the way people use the word “femme” drives me fucking goddamn coocoo bananas. what is the point of that word if you use it in ways that makes it clear you think “men” and “femmes” are not overlapping categories. its just like with people using TMA supposedly to include people who aren’t trans women & then just defining TMA as “trans women and transfem nonbinary people” like. at this point just be OPENLY exorsexist it will make everything so much more straightforward

A fundamental part of transandrophobia is the fact that its extremely difficult to fit trans men into the categories we have.

We have the categories of “man” and “woman”, with men being dominant, in control, and powerful, and women not. These categories have historically been exclusive to cis people, but now we have transfeminism. Trans women are very clearly not a dominant, in control, powerful group in society, and they are women, so its very easy to fit them in to the existing framework. Men are still in power and women still aren’t, its just that “women” now includes both women and the cooler women.

But trans men are harder to fit in. In trans-accepting feminism, trans men are accepted as men. But trans men are not a group that is dominant, in control, and powerful in society. We don’t have trans men making laws, or being popular newscaster who can sway public opinion. Stories are not written with the “trans male gaze”, as trans men are not expected to be the viewer. Trans men are not seen by society at large as especially trustworthy, likable, people that should be listened to.

So, to keep that framework intact, you either have to say that trans men are women and ignore their identity, or you have to say that trans men are men and therefore in power. Neither of these answers are good for trans men, and neither accurately describe trans men’s place in society. Because while trans men are affected by misogyny, trans men have experiences of gender and sexual oppression that cis women don’t. And nonbinary people, too, are shafted here; nonbinary people aren’t a dominant group, but many are not women and many were not assigned female at birth. What do you do with that? (Well, just start lumping them with women, it seems).

This is why I feel the thing we need is a proper restructuring of how we view gendered oppression. We are trying to operate trans existence through cis technology. Right now, in trans-affirming feminism, it seems that if you experience some sort of gendered oppression, you are seen as a de facto woman until you can’t be. Cissexism and binarism is still dominating our perspectives, even when we are “trans-affirming”, because we are still unwilling to change our framework to adjust for trans experiences.

sorry for more julia serano talk but this quote just really shows how so much of her theory is based solely off of her experiences as a white trans woman:

“While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way—to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question.”

She assumes that any critique of minority masculinity would be a critique of privileged masculinity itself: this is clearly untrue to anyone who had an understanding of racism towards men of color, who’s masculinity is constantly derided and viewed as lesser, just as trans men’s is. Not only will pretty much any transmasc tell you that transmasculinity is constantly mocked and derided, but any marginalized man will tell you that his masculinity is viewed as lesser and made fun of. It doesn’t “bring maleness/masculinity into question” because masculinity is only privileged when it’s attached to a very specific form of man.

And then there’s her exorsexism:

“A recognition of trans-misogyny/trans-masculinism—both within queer and feminist settings, and in society at large—has led many trans women and trans male/masculine allies to critique the growing numbers of trans men who, despite their physical transitions and the fact that they now live as men, still feel entitled to inhabit lesbian and women’s spaces. Such individuals will often justify their continued presence in such spaces by citing their female history, or claiming that they don’t feel “100 percent like a man” (even though they move through the world and are treated as men). Such claims reinforce the popular misconception that transsexual gender identities should not be taken seriously, and thus has had a direct negative impact on trans women’s inclusion in these same spaces. In a sense, these trans men seem to want to have it both ways: being men in the male-centered mainstream and then being “not-men” in queer/feminist/women’s spaces.”

I don’t think I should have to explain to a trans woman why “this person says they aren’t fully a man, but they exist in cis society as one, so they shouldn’t be let into our spaces!” is bad for closeted trans women. It’s also exorsexist, as she specifically makes it seem like trans men are just doing this an excuse (again, she’s assigning an underhanded malevolence to trans men’s experiences) so these people’s complex gender identities don’t exist. Or if they do, they are canceled out by the fact that they pass as men. Additionally, I’m not sure she ever mentions transfems who stay in the gay community. I don’t know if there weren’t as many when she wrote this, but it feels like she is assuming trans men are unique in feeling connected to their old communities from pre-transition because she is a binary, monogender, gender conforming woman with no desire to be in the gay community. She portrays trans men feeling connected to past (or current) lesbianism as something uniquely shitty instead of something that trans people of all kinds do. And, again, she decides that it is trans men who are the cause of cis women’s transmisogyny. The inclusion of trans men in the lesbian community must be responsible for how cis women treat trans women.

And, back to her views on masculinity:

“First, in her historical analysis of transsexuality, Meyerowitz makes the case that, as the media’s (and the public’s) interest in trans women became increasingly sexualizing and sexually explicit, their interest in trans men declined reciprocally.[37] Thus, the relative invisibility of trans men in the media is a direct result of media’s inability to sexualize them—a difficulty that no doubt stems from the fact that maleness and masculinity are not typically sexualized or objectified in our culture.”

This is actually what I believe this post was referencing, @transmascrage @happysadyoyo. And if so, it’s, uh… not the slam dunk to own the TMRAs they clearly thought it was.

Once again, this is a painfully privileged take. There are porn categories full of fetishizing material of Black men being seen as sexually dominant animals, same with Indigenous men, and (although she won’t admit it) so do trans men. Again, maybe this was different when she wrote this, but the idea of “cuntboys” as a fetish is alive and well. We all remember the cursed transmasc Captain America art that had crazy fucking curves? Maybe it was true in the 2000s, but it is clear to me that the fetishizing of transmasculinity has only grown as we’ve been brought further into the spotlight.

This just… isn’t intersectional. I don’t know how people can read this and then turn around and act like allies to men of color, as if this view of sexism doesn’t erase them & all other marginalized men.

Honestly, the transandrophobia deniers were right. You should read Julia Serano’s work, because when you do, suddenly the way people have been viewing sexism, transphobia and trans men makes a lot of sense. And it’s not like she has any excuse, because Emi Koyama was able to make multiple statements in later editions of the Transfeminist Manifesto taking responsibility for the erasure of transmasculine, nonbinary, and non-white experiences with transphobia in her work.

If you’re willing to read an academic article, I recommend checking this out. It goes into not just trans men and women but AMAB & AFAB GQNB (genderqueer & nonbinary) people, and a variety of other variables like being out, passing, age of transition, and being straight. I especially appreciate the attention put in comparing GQNB people with binary trans people, as in other data on trans people & jobs tends to focus entirely on passing binary trans people. It’s important information to consider when discussing transphobia of all kinds.

So I came across this quote by Julia Serano, and I wanted to share my take on it:

“When you’re a trans woman you are made to walk this very fine line, where if you act feminine you are accused of being a parody and if you act masculine, it is seen as a sign of your true male identity. And if you act sweet and demure, you’re accused of reinforcing patriarchal ideas of female passivity, but if you stand up for your own rights and make your voice heard, then you are dismissed as wielding male privilege and entitlement. We trans women are made to teeter on this tightrope, not because we are transsexuals, but because we are women. This is the same double bind that forces teenage girls to negotiate their way between virgin and whore, that forces female politicians and business women to be aggressive without being seen as a bitch, and to be feminine enough not to emasculate their alpha male colleagues, without being so girly as to undermine their own authority.”

Now, I absolutely agree that this behavior is based in misogyny. The only thing I really disagree with is the idea that it doesn’t have anything to do with being trans.

For one, trans men also are forced to walk this tightrope, if in the opposite direction. If a trans man is feminine, he’s actually a girl, but if he’s masculine, he’s idolizing toxic masculinity. If a trans man is sweet and passive, he’ll never be a real man, but if he’s outspoken and demands to be heard, he’s a raging misogynist wielding male privilege. Nonbinary people, too, have to walk the tightrope, with the added element of “too masc/fem and you aren’t really nonbinary, too androgynous and you are suspicious and cringe and probably a pedophile”. Reducing this tightrope down to just misogyny, in my opinion, obscures the way that other trans people besides trans women are also forced to walk this tightrope.

Additionally, while I understand why she compares it to things like the madonna/whore complex, I don’t feel like it’s exactly the same thing. If a cis woman (especially/specifically a white, straight-presenting one*) acts masculine or assertive, she’ll certainly be called a bitch, a cunt, evil, unfeminine and ugly, all the misogynistic tricks in the book- but she’ll never be called a misogynistic entitled male.

Cis women do not face the combined forces of misandry/misogyny/misandrogyny the way trans people do. Cis women do not have to fear being seen as male and therefore sexually predatory, naturally aggressive, and an oppressor to be taken down in the way that all trans people are. Cis women are seen as women, while trans people are seen as grotesquely occupying the space between genders. Cis women are punished for acting outside of the bounds of the class of woman, while trans people are punished for acting outside the bounds of binary gender. We fail to be proper women or proper men, and so anything we do is punishable because transness is seen as something which taints any gender it touches. Trans people are deviant women who need to be put in their place, and dangerous men who are a threat to patriarchal men, and androgynous freaks who threaten the very foundation of the gender binary and the patriarchy built upon it.

I don’t wanna claim to know the true reasons behind why Serano comes to the conclusions she does, so this is just my own reading of this quote:

It feels like she is leaning heavily into the “its all misogyny” to make a point about how trans women face the same struggles cis women do, therefore they should be considered equally female and equally oppressed by misogyny as cis women. Transmisogyny is just another way to oppress women, as women, and therefore cis feminists should accept trans women as women.

And I don’t blame her for that, if that was her motive. Especially considering that a lot of her writing was done during a time where radical feminists were intensely scrutinizing trans women’s oppression & trans activism was even less well known or supported by mainstream feminism than it is now. But I do think that, in trying to align the experiences of trans women with the experiences of cis women, it has led to the thriving idea that trans men cannot experience equal levels of oppression, because they are men and therefore their experiences must be closer to that of cis men’s.

It’s not that the thing she’s talking about isn’t transmisogyny, or that she should’ve brought up trans men- I have no issues with her specifically talking about how this impacts trans women and how its based in transmisogyny. But I feel very strongly that the three-arm model of transphobia explained by @transunity is a far more accurate way of conceptualizing transphobia & all of its individual forms (transmisogyny, transandrophobia, exorsexism). It accepts that all trans people can be attacked from the position that they are men, or women, or both/neither.

It also makes sense that this model comes from the transunity movement, because it prioritizes shared experience & solidarity between all trans people rather than shared experience & solidarity between trans people and cis people who share their gender. Not that that is intrinsically bad, because it isn’t- but I feel that Serano’s model of transmisogyny, in rejecting the idea of “trans” as a class of its own, negatively impacts other trans people and especially trans men by forcing them to be seen only in relation to their cis counterparts, and not as trans people first and foremost.

*Edited to specify white/straight womanhood

TIRFism is like. kind of more stupid than TERFism, in that it stands on much shakier grounds as an ideology?

like TERFs believe that all oppression stems from misogyny, that women are the most oppressed, that men - by them defined as anyone AMAB - entirely benefit from the patriarchy. it’s stupid and bad and unhelpful.

TIRFism holds the same beliefs, just that “men” here means anyone who identifies as a man, and they claim to believe in transphobia. But if you believe transphobia and transmisogyny, then it’s hard to say that men only benefit from the patriarchy. because while trans women arent men, in every group of assigned-male-at-birth people, there are going to be some women in there who are either living as men or don’t know they are women yet. and to support them you have to recognize their experiences suffering under the patriarchy, sometimes while identifying as men. trans women have spoken about how antimasculism/misandry/etc. has affected them. TIRFism is even more bullshit than TERFism because you are just taking an ideology inherently at odds with trans liberation (due to its bio- and gender-essentialist rhetoric and general shitty takes on gender and sex) and trying to cram trans-inclusion in there! “men are inherently bad” is always bad for trans people regardless of whether you define man as “AMAB” or as “anyone who identifies as a man” because either fucking way, that group is going to include transmascs, transfems, and everyone else. “men are bad” rhetoric is harmful for trans people, full stop. it only benefits radical feminism, which in turn only benefits white cis women.