You write, "Any thoughtful boy aspires, rationally, to femininity, because he rejects the limitations the hegemonic masculine role imposes." Well, I was a thoughtful boy who rejected such limitations; in fact what BAP has said about recognizing that terrain as "already occupied" rather resonates with my experience. But this rejection did not orient me toward the feminine in the least, but (I think just as rationally) to a sense of being "more grown up" than other boys, already taking part in a more mature and disciplined masculinity that didn't require the constant display and posturing my peer group demanded. (And I think this apartness from the boy-gang is part of drew me toward boys erotically.)|
To reject those limitations is to aspire to what lies beyond them, to demand to explore that terrain, to conquer it. "Orienting" toward the feminine is a different thing. That is conforming, not transcending.
Yes, rejection of the boy-gang is transcendent and erotic. The boy-gang is a misogynistic performance. Aspiration to femininity should lead to a purification of one's masculinity from mere performance. But a pure masculinity may be feminine in any possible degree, it may even be purely feminine, because the purgation of performed masculinity may leave nothing else. And this purely feminine masculinity can then, even, embrace performed masculinity, no longer as an enforced role, but as a choice.
The aspiration is to transcend limits, not to "achieve" femininity but to appropriate its terrain for use as one sees fit. This is agency, the act of taking responsibility and exerting control. Of course women will similarly appropriate the terrain of masculinity. Girls too have agency.
Genderfuck was the essence of early gay liberation, when men fucking boys was still a part of it. It lost its way, and abandoned us, when it gave up challenging gender norms in favor of imitating them.