Doubts about the femininity of Parvīn Iᶜtiṣāmī were born simultaneously with the immense praise and admiration that she received as a poet. Parvīn's talent in composing classical Persian poetry was considered an oddity. She had surpassed prominent male authors by exploiting her literary finesse to revive the long-forgotten classical genre of debate poetry, which was used to address polemical issues powerfully, but safely. Parvīn's prowess fuelled heated discussions among contemporary literary figures, who expressed their amazement after Parvīn's poetry was published in the 1920–1921 issues of the Bahār, a journal authored and edited by her father. Parvīn's contemporary literary critics and scholars, including the notable poet Bahār, found it difficult to believe her authorship of fine classical poetry because she was a woman. For Bahār, the appearance of a female poet like Parvīn was a rarity. Among critics and scholars writing on Parvīn, several praised her as a ‘manly’ woman. Doubts about Parvīn's femininity resurfaced as a central theme in several sources written on her literary identity even decades after her death. More recent literary scholars such as Leonardo Alishan or Fereshteh Davaran considered her poetry devoid of femininity.

The question of why Parvīn's femininity provoked long-standing controversies has remained unexplored. In this chapter, I investigate why Parvīn as a poet was considered a rarity. Why was, and still is, Parvīn's authorship as a woman an unpalatable issue for literary scholars and critics?