Clothes make the man

In many historical societies, clothing expressed status, occupation, gender and social belonging. Anyone who wore clothing that did not correspond to their assigned gender crossed a social boundary and, at times, could even be prosecuted. 

This makes historical interpretation difficult. When a person assigned female at birth wore men's clothing, worked as a man or lived under a male name, this could mean different things. It could be a way of gaining access to spaces that were closed off to women: work, wages, travel or education. It may also mean that we are dealing with people we would today describe as trans men or non-binary. The sources often don't allow us to decide with certainty, because they usually speak from the outside. Courts, clergy, chroniclers and authorities recorded what they perceived as a breach of order. What the people concerned thought about themselves was rarely written down. Some statements were also made under duress, for example during interrogations or court proceedings. Silence, therefore, cannot simply be read as agreemennt with the official interpretation. 

There are also documented cases of people assigned male at birth who lived as women, used female names or did not want to be understood as men. Here, too, caution is necessary. Travesty, theatrical roles and masquerade had existed for centuries. But not every female presentation was intended for the stage. Some people lived this gender role in everyday life as well. 

Where sources describe long-term living, working, loving or appearing publicly in another gender role, the line between disguise, social strategy and lived identity becomes blurred.