A rebuttal, on 3 specific topics 1) assumptions of "knowing" celebrities, 2) toxic masculinity/heteronormativity, its reinforcement & internalization, and 3) femininity stereotyping.

With thoughts on the LACK of nuance and problematic generalizations in the thread qrt'd here 1/ https://twitter.com/summerwind1843/status/1319477202396745728

To begin with, I am, personally, quite alarmed by the casual use of a heavy term like 'internalized misogyny' to an entire group of people (the bxg fandom folk that enjoy yb's androgyny), which widely ALSO includes lgbtq+/non-cis people on all sides of the bench 2/

People identify with celebrities in different ways, often picking and choosing what they enjoy, to find recognition or reflection of their own interests. Enjoying one part more than another is still "valid", and is not because of some "deep-rooted internalized self-hatred" 3/

Which brings us handily to 1) assumptions of "Knowing" a public figure, entirely based on the piecemeal bits of themselves they present to the world. The qrt'd thread above is full of personal opinions presented like academic reasoning/fact and I'm baffled by the entire thing 4/

We don't know these people. Period. We see and hear what they are willing to present and reveal about themselves to the world. We don't know their private gender & sexuality explorations, and no, that cannot be "read/extrapolated" based purely on how someone looks/acts afaic 5/

And here I'll add disclaimer that I'm "guilty" also: in that I'm here believing 2 men to be lgbt of some kind/ "shipping them".
But I'll also add that I'll very happily allow any arguments attesting otherwise, without casting aspersions of that other person being "homophobic" 6/

Because the thing is, it's all valid. Why? We don't KNOW these people. So, just like I wouldn't call any group that doesn't enjoy bjyx shipping as "homophobic", I resent that there is a thread branding an entire group 'internalized misogyny' based on a personal read/opinion 7/

Also, to make an entire argument, presented like objective reasoning, on something like gender identity, based on: a few of random sentences + a preference to not wear makeup + traditionally "boyish" clothes in personal time -is insulting at best and vastly diminutive at worst 8/

And in saying that I'll go to parts 2 and 3.
In which I will do what the OP of the qrt'd thread did, in reverse, to point out all the fallacies of their argument.
I can easily make an argument for Yb's behavior being attributable to - 2) Toxic masculinity/heteronormativity 9/

Toxic masculinity, internalized heteronormativity, internalized homophobia, femme-phobia IN femme/androgynous men - all topics previously reported/documented in many men, specifically lgbt men, specifically lgbt men in conservative societies 10/

So I could just as easily sit here and make a valid-sounding thesis of why ~'yb is actually femme and explores it solely in the safe-space of company-approved fashion, because doing it in reality feels taboo/dangerous to him'~ 11/

and use random things he's said/done that are described phenomena in toxic masculinity: his obsession with being Cool Guy, with wanting to pursue traditional "manly" hobbies solely because of how 'cool/ masculine' it looks, with his 'no I can't do this coz I'M A MAN' attitude 12/

I could make a valid sounding argument for that and say it is internalized toxic masculinity and that everyone supporting/glorifying it are 'heteronormative' and reinforcing traditional patriarchal gender roles in society.
And if I did that I'd be wrong/completely subjective. 13/

If I did that, it'd be just as completely baseless as OP's thread, because, back to point 1 - A) We Do Not Know These People and B) We Cannot Generalize How Fandom Perceives A Celebrity and Attribute It To Sensitive Issues In Such A Generalized Way 14/

Which finally brings me to Part 3 - Xz and femininity and femininity stereotyping.
What is 'feminine'? OP's thread ignores that concept entirely, in a mini-thesis made about why reading xz as femme is "reasonable" and why reading yb as femme is internalized misogyny 15/

Going off the things about yb that make him Not-Femme, as pointed out by OP. I can use the exact same for Xz.
Xz has said before things that can be solely assumed to be 'the male role' about 'how men should behave'. He has never exhibited an interest for makeup or androgyny- 16/

in OR out of professional fashion. He dresses in hyper-casual clothes exactly similar to yb now, clothes considered "masculine" by OP. 17/

And if people were to say 'Oh but Xz's personal airport fashion before now could be read as femme/androgynous', eh, so can yb's? Boy used to casually wear super femme clothes/makeup often, in airports/personal events. 18/

And if people say 'Oh but yb was doing that in personal life before coz he felt he HAD TO, coz Pressure of Being An Idol. Then, eh, I can use the same argument for Xz? That he felt compelled by his new idol status and was dressing up, but actually prefers being 'masculine'? 19/

In all pre-idol photos, Xz stuck to super-basic "masculine" presentation, so I can easily make a 'He Is More Masculine and Not Feminine at all' argument. Do you see how rapidly subjective and colored by personal biases it becomes at that point - this method of "reasoning"? 20/

Not to belabor the point but this brings me once again to, what is femininity? Being 'soft'? 'Nurturing'? Wearing lipstick? Holding a plushie? What is this rather offensive generalization of a concept that has millenia of patriarchal biases & evolving complexities around it? 21/

To shove a concept that broad into cookie-cutter roles, & then further shove celebrities (who, as mentioned in Point 1, are fundamentally unknowable to us), into those roles, and then further generalize on a fandom is. Yikes. Uncool, sorry. 22/

And in retort to some ensuing discourse on OP's account: Reading someone as feminine isn't fetishizing. Reading someone as feminine then automatically extrapolating it to stuff like heteronormative roles in a relationship, and assigning sexual behavior/identity around it, IS. 23/

And I don't even mean that in a gay relationship. Automatically assuming a softer/nurturing person is the 'feminine' half of any relationship perpetuates this view that any relationship REQUIRES binaries, & I find it dismissive to the entire spectra of non-binary identities. 24/

And that kind of vast generalization/ assumption/ perpetuation is what disturbs me about the entirety of OP's thread and the people lauding it. And I am not a fan, sorry.
They are ofc welcome to their opinions (opinions, not facts), but I wish to dissociate from such views. /End

Also blanket request, please please feel free to block/softblock/unfollow/whatever. And I don't mean personal offense when I do the same back to you, based on people I see agreeing/endorsing OP's thread. I'm just uninterested in indulging with this kind particular thinking, sorry

Also ETA 2 and said too late, sigh: I don't mean this as a personal attack or to cast aspersions on people who said it/agree with it. This is not meant to be an "attack" or a "mean call out". This is me, voicing my firm disagreement to that thread/that thinking, no more, no less.