#tma/tme

[transandrobroism]

an observation from several posts/conversations that could really help in avoiding a lot of misunderstandings: often when people talk about 'transmisogyny', they are using the term 'transmisogyny' to mean at least three different things simultaneously and conflating different meanings of the term in discussions. in general usage i've seen 'transmisogyny' used to mean:

transmisogyny-as-phenomena - i.e. 'transmisogyny' as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, a common feature of transfems' experiences;

transmisogyny-as-framework - in which transmisogyny is elevated to the level of a conceptual framework for understanding all transphobia. under this meaning everyone is encouraged/expected to conceptualise their experiences of transphobia through the lens of transmisogyny and run it through a filter of "how does this relate back to transmisogyny as the primary driving force for all transphobia"

on top of this both uses of the term are also conflated with the TMA/TME framework that divides people into two neat categories of those affected or primarily targeted by transmisogyny (transmisogyny affected, or TMA) and those exempt from transmisogyny and only accidentally impacted by it (transmisogyny exempt, or TME).

conflating all these meanings with each other is how you end up with soggy takes like "rejecting the label of TME is denying transfems the right to define and discuss their own oppression" which is a real thing that someone (transmasc) said to me. treating these concepts as all interchangeable meanings of the term transmisogyny contributes to a lot of the discourse and (frankly) animosity about discussions of transandrophobia, because when someone says something like "idk i just don't think transmisogyny is adequate as a robust framework for understanding how all transphobia works" or "dividing the world into TMA/TME is a flawed way of viewing transphobia and replicates the gender binary we're all trying to dismantle", that's a critique of transmisogyny-as-framework, but is read as a rejection of transmisogyny-as-phenomena, and thus is viewed as invalidating transfems' experiences.

add to that the fact that i've seen some people insist that transmisogyny is not just an umbrella term for the ways transfems experience transphobia but just means the intersection of transphobia and misogyny - but at the same time people insist that AFAB (trans) people are all exempt from transmisogyny by default and that our experiences should be discussed as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. which renders the de facto meaning of the term 'transmisogyny' an umbrella term for transfem experiences from which anyone not transfem is exempt.

the conflation of terms and definitions means any critique of transmisogyny or TMA/TME is taken as a denial of transfems' experiences. it also means that when transmascs propose a term like 'transandrophobia' - meaning the intersection of the identity positions of 'trans' and 'man', or more broadly a term for commonly-shared experiences of transmascs - that's read as an argument that all men are systemically oppressed for being men (it's not) and/or that transmascs are proposing transandrophobia-as-framework (again, not the case). but because 'transmisogyny' can refer interchangeably to both transphobic phenomena and experiences and a proposed conceptual framework for transphobia in general, the term 'transandrophobia' is misconstrued as a conceptual framework. we say "we've come up with a term to describe our experiences as transmascs" and people hear "you need to conceptualise all your experiences with transphobia in terms of the oppression of transmascs and centre our experiences in your discussions about your own marginalisation".

the reality is that most people discussing transandrophobia are not denying that transfems experience transphobia or denying that transmisogynistic phenomena happen. objections to the TMA/TME distinction are objections to a conceptual framework that treats all transphobia as just transmisogyny in a trenchcoat, and not a denial that transfems experience transmisogyny or are 'not oppressed' or whatever else.

for the record, i have no beef with transmisogyny either as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny or as a term for shared transfem experiences. my critiques of transfeminst thinking are theoretical, namely:

transmisogyny-as-framework presupposes that the major driving force of all transphobia is a desire to target/punish trans women and that everyone else is caught in the crossfire. i don't think that's adequate as a conceptual framework because transphobia is better understood as a result of a gender-essentialist society punishing all non-normative performance of gender. it also relies on a lot of faulty assumptions about the transphobia that transmascs experience. transphobia experienced by transmascs is treated as a category-typical experience of transphobia (i.e. trans men get the 'just transphobia' version, whilst transfems get the 'transphobia plus' version)... but also transmasc oppression must be framed in terms of 'misdirected (trans)misogyny'. you can't treat trans men as having the most typical, 'basic' experience of transphobia whilst also insisting all transphobia is actually a form of transmisogyny misdirected at other trans people. those two positions are mutually contradictory. if all transphobia is actually about transmisogyny then transfems are getting the default transphobia experience and transmascs/trans nonbinary people/etc are all getting variations of that, not the other way around.

if you want to use transmisogyny as a framework for understanding all of transphobia, you cannot label anyone as exempt from transmisogyny. if transmisogyny is the proposed framework for understanding all transphobic discrimination of any trans person of any gender, then you are saying we all exist in a system of transmisogyny. therefore none of us are exempt from it. and if you're proposing transmisogyny-as-framework for all trans experiences, then all trans people get to weigh in on it, because you're applying it to all of us. i get to disagree with the framework being coercively applied to my experiences and i should be able to do that without being called transmisogynistic, because critiquing a framework you're asking every trans person to submit to is not synonymous with hating on trans women or denying their lived experiences or saying they're not oppressed. you can't insist that transmascs are TME by default whilst also insisting we only ever discuss our experiences as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. and you definitely can't label all transmascs as exempt from transmisogyny whilst simultaneously insisting we use transmisogyny as the conceptual framework within which we understand our oppression. that's trying to have your cake and eat it.

the TMA/TME framework is just reinventing binary gender but with extra steps. especially since in practice determining whether someone is TMA or TME seems to involve an awful lot of focus on people's assigned gender and what genitals they were born with.

a lot of this theorising follows a very radfem pattern of dividing everyone into two gendered categories, labelling one of those categories to Privileged Oppressor Class, and then heavily policing who gets to belong to the Oppressed Victims Class based on their genitals and socialisation. at which point you're just doing TERFism from the other direction. any framework that proposes we can understand gendered experiences in terms of a strict binary is automatically throwing intersex and nonbinary people under the bus. a comprehensive theory of trans experiences must have space for nonbinary identities and intersex experiences otherwise it is incomplete.

i'm making this post in good faith and i'm not denying the impact of transmisogyny on transfems. but i do think theorising around transmisogyny and TMA/TME as a framework have a number of flaws and i'm not going to use those frameworks to talk about my own experiences because they are theoretically inadequate. a robust theory of transphobia and trans experiences must have room for all trans experiences within it, as well as overlapping experiences of gendered oppression such as intersexism, misogyny, butchphobia etc. TMA/TME ain't it.

[a-polite-melody]

Hmm

I just saw a critique of “oh so transmascs can use a word which is clumsy in its etymology to talk on their oppression and we can’t criticize that, but TME/TMA is able to be criticized on that basis?”

And… it’s kinda different when you actually put these two things in context.

TMA/TME as a binary like cis/trans or multispec/mono or aspec/allo is on a first-stage of language creation, as far as I’m aware. There hasn’t been a 6+ year-long history of trying new words in the face of people nitpicking etymology while having the actual issue behind the needing a new term not engaged with in the meantime which proves that the word isn’t the actual problem and that this is only in-bad-faith in order to shut us up.

I understand the frustration, I even get a knee-jerk reaction to being told that the language you’re using is maybe not the best language (especially considering some of these people were the ones actively utilizing that tactic against transmascs wanting to speak on our issues; they’d be extra prone to be wary of this tactic). But a critique of the word choice itself being harmful isn’t in-and-of-itself a bad-faith critique, especially when it’s on a first attempt at the language and not a nitpick about etymology but a problem with labelling other people’s experiences as being totally exempt for them.

Like. On the surface you can make the “oh so transmascs don’t have to be perfect in their language but transfems do?” argument. But when you actually dig into what’s being discussed it really isn’t that simple.

[pigagainstsuicidism]

The difference between the power to use and the power to abuse

A very common tactic by those in privilege is to conflate between access to subsistence and resources to meet one's needs and access to control over others. Like, you know that thing people have noticed where queer-centered orgs are way more white supremacist than even most leftist orgs? Like this tiktok is about how whenever you call out their white supremacy, they're all like "I am a transmasculine fem nonbinary neurodivergent obsessive compulsive chronically ill culturally Jewish non-monogamous demiromantic..."

Or when you point out the undeniable problem that TME people have power over TMA people in queer spaces and regularly abuse them, take away their home, etc. and they hit you with a bunch of random, completely unrelated ways in which TME people get oppressed and abused that are specific to them. How is that relevant???

They list parts of themselves that make them disposed to lacking access to subsistence and resources to meet their needs. Being marginalized in all of these ways will harm your life chances. If you're white transmasc, transantagonism affects you in ways specific to transmascs and you get systemic, negative experiences that are largely exclusive to transmascs.

But what on Earth does that have to do with whether or not you have power over a BIPOC, or a transfem, and so on? Like there are whole masterposts that are popular on this site by huge tumblr users that are meant to "debunk" the claim that TMA people face a special, extra form of oppression which is regularly exploited by non-TMA people, and it's literally just a bunch of links to completely irrelevant experiences. Nobody is denying transmascs have it fucking tough, but how the hell is that pertinent to the fact that TME trans people have power over TMA people!?

[faggypuppywhore]

"The most dangerous thing to transmisogyny now, at this stage in the struggle, is TMA people coming together and giving name to our oppression and loving each other: t4t."

Guys trust me my separatism and generalised statements about gender are so valid and good this time you guys this is a normal idea that has no influence from radical feminism at all

[gay-otlc]

Debates about TMA/TME (transmisogyny affected/transmisogyny exempt) terminology are popping up on a post I made on my other blog, and I feel like it's derailing the post a lot, but it is a conversation I'm genuinely curious about. I'm interested in hearing from people who are in favor of using TMA/TME terminology, and interested in hearing transfeminine perspectives in particular, but anyone is welcome to respond.

These are some questions that I've seen a lot of opposing viewpoints on and would like to learn more about.

Is being TMA something that is exclusive to transfeminine people, or can non-transfeminine people be TMA?

If it's the former, is there a significant difference between saying TMA or saying transfeminine? (This question isn't to say that there isn't a difference, just that I'm curious about what it is)

If it's the latter, under what circumstances can a non-transfeminine person be TMA?

Is anyone who experiences transmisogyny as a result of being perceived as transfeminine considered TMA, or is there a certain amount of transmisogyny that one has to experience to be TMA?

If it's the latter, how is this decided?

Are nonbinary and genderqueer people who were AMAB but don't identify as transfeminine considered TMA or TME? Is this something they determine for themselves?

Are intersex people who aren't transfeminine ever considered TMA? Are there specific "criteria" that one has to meet, or is this something they determine for themselves?

If it's the former, how is this decided?

Is it necessary for people to disclose whether they are TMA or TME? (Either in general, or in discussions specifically related to transness)

What would be your thoughts on equivalent language referring to transmasculine-focused transphobia (transandrophobia, transmisandry, whatever you call it) or nonbinary-focused transphobia (exorsexism)?

This post is for respectful discussion, not for fighting about these terms. If you're interested in fighting, please do so somewhere that is not my post.

[jackalpants]

It strikes me that "transmisogyny affected" is a very useless term. Its shadow, "transmisogyny exempt," even more so.

You can absolutely be not a trans woman and be directly affected by transmisogyny. It's not- look, the hate exists because trans women exist but you don't as a trans woman get a special wristband that makes it clear you are the only ones to be targeted.

Even more so, nobody gets a wristband that says they shouldn't be targeted. If you're not a white woman and especially if you're a black woman you'll occasionally be the target of direct transmisogynistic hate. If you're a trans man you'll occasionally be the target!

We gotta stop finding ways to silo off queer people from one another. It feels very much to me like we identified a kind of hate that is specifically AIMED at trans women and that's useful, and then we hop-skipped straight to going "so only trans women can ever experience it! It's special and we can build a wall!" And some people jumped to "ah, finally, THIS is the polite way to divide up people who have ever had a dick and people who haven't."

Come on, buddy. That's not how it's done.

[cackled0g]

I think a lot of people on here fundamentally misunderstand the TMA/TME dichotomy. TMA or TME isn't a label you are designated based on how you look, it's an identifier of the forms of oppression you face. It's no different to me that using terms like "person with a penis" or "person who can get pregnant."

Do some people use the terms in bad faith? Yes. People can use neutral terms in bad ways. If I say "all people with penises are horrible creeps who prey on others", that's clearly using a neutral term in a bad faith way to invoke a mental image based on a history of bigotry.

But that doesn't mean the term is inherently useless or bad.

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

Calling issues specifically affecting and targeting trans men "TME trans issues" is so fucking disrespectful. Please stop derailing and making everything about transmisogyny when trans men are simply trying to speak about our own experiences. You're not protecting trans women by Owning The Cuntboys™, you're punching down on one of the most marginalized groups of men and furthering the stigma against us at a time when we are under direct threat of genocide by various governments around the world. If you do this please either re-evaluate what you're doing or alternatively go die in a fucking fire.

[8aeddel-vriska]

"when you said TMA i thought you meant The Magnus archives lol"

That's great, pal. I love hearing this every time we try to talk about our issues. Can you keep it to yourself next time?

[queertiapine]

one thing with the critiques about tma/tme i've seen

there are edgecases to everything. just because you can find people who or you yourself do not fit cleanly into those categories does not mean the categories are worthless.

the capitalist/proletariat categories still have worth despite people who work but own a little stock, and people who work a regular job but also sell their art on the side

[a-polite-melody]

Both

“Transandrophobia doesn’t mean the things our opponents are claiming, and we by-and-large aren’t saying what our opponents are claiming we are. This is a silencing tactic to stop us from talking about our oppression by denying us any language at all to do so.”

and then the later

“TMA/TME doesn’t mean the things our opponents are claiming, and we by-and-large aren’t saying what our opponents are claiming we are. This is a silencing tactic to stop us from talking about our oppression by denying us any language at all to do so.”

are now both happening simultaneously.

However, while the first one is something provable with examples from the coiner of the term, the most popular posts on the subject, trawling through the transandrophobia tag and seeing how sparse (not non-existent, mind you, but definitely spare as in far outweighed by everything else) the issue that dissenters are bringing up…

When it comes to TMA/TME… it doesn’t seem to be provable in the same way. There are many, many, many use cases people have pointed out where these acronyms are used differently from how people then will go onto define them. People will claim that these terms are meant to be “transfems and those adjacent”/“everyone else” but an extremely common phrasing to stumble upon is “cis people and TMEs” making it clear that there’s at least a 50:50 split on whether people are using the term “TME” how it’s defined.

I don’t know, it just doesn’t seem like these two things are the same to me.

[tranceykitten]

When someone says to me "there are people who don't fall neatly within tma/tme" what I hear is "this person actually falls very neatly under tme and just doesn't like admitting that"

[auroroboros1]

i do not have to side with little brother or little sister in their little fights. grow the fuck up.

[girl-with-bones]

okay you know what? no more discourse. you're all banned. everyone is allowed to do whatever they want. forever

Sorry. I don't make the rules. because there are none

[gay-otlc]

I'm still working on listening to different perspectives in the discussion on TMA/TME language, and I wanted to hear from people on tumblr (particularly transfeminine people) who find TMA/TME language useful.

Something I keep wondering is, if TMA and TME mean transfem and non-transfem respectively* (which I've seen stated to be the case), why use TMA/TME instead of transfem/non-transfem? Is there a specific benefit to the former? What makes it more useful than the latter when talking about transmisogyny?

*if this isn't something you agree with, I guess these questions don't really apply to you, but I would be curious to hear what TMA/TME means to you

As a comparison, when we're talking about antisemitism, we don't say "antisemitism affected" and "antisemitism exempt," we just say Jews and goyim (or gentiles, non-Jews, etc). We don't say "ableism affected" and "ableism exempt," just disabled and nondisabled. Why is it different for transmisogyny? Or do you think affected/exempt language should be used for other forms of oppression?

I'm asking from a place of genuine curiosity, and responses would be greatly appreciated so long as everyone remains respectful. Please do not start fighting about this in my notes. If you must fight with someone, do so somewhere else.

[weepingfireflies]

Anyway, I decided to delete my anti-TME/TMA post because I felt like it didn't properly convey my thoughts on the matter: no one is or ever should be the arbiter of another's oppression. No one gets to decide who counts as "transmisogyny-affected" or "transmisogyny-exempt" except the person themselves, and even then, it's more than justified not to want to be "othered" as "TME" when being "othered," especially when viewed as a dangerous man ~encroaching~ on women's spaces & resources, gets people killed. Anyone deemed "too masculine" or "man-like" (regardless of sex or gender) are often excluded from LGBTQIA+ and activism spaces because of the very commonly-held belief that men never experience oppression ("women good, men bad").

I strongly support people having a term to talk about their specific oppression (transmisogyny, anti-transmasculinity), but that goes both ways. We're not saying transfems shouldn't talk about their own experiences; we're asking you not to talk over our own.