really need to be mentioned? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In the "Attributes" section, there is a passing reference to femboys using bicalutamide as part of feminizing HRT to avoid breast growth. This is very much not accurate.
I am a transgender woman on feminizing HRT, and I take bicalutamide daily. Bicalutamide is often prescribed as an antiandrogen, meaning it blocks testosterone. It does not, however, prevent any breast growth (I have a 34C chest). Tamoxifen can be prescribed to do so, but it also has some pretty dangerous side effects. Ashrose688 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"seeing that the muscularity of femboys as differentiating them from the labels of effeminate or gay."
are femboys aren't effeminate? What? What does this even mean? The previous quote doesn't even mention muscularity. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

who is this random dude with a skirt and thigh high do we even have the permission for that image? this is un-encyclopedic Ratiorain (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

a) a Brazillian femboy Instagram model b) yes, check the VRT ticket on Meta c) why? generally it seems to sum up the core elements of being a femboy, and is immediately identifiable as such, so serves well as the lede image. not sure how it's unencyclopaedic, we're not WP:CENSORED - not an arguement per se, but it's on most of the other language edition wiki pages for Femboy.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
a Brazilian femboy instagram model? this doesnt sound too general for it to be put in a article that displays a neo-adjective, it should still be replaced with a more general image and not a random image of a Brazilian guy, perhaps a more popular figure will do the job. Ratiorain (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
We already have an image of a more notable figure who is or was known then as a femboy, of F1NN5TER, which has been around for over a month now. I see no problem with using a very casual(?) image here, perhaps it proves that femboys are less of a novelty, so to speak. Carlinal (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I'm pondering over removing the image of F1NN5TER that you added, over its relevance to the attributes section. I'm concerned about applying images more loosely on this article, especially after I removed a poorly placed third image of a femboy (excluding the flag) and there doesn't seem to be any weight in adding F1NN5TER's image here. There's neither a cited mention of him nor Twitch although there is a mention of gender fluidity in a subsequent section. Maybe in terms of fashion his image is unique, but I don't see how it's enough to differ from the head image. Could you provide a justification or counterargument? Carlinal (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Carlinal: My argument would be simply, it makes sense for the attributes section to have an image of someone who exemplifies several of the things discussed in that section, and it is furthermore good for the article to have an image of a notable femboy (or a notable person who at least identified as a femboy when the photo was taken—bit less clear now). The image is of higher quality than the one in the lede, so if we're going to use only one, it should be F1NN5TER's... But I'm not sure why we can't have two.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Funny. I used basically this exact reasoning in a previous section. Guess I wasn't sure if that's a legit argument initially. Indeed, if a(n Internet) celebrity is into it, who wouldn't? Thanks for the response, I'll leave it alone. Carlinal (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Should be removed now that they openly identify as a trans girl and therefore the inclusion of it as well as calling them a "he" is derogatory. JackVegas7 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@JackVegas7 Where is the article calling him "a he"? You're acting as if you were F1NN5TER himself, because in all sources, news, and his social media accounts state he uses both he and she pronouns. So using "himself" is correct. If you act as if he is not genderfluid, the one misgendering him is you. LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
did they change their mind again or something? everything i have heard is that they're a trans girl, not genderfluid or something, but actively transitioning and openly a trans girl. Either way, genderfluid = not a femboy. Femboys are cis males. Still a bad image to have added (as well as them not really using the term to self describe anyways/believing femboys are a fad and its just a gateway to being trans, which is cringe lmfao.) JackVegas7 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/shorts/tbyZNMEwpfs?si=sgb5L-sZSe9SJ1Q7
they actively state they "made it 4 years" of being a femboy and no longer use the term. If nothing else its not accurate to have the image anymore. JackVegas7 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I noted this in § Image RfC below, but just to avoid this sitting here unrefuted: No, he identifies as genderfluid, taking he/him or she/her with preference for the former. [1][2] Not sure if he's referred to himself as a trans girl, but if he has, it's not in the binary sense of the term. As to the word "femboy" specifically, he still refers to himself as "Worlds #1 Femboy™" on OnlyFans.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
So...not a femboy.
They use it for porn addicts attention, but then refuses to use the term otherwise and elsewhere.
God Finn in general has been nothing but a curse on the femboy community, putting them here when they aint a femboy and dislike it and put down the term is stupid, ESPECIALLY when they groomed their audience into believing they were trans instead. leaving that picture up is stupid. 47.214.244.227 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding who is valid as a femboy. We have the photo because it's a good image of someone who has been a prominent example of the femboy aesthetic. Even if Finn entirely disavowed the word "femboy," the image would still be suitable for that purpose. Wikipedia guidelines don't even require an image to ever have depicted the thing it's used to illustrate, let alone require it to currently depict that. But in this case, it does currently depict that, because "femboy" is one of several gender labels Finn currently associates himself with.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
F1n is on hormones, which does not represent most femboys, and slightly conflicts wit the definition of femboy. Image should be replaced with a more cookie cutter form. Notavalidperson (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
This, F1NN5TER is trans now, not a femboy. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
He describes himself in different places as genderfluid (e.g. his Twitter), trans (e.g. this interview), and a femboy (e.g. his OnlyFans). These are not mutually exclusive terms.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the image titled 'a femboy' to another picture, that'd be a little more expressive, and preferably not contain a minor.
I got in touch with a femboy and got his approval to use his picture Elagabalus83 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's great, but what exactly is wrong with the head image we have right now? I don't think it's a problem with a teen if it's over identity expression, my argument being that femboy isn't exclusively pornographic, and if it's used as a comfortable label among minors in the same way that "trans" or "non-binary" are, then that's perfectly fine. I encourage it, even.
Also, I did some research over the credited model in the image (Cavi.jpg), CavifaX. He has a Newgrounds account stating he's 27. If the Newgrounds account isn't actually him I'm interested in a counterargument. ∩^ω^∩ Carlinal (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Great points being made, and thanks for clarifying the model's age! I guess my suggestion to change the image would be more about expression rather than age after all. There are much better images out there of femboys when it comes to calrity. If we want to do a good job expressing what a femboy is through a picture, we should use one where the model is wearing as many of the attributed clothings and elements as possible ( not just thigh highs and skirts, but crop tops, arm warmers, fishnets, dolphin shorts etc.). The current model only dressed feminine from the waist down. I think as the face of the femboy identity we could use a picture much more telling.
I'd love to hear your thoughts or even a counterargument :D it's always nice to debate with smart people ⸜ᵔ ω ᵔ⸝ Elagabalus83 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! I wouldn't mind if you uploaded the image anyway, that means we have more options. Carlinal (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity! I got permitssion from the model and uploded the picture (Jo The Femboy.jpg)  Elagabalus83 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it got deleted immediately. Túrelio said there's "No evidence of a free license at the claimed source." Can you contact them about this? Perhaps the file can get a ticket of confirmation about its license. Carlinal (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Joost europapa 91.233.50.127 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Current photo is FemboyPup.jpg which is just... eh? Are cat-ears supposed to be female? Or are femboys meant to be furries? There's some cringe stereotyping going on here and I'd prefer a more normal example of a femboy to be in the photo. FMasic (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There are additional options over at Commons:

		
			
			
		
		
			
			
		
		
			
			
		
 Ca talk to me! 12:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Should a dropshipping store really be an external link? While there is some blogs about femboy culture, I really think there are some better options for additional infomation. 628318Tau (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

1: There is no sexual connotation inherent to the term. Femboys are non-sexual at a baseline, and their definition is completely unrelated to sex.
2: Feminine "behaviors" is not accurate, as generally the common definition for femboy reflects a personality along the lines of a normal average male as opposed to behaving in ways considered traditionally feminine. The femininity, or "fem" in the word "femboy" is related to the appearance of the individual, not the personality.
3: Gender variance is also inaccurate, as femboys are cis males. It is not accepted broadly to be anything other than cis males, though some contend this point, very few agree with them, and the general consensus is cis males are the only ones eligible to be considered femboys, with no other gender identities being applicable to the term, instead falling under the category of "roseboy" or similar terms.
4: In gender studies it is NOT a term for trans people, as it is seen as heavily derogatory to refer to a trans individual as a "femboy" or similar terms such as "tomboy" 
5: In porn studies there is no clear cut role for femboys, nor is it used specifically to denote a "submissive" individual, nor is it considered an identifier for a submissive male.
6: The term "boi" means young gay man??? What? Its just a slight change in spelling for boy. Not once has boi been used to mean "young gay man", not in pop culture nor in technical terminology.
7: Non-binary individuals are not femboys. Femboys are exclusively cis males.
8: "femboi" is simply an alternative spelling to Femboy, with no specific connotation towards other gender identities or anything. The word you would look for for non-cis male identities fitting the description would be roseboy, as femboys are exclusively cis males.
9: Sissies have nothing to do with femboys, as it is a fetishization of being trans, not anything to do with being a femboy.
10: It is not used to signify a bottom role, nor is that the purpose of the term. A femboy is a femboy, that does not come with a role attached.
11: Boywife is a word with nothing to do with femboys, instead relating to a male who takes on a traditional housewife role, with feminine qualities being optional beyond that. The most hyper masculine man on earth could be considered a "boywife" fitting the role of a housewife.
12: "Pussyboy" is another word for the slang term "cuntboy" which is to denote a male with female genitals, and a derogatory slur for trans men, generally those who are pre-op.
13: "Exclusively seek to be" that whole sentence is outright just, incorrect, and with no substance or backing. Sounds more like a fetishization as opposed to anything substantiated by reality, and therefore is irrelevant fluff unfitting to the article, as well as an unnecessary and inaccurate addition to it.
14: Femboys have certainly been fetishized, and with that being a problem, a great deal of division has happened within the community itself, with strict definitions being made and those falling outside of it harshly judged and berated for using the term inaccurately.
15: Femboys have no desire to transition. They are comfortable as males and seek nothing further besides maintaining a feminine appearance. A femboy seeking to transition is what is known as an "egg", which is a person who is on the verge of a realization of a trans identity.
16:  "Around 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan" Who...who wrote this? have they just...never been on the internet, ever? 
17: "femboy outfits" is an active contradiction considering the fact that this article also makes the correct claim that being a femboy has no inherent need to crossdress nor is it a mandatory part of the identity.
Generally this article needs a great deal of touching up. A lot of incorrect information or contradictory info is present. JackVegas7 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You will need to provide sources to support all this, especially since most of your claims seem to be contradicted by sources already in the article. I don't have time right now to go through all of them, but just taking a few at random:6. is supported by [3]7. is supported by [4]8. I'm not sure what you're objecting to; the only place the article distinguishes the sematics of "femboi" from "femboy" is "the variant femboi may refer to "softer" individuals" which is supported by [5]10. is supported by [6]16. is supported by [7]Overall the article seems well-sourced; if you see any statements that are not sourced you can bring them up here, but objecting to sourced content without providing any sources that support your opinions is not actionable or constructive. CodeTalker (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
First source substantiates no claims, simply makes it on its own without any precedent set for it. Furthermore, research into it claims the term is used for significantly more than the applied term used here, denoting everything from trans, genderqueer, or as a regular definition I saw on research, a lesbian who adopts a boyish apperance. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boi
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/boi
https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Boi
With so many contrasting definitions from various sources, its relevance to the article is largely fluff at best.
2nd source is a source of contention upon research, but the broader consensus is that cis males are the only femboys, and from a stricter definition, would be the common consensus and proper definition (with Roseboy being pointed out as an alternative term for those outside of cis male requirement within the page itself.) https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Femboy
Furthermore, a major LGBTQ app's wiki also explicitly makes the statement of femboys being exclusively cis males. https://taimi.com/wiki/femboy-what-is-it-what-does-it-mean
3rd source has no corroboration, and upon research I could find nothing else that explicitly called a difference between the two. Even the wikipedia page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminacy#:~:text=Femboy%20(alternatively%20spelled%20femboi)%20is,portmanteau%20of%20feminine%20and%20boy. simply declares it as an alternative spelling.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=femboi
Other similar sites define or lump the two together as a net, and therefore any external usage is either A: unrelated to femboys and the page, or B: is simply just an alternative spelling used in slang the same way "ion" is short for "i dont" or "hai" is another way to say "hi".
4th source is majority speculating and interpreting multiple sources as well as actively providing both sides of the coin involved directly quoting another source by saying "the problem is that we assume feminine men are bottoms in the first place. The all-consuming need to conform to archetypes punishes every gay man—why is it that, thousands of years on from Ancient Greece, we still bow to a heteronormative ideal of a masculine top and feminine bottom? (O’Flynn, 2018)", which would also refute the claim that the source explicitly supports or confirms this as set in stone, and often refers to the concepts of people fetishizing or stating roles alongside the term as "sexual fantasy" and arent considered definitive or outright claims to definiting the word, and the femboy term comes with no inherent bottom definition, otherwise concepts such as "femboydom" or the japanese equivalent of "josou seme" https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Josou%20Seme would be contradictory and nonexistent. Furthermore, the source also claims the usage of the term results from "sexual fantasies" in that manner, as opposed to any real definition. This source does not support the claim made, and the only two usages of the term femboy within the paper are both quoting people using the term in relation to either conversations had casually and not in direct definition, or in regards to a sexual fantasy without explicit definition attached. Simply stating an effeminate male is automatically a femboy is incorrect as well, as that would mean individuals such as James Charles, RuPaul, and other similar figures are femboys, when it is not the case, and more a matter of self description based on the definition already available.
Even simply looking up the phrase "femboydom" or "dom femboy" produces a number of results, already shooting down any concept of it being an inherently assigned position by term. A bedroom role is outside the definition of femboy and therefore is unassociated, as well as the source not contributing to the claim made.
5th Source does NOT support that claim either. In fact, there is no mention of 4chan on the page itself, and the examples of usage show common usages on everything from tumblr to reddit as far back as 2014. JackVegas7 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
i am a femboy who doesnt identify as particularly more "submissive" or dominant, has only ever dated women.. bothers me to see an article like this being taken seriously, thank you for working to debunk it 73.72.68.45 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Had it cited at me before, and then just looking through it shows a number of inaccuracies. If you wish to help, further find sources for my points in this previous post and perhaps we could get it updated to be improved to accurate depictions, as a number of sources are contradictory or just do not support or make the claim they are stated to validate. JackVegas7 (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hiya, I wrote the majority of this article, although I'm aware innaccuracies have been introduced by others (especially Chumchumlol) since I wrote it. When I did it, I pretty much took every source that had information on femboys, and collated them, and tried to make sure to include the author in the prose when something was controversial. If you'd like to improve the article, please do so: however, anything you can't just delete stuff that you think isn't true, and new information needs Wikipedia:Reliable sources: wikis, UrbanDictionary, "look it up" aren't.
Once the disruptive editing on this (don't worry, not by you) has stopped, I'm going to come back to the article in a couple of months and tidy it up, and if there are any new sources, I'll add them. I'll try to make it clearer when it's the opinion of a scholar - Professor X saying that the word femboy is used in the porn industry to mean Y is different from saying that "dom femboys don't exist", so I'll make that less ambiguous if no-one else does before me. Once again, please do introduce your suggestions, but only if you can actually reference it, or it's just mess for others to clean up .   Frzzl  talk; contribs  16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Aight
also, "professor x sayin y in porn industry" i know what you are talking about, and he made multiple claims otherwise and mostly seemed to just look over a bunch of stuff from various views. Let me know when you intend to continue and I will happily provide my own expertise in the matter (Having been apart of and within the community for over a decade now) and provide sources as I did to previous questions and comments to my other breakdown of what that guy brought up to me. Sources are still there if you wish to implement my fixes, although it seems I cannot edit stuff manually so I haven't tried to, well, implement them. JackVegas7 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
furthermore, a "reliable source" for a slang term could and would definitely include stuff like an official site regarding lgbt activity, and urban dictionarys highest voted option, dictionary sites regarding definition, the only one I could say you have a case for is the Wikis but those get corroborated by other sources alongside them. JackVegas7 (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

im a femboy, i prefer women. as many do. what is this fetishistic nonsense abt being a"bottom gay  identity". wikipedia editors are such incels i stg 73.72.68.45 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

the other person who pointed out that this article is terrible and incorrect is doing the lords work 73.72.68.45 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Most femboys are generally gynosexual, but thats not really something relevant to simply defining us so I never felt the need to get verified sources and whatnot to add it. We could definitely work to improve it. JackVegas7 (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

[Original heading: Reverted many of your edits on "Femboy"  7/26/2024]
Good afternoon my fellow American. I have reverted many of your edits for misunderstanding the contents of the articles which have been presented. You claimed that "Social Media + Society" was an article, however it was a scientific publication. You also claimed that it was referring to challenging heteronormative views of masculinity. That is simply not what the paper is referring to. It is referring to how beauty is rewarded digitally and it is showcased with femboys. It is also not referring to heterosexual content as triumphing homosexual content for the reason it is heterosexual, the paper is referring to how homosexuality tends to be more unpopular than heterosexuality. It has nothing to do with hereonomativity. I also reverted your claim of "The alt-right have deemed the emergence of the femboy a result of the LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory" because it is entirely nuanced to claim every self-proclaimed alt-right individual believes femboys to be a byproduct of the chemicals. For there is complexity which goes into political affiliation. However, a few of your edits were good and those were upheld. I once again removed a few anecdotes in which you and the people have added. Jolly day!  Chumchumlol (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chumchumlol, I am not American, but thank you for being willing to discuss this with me.
Due to femboy culture's popularity among the youth, some have speculated regarding the longevity of the femboy culture is not what the cited source is saying. It is not saying that the femboy culture is dying out, but an individual femboy may not be able to stay a femboy as they age.
Source: "Obvious questions arise in the face of the expressed desire to live through a prolonged boyhood: whereas other non-binary identifications commonplace elsewhere online, such as ‘agender’ or ‘androgyne’ suffer from simply being difficult for many to grasp, ‘Femboy’ seems evocative enough, but to be suggestive of a state that will struggle to be sustained. Can one remain a Femboy by the end of one’s 30s? 40s?"
As well as avoiding the difficulties which come alongside gender dysphoria . I don't see the cited source mentioning gender dysphoria. Can you point to a specific quote?
"representing an element of sexual fantasy" A direct quote was modified. A big no no. The source says "represents" not "representing". Brackets are used to indicate changes.
Many have deemed the emergence of the femboy a result of the LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory The source says that view is common to members of the alt-right, not to everyone. How about "many members of the alt-right"?
I think  Specifically, men’s engagement with the traditionally feminine domain of beauty and appearance is often veiled in allusions toward masculinities’ hegemonic qualities, particularly heterosexuality and muscularity, undermining the inclusive potentials of their content online.
A scientific publication of Social Media + Society has said the "femboy aesthetic" on TikTok "map[s] onto and reinforces extant patterns of gender inequality", and "how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces. I think we are arguing with semantics here, but scientific journals do publish articles, in most senses of the term. See the article on academic journal: "Content typically takes the form of articles presenting original research, review articles, or book reviews."
A direct quote was also modified without any brackets. I think we have differing interpretation of the study. First, the study was limited to the most popular creators only, not all creators on Tiktok. It would be misrepresenting the source to say otherwise.
Secondly, I disagree the study is about beauty standards. It is  about "radical" TikTok creators fail to challenge heteronormativity. It only discusses beauty as it relates to gender associations. Few examples from the study pointing this out:
First sentence: "News reports and online comments suggest that social media applications like TikTok play an important role in challenging traditional notions of masculinity."
"Specifically, men’s engagement with the traditionally feminine domain of beauty and appearance is often veiled in allusions toward masculinities’ hegemonic qualities, particularly heterosexuality and muscularity, undermining the inclusive potentials of their content online."
"Although these depictions have become slightly more varied (Barry & Martin, 2016; Ricciardelli et al., 2010; see also Attwood, 2005), they continue to reflect vestiges of the hegemonic male—namely they depict men who are heterosexual, muscular, and white (Waling et al., 2018)."
"In this way, men police the boundaries of normative masculinity and heterosexuality, asserting that, though they may transgress gender expectations, they are neither feminine nor gay" Ca talk to me! 06:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright Ca, let me start out by saying that I indeed make a rookie level blunder by not adding a source in for the "As well as avoiding the difficulties which come alongside gender dysphoria". I had the source pulled up but I forgot to cite it and now I have it and it'll be adjusted for. Now that has been completed.
As for "representing an element of sexual fantasy". I have removed the quotations and the problem is solved.
As for "due to femboy culture's popularity among the youth, some have speculated regarding the longevity of the femboy culture", a source has been cited.
As for "Many have deemed the emergence of the femboy a result of the LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory". I accept your bipartisan proposal to replace the sentence to "many members of the alt-right".
As for
"A scientific publication of Social Media + Society has said the "femboy aesthetic" on TikTok "map[s] onto and reinforces extant patterns of gender inequality", and "how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces."
I reject your idea to change that to
"An article in Social Media + Society has said the "femboy aesthetic" on TikTok "map[s] onto and reinforce[s] extant patterns of gender inequality", and "how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces".
Because it is still simply not an article but rather a scientific publication. However I will change it to
"A scientific publication of Social Media + Society has said the "femboy aesthetic" on TikTok "map[s] onto and reinforce[s] extant patterns of gender inequality", and "how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces."
I understand that you disagree the study is about beauty standards. But I ask you hearken to what the author has stated here's a direct quote from the abstract "our findings contribute to a broader discussion of the role that social media play in reproducing inequality along the lines of gender, race, and sexuality, including how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces." So yes, it is indeed partially about beauty standards.
As for your claim that "It is about "radical" Tiktok creators fail to challenge heteronormativity." I would like to point out that the source cited disagrees with you. They say "we find that TikTok creators both challenge and reinforce traditional notions of masculinity, subverting widely recognizable tropes, and gender norms". So no, they did not fail to challenge. They did challenge.
"In this way, men police the boundaries of normative masculinity and heterosexuality, asserting that, though they may transgress gender expectations, they are neither feminine nor gay" is quite the humorous part of the article where they're referring to how some don't consider liking femboys to be homosexual whatsoever.
However, it does not have anything to do with "A scientific publication of Social Media + Society has said the "femboy aesthetic" on TikTok "map[s] onto and reinforces extant patterns of gender inequality", and "how beauty is rewarded symbolically and materially in online spaces."
For that reasons I'll be upholding my edits/revising them. Thank you for reaching out. Chumchumlol (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the responses to my comments. However, there are some elements I still think are problematic.
The quote "As well as avoiding the difficulties which come alongside gender dysphoria" is sourced to a anonymous opinion piece on an advocacy organization Genspect. It only represents on person's experiences so it would not be a reliable source for the claim. Same goes for due to femboy culture's popularity among the youth, some have speculated regarding the longevity of the femboy culture", It is cited to an student-run newspaper in Oxford University. It would not be a reliable source for scientific claims related to sociology. Also, I don't see anywhere in the cited article saying that femboy culture is disappearing. Can you point to a quote in the cited article?
I do not understand your remark "Because it is still simply not an article but rather a scientific publication." Journals are publications that publish articles in a routine basis. Reputable publishers use the word "article" to describe their content: Every year, we accept and publish more than 470,000 journal articles Research Articles should not exceed 5 printed pages in the journal
Removing the quotation marks in  "representing an element of sexual fantasy" would be a worse solution since it is now unattributed copying of someone else's words. Use brackets instead like previous versions of the page.
I still disagree, but I do see your point. Would you like to get a third opinion on how to most accurate summarize the Social Media + Society  article?
On a unrelated note: I don't know how proficient you are in English, but "destroyed" has very strong and negative connotation in the English so using such words like "Revision of what Ca destroyed" would not be appropriate in a collaborative environment. Ca talk to me! 11:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to chime in to agree that Genspect should absolutely not be cited for anything per the past RSN discussion on it and it's general status as a WP:FRINGE organization. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the two sentences cited to Genspect. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I have relocated the discussion from my talk page to let other editors weigh in. Ca talk to me! 15:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Change "also spelt femboi, is a slang term for males" to "also spelt femboi, is a slang term generally used when referring to males or non-binary persons".
This will allow for the page to encompass more uses of the word "femboy" as it is used to refer to non-binary persons who are feminine. ItsThatOneJack (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This would need a source. See WP:V, WP:PROVEIT. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
 Partly done. The body already said this, so no further source was needed, although I've gone ahead and copied the source up to the lede anyways, as ledecites are generally a good idea on definitions of slang terms. I went with somewhat broader wording tha requested, though, as, per the source, "femboi" can also refer to women and transmasculine people.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, Is tomgirl and femboy the same thing? Or are they different? Should I add tomgirl to redirect to this page? Miyunya (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The best place to ask this is probably WP:RD. Also, tomgirl is already a redirect. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The word femboy, as it is defined currently, has no real origin point and noone has tried to investigate a concrete origin; so, to add a bit of context to the claim that it originated in the 1990s, one could use gay artist Ed Check's 1996 thesis as it explicitly mentions the word femboy on p.103 as a part of a 1992 art piece he created. I think the addition would go something as follows:
"The first documented mention of the word was in a 1992 work by gay artist Ed Check."
Here is a big qoute from the page, to confirm that the word femboy was used/developed/originated in the same way as suggested in the article:
"Nicknames at School (1992) continued to represent the paradigmatic shift in my art making. Nicknames at School coalesced my interests in masculinity, personal history and sexual identity. The 6" by 8" collage consists of a photo (from a 1960s health text) with accompanying text. Under a looming facade of a high school with hundreds of students waiting outside to enter the text reads: 'The things you learn and the experiences you have in school help to form your personality." I added more text in large letters along the bottom and right edges of the photo: candy voice, homo, f*g, c*cksucker, pansy, f*ggot, queer, femboy (my emphasis), and Nancy - all named I had been called at some point in school (...) those words, defining my experiences in school, were paradoxically a part of my healing and reclamation of my sense of masculinity, self-dignity and pride in my sexual identity" (p.103). HalfWayEssay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice find.! I would be hesitant to call it the "first documented mention" of the word, as someone could have found an earlier one. Some may also consider this WP:original research, which is not recommended by policy. It would be better to find an expert source (i.e. a dictionary) that has a list of early attestations. Ca talk to me! 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I figured it would clas with the original research clause, but as for the first thing I really have scoured pretty much every other source. WayBackMachine, supposed earlier mentions of it in queer groups, Google Scholar and even some queer archives and have come up empty handed at every turn; so saying "first documented mention" might be a bit overboard I agree, but maybe switching it to "one of the first" would work? Also dictionaries, as far as I've found (Dictionary.com; Wikitionary; Collins English Dicitionary), don't provide examples, which is why I went looking for one myself. But yeah it is a consideration game as to whether that outweighs breaking with WP:original research. HalfWayEssay (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been a lot of changes to both the lede image and the one in § Attributes, and discussions so far have been inconclusive, so it's probably time to have an RfC to get a formal consensus. I don't really like image RfCs but it's better than edit-warring. Below I've listed the four images that have been used in one or both of those slots, plus three mentioned by Ca above. If there's any previously used/proposed images that I've missed, or if anyone has other images to propose (see c:Category:Femboy), feel free to add them.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)


### Survey
Please first list your pick for the lede, then your pick for § Attributes.

B/G; D. A, B, and G are all good representative examples of femboy selfies, but the dirty mirror in A bugs me. For the second image, well I may be biased because I took the time to get a hold of the subject and get him to license it, but I think if there's precisely one Wikipedia-notable femboy it makes sense to include a photo of him, and D is a good illustration of the aesthetic that the section describes. (And since a few people in the past have been worried about misgendering, note that F1NN5TER is genderfluid and still calls himself the "Worlds #1 Femboy™" on OnlyFans.)  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I prefer B the most, mainly due to it having by far the highest resolution. Also the subject's face is not visible, which I suppose is a benefit when that is not the topic of discussion. D and G are also good images; E is decent, but since it doesn't show the bottom half of the subject's outfit at all, it is a less informative image than the others. I Oppose A and F on image quality – Tamzin has already pointed out the dirty mirror in A, and F is not quite in focus. As for placement, I think having B in the lead and D and/or G in #Attributes would be best. Toadspike [Talk] 10:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Seconded. Abolishedtemple (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
B – High quality size-wise, clear depiction of the style, anonymity of the subject. I think C and D are more so examples of F1NN5TER's gender expression than a depiction of the femboy style as defined in this article's lead. Yue🌙 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
B looks the best out of the options, but he's also wearing a tail and dog ears, which slides into the distinct but sometimes overlapping furry fandom. SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@SWinxy: Do you have a preference for the second image?  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, right the Attributes section, my bad. I'd pick D. Looking at the article now, I'm slightly amused that my pick for the two match what's already there. SWinxy (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Having read SWinxy's 02:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC) post, I do feel that we shouldn't be overemphasising the animal side - the point is to show human characteristics that are both masculine and feminine at the same time. So, on that basis, the lead image could be C (1st pref) or G (2nd), the Attributes one D (1st) or F (2nd) with the caveat that I don't think that we should use a F1NN5TER image in both places since it would create the impression that nobody else exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe there are interest and representation issues with 'F1NN5TER' being in such a notable public-facing position. Meanwhile 'FemboyPup', the figure in the photo who was replaced, is a credible femboy in Australia for representation of femboys. Having organised femboys marching in the Sydney Mardi Gras parade viewed by millions as one of the first grassroots femboy groups. I'm also sure they'd be happy to provide an image of themselves that doesn't have a relationship to furries (not that I see how it undermines the conveying them being a boy who is feminine - it's like saying because the cover is a dress it means we only wear dresses or in F1NN5TER case only a subculture of 'e-girls'. Perhaps there should be a collage if this truly was believed to be a problem; I digress).

To expand on it's importance to bring up F1NN5TER as not a good representation for us. There is a way the indigenous mob in Australia largely understands the term boy; brotherboy similar to a way we aim to define femboy. Nobody who sees femboy as a valid gender expression should consider it on a time limit in the way F1NN5TER does, and it isn't on a time limit. They claim that there are no femboys who have identified as such for more than 5 years as they identify as trans instead after that (https://youtube.com/shorts/aUs196iM8VM?si=t4_G4ql5pYeK2ZSx), which is not true, even in my own case being over 5 years of identifying as a femboy. This is where F1NN5TER lands on femboys (in conjunction with another public figure speaking on behalf of femboys without any credibility to do so) https://youtube.com/shorts/QZ22YIoeXwc?si=vWx8LAgErcmRaZRo. This artificial restriction that to be a femboy is to partake in trend and aesthetic; to play roles rather than to exist through them - rather than it being (as the etymology suggests) a feminine person who identifies as boy adjacent enough for them subjectively. It undermines the reality of offline people who have this diverse gender expression, all because of it's growth online. It's a classic case of the left handed people statistics. The portion of people who use femboy as an aesthetic and trend may only do it for a short period of time as it's not their gender expression at heart, but this helps real people who aren't doing it as a public figure or performance realise that it's an option. Nobody should be declaring that to be a femboy is anything other than to be a feminine person, to do so is to appeal to some very bioessentialist perspective that harms all gender diverse people.

There is more to representation than how someone looks and it's important to take that responsibility seriously and thoughtfully.

Speaking out on this figure due to their fame/large following is also difficult as it only takes one person from their audience to put this in circulation; infamously audiences can be a bit rough with their response. This makes it loaded to reject them being the figure. It also means Wikipedia has to contend with standing by online content creators - who at times use controversy as a way to build audience.

Thank you coming to my post sleep TED talk. Sorry ideas aren't put elegantly, I've been meaning to put this out into the world in some form but have been swamped. I hope that Femboys Australia someday soon can produce some better material about this. Sammy0panda (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
This seems like a not so thought out reply.
I understand the point you're making, that F1NN5TER isn't a good representative for the wider femboy community, but I think it lacks a lot of nuance. FemboyPup has, if you aren't being hyperbolic, had quite an impact on femboy culture and done more than I could ever dream of for the community. I also know this for a fact since, if they are indeed the same person, they have been credited - in a non-femboy related piece of philosophical work (Amy Ireland and Maya B. Kronic's "Cute Accelerationism") - as either a "friend, anemone, facilitator, inspiration, [or] fellow cutie" (p.192). This just shows how far their reach really is, which is not disputed whatsoever, it is a fact; it is after this that our opinions diverge though.
First of all, I do not understand your first point about how the indigenous people of Australia define the term brotherboy since it feels irrelevant to how femboy is defined because femboy is, in how I understand it, supposed to transcend nationality. To illustrate what I mean by this, we can take the Japanese otoko no ko (literally "male-daughter" in English). Otoko no ko is defined similarly to how femboy is, yet has its cultural differences, as discussed in this 2021 paper by Michelle Ho. If this is how to understand your argument, then it is irrelevant due to what I stated beforehand. No femboy should be treated above any other because of nationality or cultural context.
Now, moving on to the two YouTube clips you cite, I dislike how you frame these. The first video is, in all regards, bad. I dislike that F1NN5TER has detached themselves so much from their past as a femboy, to the point where they just blurts this out; it is reductionist and perpetuates the "femboys are just closeted trans women/eggs" narrative. However, we must also recognize the fact that F1NN5TER has personal experiences which inform their perspective. They expressed their gender non-conformity through being a femboy before realizing they were genderfluid and therefore this conclusion might seem the most natural to them. Does that excuse it? Absolutely not and this does weaken the case for F1NN5TER being a good, if former (considering they're now genderfluid), representative for femboys.
The second clip, however, is just you plainly misunderstanding the original video that F1NN5TER is reacting to. The original video is an introduction by Abigail Thorn of "Philosophy Tube" to the writings of queer feminist philosopher Judith Butler. What they're discussing here (both Thorn and Butler) is the "performativity" theory of gender, which is quite possibly the least bio-essentialist gender theory out there. I don't quite like how Thorn describes being a femboy, proclaiming that "it's less a thing that you are and more a thing that you do, like a job" but this is just going in-line with how Butler conceptualizes gender, as is the purpose of the video. But I don’t even believe that she’s proclaiming that being a femboy is just a "trend" or has to follow an "aesthetic," that's just how Butler themselves conceptualizes all gender; it’s pure social constructivism. I would also like to ask, quite rhetorically so, what even is bio-essentialist about the argument she’s making? If anything, it promotes the view that non-cis men can also be femboys, something we should all rally around. And before moving on, I don't even necessarily agree with Butler or Thorn - because I am more inclined to the view that the psychoanalysts Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini promote (see their book here) - but I don’t believe that this clip is an indictment of F1NN5TER’s character, much less Thorn’s.  
I am also confused at what it even means to be “credible” enough to speak on femboy issues? Thorn could’ve very well just spoken on femboys from what she gathered from the internet but decided to seek out F1NN5TER because they knew their stuff, because they’d been dressing fem whilst identifying as male for 4 years. This type of gatekeeping does nothing but inhibit good femboy discourse, because of arbitrary “credibility” restrictions. If we do away with them we might be able to find people, already struggling with their gender identity, who see an open and friendly invitation to discuss what being a femboy is and learn something new. This is what queer discourse should be about, always.
I don’t necessarily believe that F1NN5TER even is the best choice for the photos in this article, because I agree with you that looks should come second to representation, nor is this a valiant attempt to defend them (they’ve already defended and expanded upon this take here). I see this reply as ill-informed and as something written by someone who was frustrated and angry, rather than a genuine critical look at representation. Thank you for reading. HalfWayEssay (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Just adding this here so I'm not just arguing with a person without also adding my own opinions into the mix, I think B, D, and G work best, and then we'd have to weed it out from there.
I understand the concerns over the overlap of furry aesthetics with B, but I think furry aesthetics are an integral part of many femboys' aesthetic style so it's a caveat, but not a major one. Furthermore, the rest of the outfit is quite emblematic of the femboy aesthetic (thigh highs, skirt, arm warmers, soft hoodie, the e-boy style beanie) when put in constrast to something like F1NN5TER's D or C, which in my opinion are more femme leaning without doing much with the unique aspects of femboy aesthetics (especially C). And, as mentioned by Sammy0panda and Tamzin, FemboyPup is a popular and prominent femboy who still sticks by the femboy label and is a good representative for the community, insofar as the image is a reflection of that.
As for D, this is of course a pic of F1NN5TER during HRT, which seems like a slight red flag in representing the average femboy, who isn't (from experience/how hard it is to get HRT) on any type of HRT. However, I think it plays a lot more with the unique femboy aesthetic than C and therefore can be argued to better than C and they were/(are?; see first reply in this thread by Tamzin) pretty much the most popular femboy on the internet.
As for G, it is good overall; plays with the aesthetic, the angle is nice, the quality is good, everything just works all in all. As for more than that, I don't have much more. So - I'd vote for D § Attributes and B for lead - with G as a replacement for either. HalfWayEssay (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Some people edit this page just for fun of to spread their hate. Imo this page needs to be locked from editing because there's too much vandals 188.163.14.62 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You can request page protection at WP:RFPP, but I don't think the current level of disruption is high enough that an administrator would be likely to grant it.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah...uh, I looked at this article's edit history the past month and requested an increase from pending changes to semi-protection, and now it's there. It's for the best. Carlinal (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we need a larger section on HRT femboys? DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Many arguments directly contradict themselves, and claim that you have to be part of a specific group in order to break gender stereotypes in the right way, which is completely incorrect. if i put on a skirt, this is breaking gender stereotypes, i don't have to think a certain way, be part of a political movement, or participate in discussions with queer people or anything, just existing inherently disproves old timely stereotypes. the author also singles out straight femboys for not being able to break gender stereotypes by being feminine, witch is completely arbitrary. 

Moving on to the argument of femboys existing perpetuating the patriarchy, i.. uh... wtf???
I will assume this is referring to femboys being given preferential treatment over woman, which has no research to back it up, and in my own life is just plain false. both feminine and masculine woman in my experience on the internet are both accepted as normal and fine, however when a boy puts on a skirt, they harass them. A potential counterargument to this is that they can just un-femboy, but this carries the same flawed logic as the claim that all gay people can just stop being gay. 

These criticisms are less critiques, and more just mumbo jumbo from a fever dream.

also, of all criticisms of femboys, this is the best we can do? There is SO MANY MORE COMMON CRITICISMS That ARE DOWN TO PERSONAL OPINION, AND OR OBJECTIVE FACTS, NOT FALSE INFORMATION! These in comparison are completely dogwater that approximately 2 sentient beings in the multiverse believe. 

tldr, the critics section does not offer any critiques, just irreverent mumbo jumbo. These criticisms should be replaced. i will do this if no one stops me in a couple of days when i have some actual free time. Notavalidperson (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Notavalidperson: I worry that your critique focuses too much on your opinion of what's valid criticism. The standard we're supposed to consider here is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically its sections on due weight and balancing aspects. There may be a due-weight-based argument against the current sources, but I don't think you're making it here. Personally, I'm most concerned about us directly citing criticisms rather than citing academic analysis of those criticisms. Polemics about the validity of a gender identity are not something I would usually consider a good source to cite; even if they are reliable, their bias makes them ill-suited to establish due weight. Other articles on LGBTQ subjects don't give similar credence to criticisms of the concept of being gay, trans, etc., but rather cover those for what they are—viewpoints particular to various ideological movements, much as criticism of femboys is particular to, depending on the nature of the criticism, either Christian conservatism, radical feminism, or some strains of binarist transfeminism. So I think that angle is worth discussing.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: I probably don't have time to sort this out, but I wonder if Elli, who knows more than me about femboys anyway, might be interested.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)