metallickoi

[metallickoi]

It's really fascinating, like, maybe it's the edible talking, but I can't imagine holding these views sincerely from the inside, that both transfeminists on Tumblr were fascists and that people who tepidly defended them were also fascists. I mean I guess I get it, it's like "you're enabling them so you're functionally the same" logic. And the sort of implicit clarification that it deliberately chose the word "fascist", it wasn't just hyperbole chosen in the moment.

But I have no idea what chain of reasoning it even used to GET to "transfeminists are fascists". Like... transfeminists are somewhat oppressive online? Transfeminists are extremely intolerant? Yeah I guess if you mean the hyperbole meaning, but also lol if you mean it with the actual weight of or technical meaning of the word "fascist".

Anyways like, I run a blog where I whine about how transfeminists are mean to dudes online. I called some earnest posts about transmisogyny "ridiculous" which is a pretty edgy thing to say in this context. Do you think I'm like, trying to maximize my popularity with that clique on Tumblr or make people think their contributions have been All Good Actually? Is it that I'm "downplaying the harm of fash"? That at least seems consistent.

How are you really able to throw all your weight behind the idea that your specific micro-ideology contains all of the Elect on manners of gender?

Anyways, I fully expect someone on the transfeminist side of Tumblr to call me an MRA by the end of the week.

Many human minds are alien to me, and in this case I don't know this person well enough to understand whether it sincerely thinks I'm a fascist or just doesn't care to think further about that. I assume this is some kind of viscerally emotional situation and just didn't pass a bullshit check for whatever reason? If it's not acting in bad faith, apparently emotionally feel like a fascist, and in the past that would have inflamed my scrupulosity and made me feel like I had seriously harmed someone, but ehh, I'm good. I'm glad that person blocked me so it doesn't have to interact with someone it thinks is a fascist.

Ah, I see that someone has called me a fascist for "disagreeing with it about who counts as a fascist".

Well, it's even worse, tbh. I'm a liberal. :(

[metallickoi]

Ah, I see that someone has called me a fascist for "disagreeing with it about who counts as a fascist".

Well, it's even worse, tbh. I'm a liberal. :(

[metallickoi]

"posts about actual transmisogyny get silenced and are only supported by the "transfem hating mras" but the people who call themselves revolutionary transfeminists are circlejerking their own fascism".

I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of ridiculous takes in the #transmisogyny tag, but "only people in my group are sharing information about real transmisogyny" seems... unlikely? If people are specifically focused on how people in their group have it bad (for better or for worse), then they're going to be looking for examples of that (I don't mean this in a cynical way), and some of the examples they give will be actually weighty. Like, even if most of the examples someone gives of a specific type of oppression are not "legit" examples, they will eventually find something if that oppression exists.

There are also many people who use that tag or discuss trans women's issues in general who aren't as looped in to the "tme vs trans woman" discourse. You mentioned yourself that people have used that tag to post about murders of Black trans women, and it would really surprise me if only transmasc people were posting about stuff on par with that.

By the way, if you want to make claims about "overstating online beef that is hurtful but maybe not oppressive", then I recommend not using the term "fascist" to describe a bunch of trans women's bad takes online. Not only is it a bad description of their politics, we're dealing with an actual authoritarian government right now. I'm sympathetic to a lot of critiques of norms in transfeminist spaces and a lot of the pain transmasc people feel about this. But, you know, have a sense of perspective.

the tumblr transmisogyny tag is unironically absurd. you scroll through it and see gems like "acknowledging intersectionality makes you a fascist" or "transmascs headcanoning characters they like as transmascs is transmisogyny" and those posts have like a bajillion notes and are made by #transfeministwarriors but there's like 3 posts about black trans women who got fucking murdered and they have 6 notes each and they're all from "tme" people who blog about transunity and get told to kill themselves for it. posts about actual transmisogyny get silenced and are only supported by the "transfem hating mras" but the people who call themselves revolutionary transfeminists are circlejerking their own fascism. this feels like something stonetoss would write to make fun of queer infighting not the actual fucking state of this website

[metallickoi]

I understand this is going to come off as a bit troll-y and I apologize, but if we need to focus on powerful targets like JKR and not people making posts we dislike, why spend a significant amount of time worrying about "transradfems"?

To be clear, I don't think it's actually a total waste of time to point out harmful and inaccurate ideas from other trans people online. But I think what you're doing is pretty similar to what you're complaining about (though you're not harassing anyone, of course).

The way transradfems waste time harassing transmascs instead of J.K Rowling, the white cis rich woman who spents her money making sure trans's lives are hell should give you a perspective of how useless and senseless radfeminism is.

You all say way more fucked up shit about transmascs than about J.K Rowling.

[metallickoi]

I understand you're not talking to a specific human being but like, I don't know if this is a good way to handle people who are on the fence about starting HRT because of concerns about rejection and violence.

"You take risks every day, so why not take on a bunch more risks?" is not a good argument for taking on a specific risk. I face risk every time I ride a bicycle, but does that mean I shouldn't bother wearing a helmet because it can't protect me against literally every risk? No, covering my skull is legit important for not getting a concussion.

A good argument for taking on a specific risk would be that the benefits outweigh the harm, that it's going to be "worth it" in some sense. The risk of transitioning is definitely worth it per a lot of people's accounts; their worst fears about post-transition life never materialize. There are a lot of people who are basically catastrophizing and using that to justify remaining in a miserable, stunted place in life. And it sucks.

But there are people who transition and decide... nope, it's not worth it. They attempt to transition, experience a bunch of horrifying transphobia, and detransition. And from what I've heard, this is generally traumatic as hell.

So. You know, you cannot predict with 100% confidence that someone's transition will be "worth it", because some transitions are not. And there may be many factors in someone's life that are going to make it harder for transition to feel sustainable. Pointing a person towards informed consent hormones is not enough.

And being chided when you're scared of making a major life decision, told you're just "making excuses", and I include "indirect" stuff like this in "chiding" tbh, makes a lot of people less likely to, like, consider your advice. It doesn't make someone who's suffering feel understood, or like the person doing it is on their side, even if you're trying to help them and genuinely worried. It makes people less likely to confide in you, because your sympathy feels conditional on them making the "right choice". I understand you likely aren't going around saying these literal words directly to someone who's questioning whether to transition, but I'm sure at least one person in your audience has bounced off this because they felt condescended to.

So what do you do, if someone seems completely miserable as it is but is terrified of the risks of transitioning, and you want to help them? You have to like, make them feel like you're taking them seriously and you're on their side. You have to demonstrate curiosity about their life experiences up to this point, and be humble about what you don't know. Maybe what they're dealing with is that they're abusive stepdad caught them "crossdressing" when they were 13 and threatened them physically, and they still live with him and/or they haven't processed that trauma. Maybe they've overheard their boss say they would never hire a trans person. Maybe they've never seen a trans person in their area who seemed stable or happy. Maybe literally everyone around them throws around jokes about the "transgenders". When I talk to trans people who are miserable but unsure if it's safe for them to transition, I hear variations on this a lot.

Sometimes, you can genuinely address some of the risks and concerns (not just safety, but being able to meet emotional needs), and make going on HRT more likely to feel "worth it" in the long run. Based on understanding the specific concerns they have, you can (with their buy-in) help them problem-solve. No one they can talk to about trans stuff or get advice from in their area? Help them find a support group. Feel like nobody will accept them as [gender]? Try to help them find supportive friends. Feel like there will be nobody to date or find them desirable? Show them examples of trans people in loving relationships. Show them examples of really hot trans people of their gender. Insanely bigoted family? Maybe they can make a plan to transition after they get out. Do they have friends they can stay with? Coworkers talking about how they love Trump? Maybe they can find a better job. Just overall in a scary area? Maybe it's time to research which trans-friendly state is the most affordable.

I've had these exact conversations with people who are scared of coming out or presenting as their gender. Sometimes they've never thought about reaching out to anyone in their area. Sometimes they literally didn't realize they could be on HRT before coming out or changing their presentation. They were a lot more open to HRT once I mentioned that people do that all the time, it's called boymoding, etc.

And... even if they start hanging out with more supportive people and find a new job, and they still don't medically transition, you still probably left them better than you found them. You helped them find people they don't have to hide around. You helped them consider that they deserve to be treated better. You gave them a small taste of taking a step to improve their life. And you showed them compassion and concern in the process.

It may not feel like enough. It may not be enough. But I expect the interaction will go a lot better if you don't give off the vibes that you know better than them, and you look at what specific things in their life could change to minimize the risks of coming out.

"its not safe for me to transition right now" girl have you read the news its not safe to drink milk or eat medium rare cheeseburgers or go in public without a respirator anymore stop making excuses lets get you some estrogen

[metallickoi]

"cuntboy and pooner aren't slurs" why. can you give me one reason why a term used derogatorily towards a group of trans people is not considered a slur and more importantly, why shouldn't we be upset when it's used against us derisively even by other trans ppl. do u hear yourselves.

[metallickoi]

If you're a trans person in such a hostile environment that being openly or visibly trans would put you at risk of experiencing violence, or make it impossible to get housing or a job, you are "benefitting" from passing as cis. You have more safety than a person in that environment who is visibly trans. That's part of what motivates certain trans people to want to pass.

In environments where people don't have to worry as much about violence, many people want to pass as cis versions of their gender because it's just... easier most of the time. It means they're less likely to get misgendered or face awkward questions from coworkers or harassment from people on the street. It means that if they don't want to think about gender or transness every single day, they can do that. In these ways, they benefit from "passing as cis".

I think you have a good point that there are downsides to passing as cis. I've heard trans people who pass talk about how it's isolating and alienating at times, like they're playing a cis version of themselves and can't let the role slip.

That said, there are plenty of people who pass as cis and aren't out in every context... And see it as basically fine, or something they actively prefer to their experiences as visibly trans people. It's not "necessary for survival" to be openly trans in every context. There are stealth people with jobs, and safe places to live, and fulfilling relationships with people around them.

I don't want to psychoanalyze, but I'm wondering if people feel uncomfortable with the "benefit from privilege" framing because people throw it around in this kind of moralistic and accusatory way? Like people somehow are taking something away from other trans people, as if "not being treated like shit" is some finite resource, and you could somehow distribute it back by being visibly trans. Idk, it feels pretty skeevy to me. Everyone should do what they can to survive and live happy lives.

the most frustrating thing about "cis passing" discourse is that it's not a magical wand you wave and you suddenly no longer face any transphobia. it's the same reason why i hate people turning around and saying that being in the closet is a privilege. it's not.

while at face value, the privilege queer people face is that bigots will be able to identify us less. that being said, this is a double edged sword. if you can't say who you are without the risk of possibly facing violence or murder, then it's not something we as queer people can benefit from, because being loud and openly ourselves is necessary for our survival.

[metallickoi]

As I understand it now, we agree that some trans men sometimes pass as men, but we disagree that they ever access male privilege. (Note of clarification: I wasn't making any claims above like "trans men as a group benefit from male privilege"-- I tried to make it clear I think this stuff is individual and contextual).

Taking a look at your analogy with cis privilege... It seems like you're saying people can mistakenly treat individual trans men as cis, but you wouldn't say trans men "as a group" have cis privilege. At first glance, I agree with you. But well, I'm inclined to bite the bullet and say that I was passing as cis while in the closet because I was afraid of it affecting my social and professional opportunities, and of people making worse judgments of my character and competence. As perverse as it sounds to say, yes, I think my closeted pre-transition self did have some access to cis privilege relative my access to it now, and I think male privilege probably works similar to this.

To use a historical example because it's more whimsical and less spicy than a lot of contemporary ones, your archetypal woman who passed as a man in the Wild West or whatever is actually a great example. By passing as a man and inhabiting the male social role, a person in this situation got access to a lot of opportunities that someone perceived as a woman would never be offered. They got perceived as more competent and as having a better character. They got male privilege, at least during the part of their life where they passed.

Ben Barres, a trans neuroscientist, talked about how once he started passing, people told him his research was better than his "sister's" (his pre-transition self). By changing his social status from "woman" to "man", he gained a perception as being more competent and (potentially) more opportunities in his chosen field. In other words, he accessed some male privilege, even though that wasn't available to him before transition.

Just to check in: Would you agree that my Wild West and Ben Barres examples are an example of an individual person accessing male privilege? If we agree on that point and that trans men don't universally access male privilege, then I don't think we have any significant disagreements here.

"But if you're saying trans men aren't seen as men and don't have male privilege, doesn't it imply that trans women do?"

No, it doesn't.

You think trans people must either occupy the "man" social role or the "woman" social role and you try to assign them on the basis of your belief in "opposite genders".

I think trans people occupy a completely different social role, "gender deviant". And being recognized as men or women by the patriarchy is exclusively for (some, not even all) cis people.

And none of it means trans people aren't the gender they say they are, btw, because your gender isn't how other people see you (that's social perception, a set of gendered roles), but how you see yourself.

[metallickoi]

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

You wrote, "I think trans people occupy a completely different social role, "gender deviant". And being recognized as men or women by the patriarchy is exclusively for (some, not even all) cis people."

This is the part that I took to mean "trans men aren't in the male social role", since trans men are a subset of the category "trans people".

There are some things you're saying here that aren't clear to me. What does "occupying a male social role" look like to you, and what might it look like for e.g. a woman to do it? Are you mostly talking about closeted trans woman here?

And what defines systemic male privilege in your eyes?

"But if you're saying trans men aren't seen as men and don't have male privilege, doesn't it imply that trans women do?"

No, it doesn't.

You think trans people must either occupy the "man" social role or the "woman" social role and you try to assign them on the basis of your belief in "opposite genders".

I think trans people occupy a completely different social role, "gender deviant". And being recognized as men or women by the patriarchy is exclusively for (some, not even all) cis people.

And none of it means trans people aren't the gender they say they are, btw, because your gender isn't how other people see you (that's social perception, a set of gendered roles), but how you see yourself.

[metallickoi]

I agree with you that people treat social position as binary in a really weird/dumb way, but I don't agree that no trans men are occupying the male social role (at least most of the time).

A stealth trans man who's gendered as male in 99.9% of social interactions is much more meaningfully described as in the "male social role" than the gender deviant social role. As in, people look at him and see a guy. If you wanna go with something less extreme, well, a lot of trans men pass most of the time and only selectively come out, and many people are capable of putting trans men in the "man" category even if know they're trans.

Claiming trans man are never "seen" as men just seems odd to me. I have a lot of transmasc friends who, like, pass. It's probably accurate to say in a lot of cases that they're not seen as men by their families and in some cases their doctors, and I do think "I'm treated like a woman in this context btw" should be a claim that transmasc people get to make without people worrying that they're secret TERFs or something.

Anyways, I'm not sure what "being recognized as men by the patriarchy" cashes out to if it's not related to like, how people and institutions are classifying you in social interactions. While "the patriarchy" is imo meaningfully real, it's the sum of a bunch of concrete stuff, not some force that exerts power over you or has an ability to "see you" independent of the actual people and institutions you interact with, giving you some kind of metaphysical gender credit score. You can be an M to the DMV, or "Can I help you ma'am" to some clerk there, but you can't "be" something to the patriarchy in some qualitatively unique way. Maybe I'm being a dipshit here and misrepresenting your view, but that's my current take.

And since the patriarchy does not exist independent from "who you are to people and institutions you interact with", I think whether you "benefit from male privilege" kinda depends on how long you spend getting gendered as a guy vs. a woman vs. androgynous, as well as how close you are to certain norms of respectable masculinity. It's not a binary where you either get "all of the male privilege just like Chad Thundercock" or none of it. I think meaningfully GNC cis guys probably benefit less from male privilege than gender conforming cis guys, and Black cis guys benefit less from male privilege than white cis guys. Nonpassing trans guys benefit a lot less than passing trans guys.

'Cause I've got weird gender beliefs like that.

"But if you're saying trans men aren't seen as men and don't have male privilege, doesn't it imply that trans women do?"

No, it doesn't.

You think trans people must either occupy the "man" social role or the "woman" social role and you try to assign them on the basis of your belief in "opposite genders".

I think trans people occupy a completely different social role, "gender deviant". And being recognized as men or women by the patriarchy is exclusively for (some, not even all) cis people.

And none of it means trans people aren't the gender they say they are, btw, because your gender isn't how other people see you (that's social perception, a set of gendered roles), but how you see yourself.

[metallickoi]

@kittenscratches

I do think it's interesting that you point out that there isn't a lot of direct hostility towards trans women on the part of people who discuss transandrophobia. Because really I've seen lots of people claim that trans guys are using transandrophobia as a cudgel against trans women but I have just not seen it without it being promptly called out by other people in the discussion. But weirdly enough I have seen, for example "bomb that kills all transmascs" (a post that got THOUSANDS of notes), a feminised version of Hitler called "nonbinary transmasc" then a joke about tmasc suicide rates, people literally outright telling transmascs to detransition, people sending forcefem content to transmasc minors, people making fun of transmasc names, people saying transmascs have a lesser understanding of gender, people outright denying that bad things happen to transmascs, people outright denying they are oppressed, I've had one person tell me I'm lucky and privileged for having a womb because most transfems do not, and so on and so forth. And I've seen most of this stuff in the transmisogyny tag specifically. But when I go into the transandrophobia tag, it's just guys talking about their problems as transmascs. It's. Very strange. And I don't doubt that there's some assholes, I can name a couple, but I guess the difference I've seen is that those assholes get dogpiled and called out within the tag and the group of people who frequently post in it. I don't ever see any pushback on any of the anti-transmasc hate posted in the transmisogyny tag. Idk it's weird to me. And when someone says "this is a gross thing transmascs are doing to trans women" I go oh shit, do you have links to this so I can see what is happening and then block them? And I've never ever been provided with any. Just "you're not listening to transfems". Like, I am, which is why I'm asking you to show me these things so I can be aware of them. But they never do.

Yeah, I haven't seen these examples in the wild but it seems there are some weird hostile things like this in certain transfeminist circles, often downstream of a belief that "haha it's punching up so it doesn't count" or "it's just jokes lol, it's not real oppression" (as if bigoted jokes aren't one way people affirm/normalize their bigoted worldviews). I'm genuinely sorry you've had to deal with that and agree that all of those examples are bad. Like, even if all of the people posting those are otherwise completely fair in their dealings with trans men and simply had a bizarre lack of judgment that day, yeesh.

I'm glad that you're invested in keeping the transandrophobia tag from becoming a transmisogynistic echo chamber. It really is heartening that, even if I can find a lot to disagree with there, it seems pretty earnest and respectful towards trans women.

I don't think the primary differences in worldview between people on different "sides" of the transandrophobia "debate" are attributable to bigotry. I think you can hold certain transfeminist beliefs (that transmisogyny is a serious form of oppression and there is no distinct form of oppression that trans men face) and certain anti-transandrophobia beliefs (that transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression, and often that it's on par with transmisogyny) for reasons other than "unfair hostility towards trans men" or "unfair hostility towards trans women" respectively.

There are ways in which holding transfeminist beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans men, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some transfeminists have messed-up attitudes about trans men that intersect with their transfeminist beliefs, and treat trans men badly. And there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans men, even if they don't personally agree.

Likewise, there are ways that anti-transandrophobia beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans women, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression have messed-up attitudes about trans women that intersect with their beliefs about trans men's oppression, and treat trans women badly. And again, there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans women, even if they don't personally agree.

That doesn't mean that all transfeminists are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans men, or that all people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans women, or really particularly bigoted at all. There are many reasons someone could find one way of understanding gender oppression more compelling than the other, including differences in life experiences, the views people they associate with hold, or hearing better arguments or seeing better evidence from one side than the other.

I started out thinking that people who considered transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression were primarily motivated by bigotry. I saw them called "MRAs" and I've seen speculation a lot of them will become TERFS, including from people I respected. And generalizations about their motivations led me to predict wildly different things about their discourse than I've actually witnessed from people who hold these beliefs. When modeling them as "transmisogynistic bigots", I predicted a much higher level of overt hostility and mockery towards trans women, a flippant attitude that their problems don't matter, use of stereotypes and slurs, arguments that trans women should be excluded from certain spaces or opportunities, arguments that trans women aren't women or that gender transition isn't legit. Virtually every transmisogynistic discourse I've seen-- from Mumsnet to 4chan to radblr-- involves these features. Maybe they're not --necessary-- criteria for judging an ideology or social space to be overwhelmingly transmisogynistic, but... unless people who take transandrophobia to be a distinct form of oppression are super-duper good at resisting the opportunity to display these views, many of them don't seem particularly hostile to trans women, or like they're primarily seeking a safe space to act in ways that wouldn't tolerated otherwise. It seems implausible to me that you could have a notable, fundamental thread of bigotry against trans women in your spaces and avoid all these memes bleeding through, when they're shared by both left-wing and right-wing forms of transphobia. If the typical person in this discourse-sphere is notably bigoted against trans women, it's in some highly unusual way. Many people who think transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression also believe that transmisogyny is a serious problem, giving them more overlap in worldview with transfeminists than, like, most normies. I was wrong to generalize them as bigots, even though some of them are likely motivated by transmisogynistic views on a subtler level, and there may be some elements of the discourse that are objectionable.

There are a lot of things floating about in that discourse-sphere I don't find convincing or indicative of super high-priority issues, and a smaller number I find troubling. I've felt some frustration reading posts of people in this camp... Regardless, I do think many people are trying to discuss perceived weaknesses of transfeminist points of view in a fairly sincere way, or discuss the stuff they've personally experienced as trans men.

And, honestly, many of the people criticizing them are doing the same from a transfeminist POV.

[metallickoi]

It seems like you are saying that (some) trans women are responsible for at least some of the oppression of transmasc people, or at least contributing to a hostile atmosphere for a marginalized group, by pointing out that (some) trans women are espousing anti-transmasc views. And I think this is a fine opinion to hold, though I do feel like it's not clear/may be an unexplored point of tension in your views.

Unless by "social power to oppress", you mean, like, not responsible for structural discrimination. And yeah, I don't think trans people are widely involved in, like, housing and employment discrimination against one another, or creating anti-trans policies. Though I also don't think that's, like, physically impossible, just extremely unlikely-- we have fewer opportunities to do that stuff to one another, and treating scene beef as the whole of trans people's experiences is pretty silly.

But I guess my question is-- and this sounds really awful but bear with me-- in what sense is holding anti-transmasc sentiments wrong if it's completely decoupled from the more serious problems that transmasc people experience? If it has nothing to do with housing discrimination, or increased gatekeeping for HRT, or whatever?

Is it just an inaccurate way of looking at the world? A dead-end ideology that splits oppressed people from another? Some kind of character flaw? Just kinda annoying?

Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a super hard membrane between "bigoted attitudes" and "social power to oppress", especially in a society where the politicking of niche subcultures is increasingly visible and intelligible to larger audiences. Memes spread from various fringes to the mass media in unexpected ways. Are neoreactionaries an online subculture unknown to most normies and without any ability to achieve their major goals, or have they influenced the political thought of the most important people in American politics? Yes.

And like, the current trans backlash seems (to me) pretty intertwined with trans stuff becoming a huge focus on social media, free outrage clickbait whenever you want. It could be Fox News too, of course. In any case Trump has explicitly said that the base seemed extremely mad at trans and so he's pandered to them. So there is some grassroots stuff that bubbles up and does seem connected to the big stuff we want (access to healthcare, passports, not living in a state of terrifying uncertainty).

So I don't mean this in a way that is like, whenever you post bad on the Internet God kills a t-boy, because that's scrupulosity-inducing and insane and most of us have tiny audiences. But insofar as certain trans people participated in certain transphobic discourses (and I'm thinking more your Blaire White types than your baeddels in this specific case), they are just as morally blameworthy for the rise of state-backed transphobia as a cis person in their position would be. It's not the same as personally kicking a trans person out of a homeless shelter, but I think they are playing a small role in like state-enforced discrimination.

Sorry if that sounds like a stringboard rant.

transandrophobes thinking we’re blaming transandrophobia on transfems is fucking hilarious because the same people who think that will also literally make posts that are like “anyways here’s how transmascs are responsible for xyz issues” and xyz issues are things that can and do get us fucking killed, if that’s not projection idk what is

anyways!! transfems and transmascs have more to gain united than separate!! none of us are responsible for the oppression of other trans people because we do not have the social power to oppress one another!! transunity or bust!!

[metallickoi]

OP, can you explain what you mean by "united all trans people"? I think there was an era during the 2000s where it was more acceptable for trans men to call themselves this word, and I guess I can see that increasing a feeling of group cohesion (similar to the word "queer" as an umbrella term), though I don't know how trans women felt about it at the time. I do remember that a lot of trans women felt it was inappropriate for drag queens to use it (the Trannyshack controversy), though some (Kate Bornstein, iirc) defended drag queens' use of it. I would be curious to read perspectives from that era of discourse.

I don't think that all opposition to trans men using the word is rooted in hatred per se-- more so a sense that it's "stolen valor" for trans men to call themselves a word that most people associate with trans women. If you go ahead and search "tranny" on a smallweb search engine, you get a decent amount of hate speech about trans women and a decent amount of porn of trans women. I think it's pretty fair to say it's been an anti-transfem slur for most of its history, and thus people think of it as a bit appropriative or "but why though" for trans guys to call themselves that.

Let's put it this way: I would find it odd for a cis gay man to call himself a "dyke", but that doesn't necessarily mean I hate cis gay men or think they have nothing in common with other LGBT people, you know? I'm not going to get on anyone's case about it, but it is a fairly marked choice to say the least.

the idea that tranny can’t be reclaimed by *all* trans people when historically it’s a word that has united *all* trans people is some next level bullshit, just say you can’t stand your trans siblings so much it makes you stupid

whatever the fuck happened to trans UNITY

[metallickoi]

@superkittenstrawberry replied:

How can one be a transfeminist or just a feminist frankly & not understand that trans men deal w/ specific forms of transphobic violence as much trans women and terminology for that is useful? I honestly have never met a single person who understands transandrophobia that doesn't also recognize transmisogyny as an equally useful term. The idea that trans men only experience transphobia - whatever that means, is ignoring intersectionality.

Oops, initially applied on my main blog, but I'd rather not cross the streams.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the intersectional critique. I feel like if you grant that there are forms of homophobia that affect gay men and forms of racism that affect Black men, then it would be odd if trans men had no specific experiences of transphobia. Though I don't think there really are parallel terms for anti-gay man and anti-Black man bigotry.

One reason most transfeminists and feminists don't use the term "transandrophobia" is that it's relatively new and originated on Tumblr. There are also many feminists who see the project of feminism as focused on women and aren't interested in trans men on that grounds. I use the term feminist as a neutral term for a specific family of beliefs (many of which could be criticized on grounds of intersectionality), not as an indication of approval or disapproval for people's views.

I don't think the primary differences in worldview between people on different "sides" of the transandrophobia "debate" are attributable to bigotry. I think you can hold certain transfeminist beliefs (that transmisogyny is a serious form of oppression and there is no distinct form of oppression that trans men face) and certain anti-transandrophobia beliefs (that transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression, and often that it's on par with transmisogyny) for reasons other than "unfair hostility towards trans men" or "unfair hostility towards trans women" respectively.

There are ways in which holding transfeminist beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans men, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some transfeminists have messed-up attitudes about trans men that intersect with their transfeminist beliefs, and treat trans men badly. And there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans men, even if they don't personally agree.

Likewise, there are ways that anti-transandrophobia beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans women, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression have messed-up attitudes about trans women that intersect with their beliefs about trans men's oppression, and treat trans women badly. And again, there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans women, even if they don't personally agree.

That doesn't mean that all transfeminists are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans men, or that all people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans women, or really particularly bigoted at all. There are many reasons someone could find one way of understanding gender oppression more compelling than the other, including differences in life experiences, the views people they associate with hold, or hearing better arguments or seeing better evidence from one side than the other.

I started out thinking that people who considered transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression were primarily motivated by bigotry. I saw them called "MRAs" and I've seen speculation a lot of them will become TERFS, including from people I respected. And generalizations about their motivations led me to predict wildly different things about their discourse than I've actually witnessed from people who hold these beliefs. When modeling them as "transmisogynistic bigots", I predicted a much higher level of overt hostility and mockery towards trans women, a flippant attitude that their problems don't matter, use of stereotypes and slurs, arguments that trans women should be excluded from certain spaces or opportunities, arguments that trans women aren't women or that gender transition isn't legit. Virtually every transmisogynistic discourse I've seen-- from Mumsnet to 4chan to radblr-- involves these features. Maybe they're not --necessary-- criteria for judging an ideology or social space to be overwhelmingly transmisogynistic, but... unless people who take transandrophobia to be a distinct form of oppression are super-duper good at resisting the opportunity to display these views, many of them don't seem particularly hostile to trans women, or like they're primarily seeking a safe space to act in ways that wouldn't tolerated otherwise. It seems implausible to me that you could have a notable, fundamental thread of bigotry against trans women in your spaces and avoid all these memes bleeding through, when they're shared by both left-wing and right-wing forms of transphobia. If the typical person in this discourse-sphere is notably bigoted against trans women, it's in some highly unusual way. Many people who think transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression also believe that transmisogyny is a serious problem, giving them more overlap in worldview with transfeminists than, like, most normies. I was wrong to generalize them as bigots, even though some of them are likely motivated by transmisogynistic views on a subtler level, and there may be some elements of the discourse that are objectionable.

There are a lot of things floating about in that discourse-sphere I don't find convincing or indicative of super high-priority issues, and a smaller number I find troubling. I've felt some frustration reading posts of people in this camp... Regardless, I do think many people are trying to discuss perceived weaknesses of transfeminist points of view in a fairly sincere way, or discuss the stuff they've personally experienced as trans men.

And, honestly, many of the people criticizing them are doing the same from a transfeminist POV.

[metallickoi]

A lot of the stories we hear about trans women who have their lives totally fucked up by Internet smear campaigns, and that are often taken as evidence of how much it sucks to be a trans woman on the Internet, involve some element of social precarity --beyond-- being a trans woman.

People don't often talk about this, but a lot of the primary actors in Hot Allostatic Load were trans women, and one of the primary power differentials was --level of establishment in a professional field and social capital within that field--. It's partly a story about trans women abusing another trans woman (who nowadays objects to people placing them in any gender category). It's not the only story I've heard from that particular slice of the indie games-verse of "trans woman trying to break into games gets abused by another, more established and popular trans woman".

Likewise, Isabel Fall was not yet established in science fiction, and her lack of footing in that space arguably played a big role in the way people treated her-- she had no one to vouch for her as people projected wild counter-fantasies onto her, no social capital and no defenders. I could easily imagine a counterfactual popular, well-established Isabel Fall who was, if not okay, able to weather that harassment campaign thanks to support of her friends.

That doesn't mean that transmisogyny wasn't a factor in how credible the allegations were to the audience, or that the targets weren't affected by this --as trans women-- even when that wasn't known. (Cis man Isabel Fall wouldn't have found it so devastating to be called "a man pretending to be a woman"). But when we look at people wielding social power against one another, there's often multiple factors that allow them to fuck each other over, including relative social capital and establishment in whatever niche.

You as a non trans woman are always going to have social power over a trans woman. Even if you play the Oppression Olympics game of trying to weigh all of your axises of oppression against hers in an attempt to signal you are more virtuous than her, the factor of the power you hold over her as a non-transfem still has to be a part of that equation. No amount of framing and predatorising her is going to change that.

I agree that there are many ways people, including trans men, can use transmisogyny to fuck over trans women in a way that reinforces their subordinate position. The prevalence of certain stereotypes, such as the beliefs that trans women are "creepy", perverted, or predatory, arguably make trans women more vulnerable to certain kinds of social attack. Stereotypes of trans women as "mentally ill" and irrational, or "mannish" and aggressive, can also be used to discredit and scapegoat them in conflicts. People can use transmisogynistic insults or slights to "punish" trans women they don't like, whether that's something as blatant as using slurs or a "subtler" slight (like degendering a trans woman they don't like). All of these social moves can cause social and psychological harm to trans women, and make it harder for them to feel like they're on equal ground with other participants in their social and professional spheres, and limit their opportunities.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with the claim here that this holds regardless of context and that treating other factors as more significant is a frivolous exercise in the Oppression Olympics. I think the quote downplays how individual trans women can have the ability to fuck over individual trans men, even if we accept that the reverse is more often true. If you're a trans man and a trans woman is your boss or landlord, I think she has a greater number of opportunities to fuck you over than you do her, and significant recourse if you do act in transmisogynistic ways towards her. If you're an isolated, disabled trans man and you move to another city to date your gainfully-employed, socially popular trans girlfriend, again, I think she has more opportunities to fuck you over than you do her, and (again) significant recourse if you do try to fuck her over.

In practice it's worth looking into how often this happens (versus the opposite situation), and I would buy it happening to trans women more. That said, I know plenty of super precarious trans men (though none in the specific situation I've mentioned). And even if the reverse is more common socially, that's different from claiming that even the most socially precarious trans man has significant opportunities to fuck over any trans woman.

Finally, I think many of the dynamics I've described above are not unique to interactions between non-trans women and trans women, so I don't think they're symptomatic of a power all non-trans women hold and all trans women are only affected by. I've seen trans women call each other out as "freakazoids" for taboo fetishes. There are trans women on /tttt/ right now workshopping new forms of transmisogyny. There's nothing stopping a trans woman from degendering another trans women she dislikes in an argument, except the disapproval of her peers and her own principles. The consequences are the same, even if the actions are from someone of a similar social position.

[metallickoi]

You as a non trans woman are always going to have social power over a trans woman. Even if you play the Oppression Olympics game of trying to weigh all of your axises of oppression against hers in an attempt to signal you are more virtuous than her, the factor of the power you hold over her as a non-transfem still has to be a part of that equation. No amount of framing and predatorising her is going to change that.

I agree that there are many ways people, including trans men, can use transmisogyny to fuck over trans women in a way that reinforces their subordinate position. The prevalence of certain stereotypes, such as the beliefs that trans women are "creepy", perverted, or predatory, arguably make trans women more vulnerable to certain kinds of social attack. Stereotypes of trans women as "mentally ill" and irrational, or "mannish" and aggressive, can also be used to discredit and scapegoat them in conflicts. People can use transmisogynistic insults or slights to "punish" trans women they don't like, whether that's something as blatant as using slurs or a "subtler" slight (like degendering a trans woman they don't like). All of these social moves can cause social and psychological harm to trans women, and make it harder for them to feel like they're on equal ground with other participants in their social and professional spheres, and limit their opportunities.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with the claim here that this holds regardless of context and that treating other factors as more significant is a frivolous exercise in the Oppression Olympics. I think the quote downplays how individual trans women can have the ability to fuck over individual trans men, even if we accept that the reverse is more often true. If you're a trans man and a trans woman is your boss or landlord, I think she has a greater number of opportunities to fuck you over than you do her, and significant recourse if you do act in transmisogynistic ways towards her. If you're an isolated, disabled trans man and you move to another city to date your gainfully-employed, socially popular trans girlfriend, again, I think she has more opportunities to fuck you over than you do her, and (again) significant recourse if you do try to fuck her over.

In practice it's worth looking into how often this happens (versus the opposite situation), and I would buy it happening to trans women more. That said, I know plenty of super precarious trans men (though none in the specific situation I've mentioned). And even if the reverse is more common socially, that's different from claiming that even the most socially precarious trans man has significant opportunities to fuck over any trans woman.

Finally, I think many of the dynamics I've described above are not unique to interactions between non-trans women and trans women, so I don't think they're symptomatic of a power all non-trans women hold and all trans women are only affected by. I've seen trans women call each other out as "freakazoids" for taboo fetishes. There are trans women on /tttt/ right now workshopping new forms of transmisogyny. There's nothing stopping a trans woman from degendering another trans women she dislikes in an argument, except the disapproval of her peers and her own principles. The consequences are the same, even if the actions are from someone of a similar social position.

[metallickoi]

I don't think the primary differences in worldview between people on different "sides" of the transandrophobia "debate" are attributable to bigotry. I think you can hold certain transfeminist beliefs (that transmisogyny is a serious form of oppression and there is no distinct form of oppression that trans men face) and certain anti-transandrophobia beliefs (that transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression, and often that it's on par with transmisogyny) for reasons other than "unfair hostility towards trans men" or "unfair hostility towards trans women" respectively.

There are ways in which holding transfeminist beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans men, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some transfeminists have messed-up attitudes about trans men that intersect with their transfeminist beliefs, and treat trans men badly. And there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans men, even if they don't personally agree.

Likewise, there are ways that anti-transandrophobia beliefs can appeal to, reinforce, complement, or justify unfair hostility that some adherents feel towards trans women, and lead adherents to minimize the problems they face. Some people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression have messed-up attitudes about trans women that intersect with their beliefs about trans men's oppression, and treat trans women badly. And again, there are people in these circles who probably "look the other way" too much when someone on the "correct side" says something messed-up or factually wrong about trans women, even if they don't personally agree.

That doesn't mean that all transfeminists are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans men, or that all people who consider transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression are primarily motivated by bigotry against trans women, or really particularly bigoted at all. There are many reasons someone could find one way of understanding gender oppression more compelling than the other, including differences in life experiences, the views people they associate with hold, or hearing better arguments or seeing better evidence from one side than the other.

I started out thinking that people who considered transandrophobia a distinct form of oppression were primarily motivated by bigotry. I saw them called "MRAs" and I've seen speculation a lot of them will become TERFS, including from people I respected. And generalizations about their motivations led me to predict wildly different things about their discourse than I've actually witnessed from people who hold these beliefs. When modeling them as "transmisogynistic bigots", I predicted a much higher level of overt hostility and mockery towards trans women, a flippant attitude that their problems don't matter, use of stereotypes and slurs, arguments that trans women should be excluded from certain spaces or opportunities, arguments that trans women aren't women or that gender transition isn't legit. Virtually every transmisogynistic discourse I've seen-- from Mumsnet to 4chan to radblr-- involves these features. Maybe they're not --necessary-- criteria for judging an ideology or social space to be overwhelmingly transmisogynistic, but... unless people who take transandrophobia to be a distinct form of oppression are super-duper good at resisting the opportunity to display these views, many of them don't seem particularly hostile to trans women, or like they're primarily seeking a safe space to act in ways that wouldn't tolerated otherwise. It seems implausible to me that you could have a notable, fundamental thread of bigotry against trans women in your spaces and avoid all these memes bleeding through, when they're shared by both left-wing and right-wing forms of transphobia. If the typical person in this discourse-sphere is notably bigoted against trans women, it's in some highly unusual way. Many people who think transandrophobia is a distinct form of oppression also believe that transmisogyny is a serious problem, giving them more overlap in worldview with transfeminists than, like, most normies. I was wrong to generalize them as bigots, even though some of them are likely motivated by transmisogynistic views on a subtler level, and there may be some elements of the discourse that are objectionable.

There are a lot of things floating about in that discourse-sphere I don't find convincing or indicative of super high-priority issues, and a smaller number I find troubling. I've felt some frustration reading posts of people in this camp... Regardless, I do think many people are trying to discuss perceived weaknesses of transfeminist points of view in a fairly sincere way, or discuss the stuff they've personally experienced as trans men.

And, honestly, many of the people criticizing them are doing the same from a transfeminist POV.