#trans men and cis men are the same gender but that does NOT mean we exist in the same all-male vacuum

[lord-radish]

imagine thinking that trans men are inherently bad or evil or predatory on the basis of gendered privilege and societal power structures. cringe

[aroacedavestrider]

anyway i was gonna make a big long post about this but its 1:30am and im tired lmao. so has anyone noticed the insane similarities between all this anti-transmasc stuff and the entire aspec exclusionist movement or is that just me on my aroace trans dude shit

like. i dunno. the misconstruing of the concepts of transandromisia and aphobia in general being made out to “oppress other identities”, or just the downplaying / dismissal of our group-specific issues altogether, or insisting that these specific issues are just the results of some broader, equally shitty concept, or saying that we have “privilege” comparable to majority groups (cis men, straight people) despite being excluded / ridiculed / persecuted by those same groups, or the fact that when we talk about these issues were reduced to like “whiny little white teenage uwu tumblr blogger” instead of taken seriously, or that while real people in our communities are getting hurt or killed people are focusing on whether the terms we use are #unproblematic enough instead

idk is that just me? am i hallucinating or am i experiencing the 2018 exclusionist movement all over again except make it #trans

[comicaurora]

I'm sorry that the terfs made their way onto your blog but it does feel good to see you support trans people. Thank you for that

Always.

I think, charitably, that the discourse going down on that post is an extrapolation and over-focus on one element of the point I was making: that for me, determining with certainty that I was cis was a rather fraught process. I was presented with many alternatives, but underlying their imposition on me was the oddly regressive idea that the things I liked, the principles I valued, the parts of myself I was proud of were not permitted of women. My whole life I got smacked with the background radiation that I couldn't like being strong because women aren't allowed to be stronger than men. I couldn't like being loud and boistrous because women aren't allowed to take up space. I couldn't be a math geek because women aren't smart. It was all deeply regressive misogyny from day one, but I started getting hit with it slathered in a fresh coat of paint - all those assumptions still held to be true, but now there was the out that I could do all those things if I just wasn't a woman.

Concluding that the underlying bioessentialist premise was wrong was very important. Absolutely none of those statements were true, and were only ever maintained by cultural saturation, goalpost-readjustment when they were actively disproven, and the occasional bout of lying with statistics to pretend they weren't just Shit All The Way Down. The core premise that certain things were only permitted of or possible for men was bullshit, and I didn't need to surrender the gender I liked best in order to play in the spaces I wanted to. I could simply exist the way I was already existing. I didn't need anything else.

The misinterpretation is the assumption that this being true of me means this is everybody's relationship with gender. I turned out to be cis, so for me, feeling that holding onto my assigned gender wasn't allowed was distressing - just another invocation of the same bioessentialist bullshit I'd been dealing with since the preschool playground. This is because misgendering is fundamentally denying that a person has the right to express themself the way they want. When aimed at me, it says I'm not performing traditional femininity well enough to deserve my pronouns. The same disrespect is the root of misgendering when aimed at trans people. "Perform your gender to my satisfaction or I will confiscate it."

The problem is, bioessentialism is 100% ingrained into the terf playbook, which is why, for instance, all their shitty talking points about trans athletes eventually boil down to "no woman can ever defeat a man in any contest because we are simply naturally weak and stupid and there is nothing we can do about it" and quite frankly nothing disgusts me more than the defeatist acceptance of the very lie that feminism is dedicated to overcoming. Instead of accepting that the paradigm of bioessentialism is a false dichotomy right from the jump, they embrace and weaponize it against the people whose existence proves the dichotomy is a lie. If gender essentialism is fundamentally false, then it is nobody's fucking business what anybody does with their gender. If the lines don't exist, nobody needs to enforce them. And yet there the terfs go, hunting down people whose lives are none of their business and trying to argue that they represent some great and terrible evil, some downfall of society made flesh, something that makes it totally correct and normal for them to spend so much time thinking about strangers' genitalia. They want this to be a noble crusade so badly they won't even examine what flag they're flying.

I love and support the trans people in my life and will always, always stand on the side of your right to exist, but alongside that, terf rhetoric especially disgusts and infuriates me because it is, at its heart, utter cowardice. The world told them they were weak and stupid and inferior and they fucking believed it. And now they think Fighting The Good Fight For Women means turning around and using the same paradigmatic weapon that hurt them to hurt the people whose existence outside the binary proves the weapon is a lie. They're the same shithead schoolyard bullies who made me believe my entire existence was foundationally wrong for years of my life and I will never, ever side with them or the shitty, cowardly rhetoric that contributed to the loneliest years of my life.

Figure out who you are and do it on purpose. Find the real source of the misery in your life and try fighting that instead of the other crabs in the bucket. Trans rights.

[faggy--butch]

I think that trans men & mascs do directly challenge gender heirarchies by existing. The same as nonbinary people challenge the existance of the gender binary and trans women challenge the idea of people seeking status by transitioning to a "lesser" position, trans men challenge the idea that this heirarchy is static and exclusive and a lot of the assumptions of what it means to belong to a group within this heirarchy. And trans men aren't transitioning to gain status and oftentimes do not gain status in the least, which proves a fallacy in the idea that "man" is a coherent class that universally gains privilage and power and people would only transition to gain that power

This is really well put! The idea that trans men transition to gain status is actually a part of transandrophobia, and butchphobia actually. The butch flight, the lost lesbians, the idea that we're gender traitors, it's terf ideology.

So part of our issue is that we are seen as trying to get one over on people, of gaining male privilege because of course being a man means oppressing other people, masculinity is seen as oppressive, so we are either tryin to escape something or want to hold power over others, while at the same time, in reality, we lose our status as cis women as like, breeders for the next generation of white babies (this is specific to white trans men obviously)

So yeah, we challenge heavily the gender hierarchies, that to be a man means to oppress, and if that's not our manhood, if it's not what we want, then what IS manhood? what does it mean? And that scares people.

I will also say that "woman wanting to become men and taking our place" has already been a fear mongering tactic for YEARS. It started in part when women entered the work force. The "Equal rights equal fights" thing, This is all transandrophoia and butchphobia.

[transmascpetewentz]

One thing that doesn't get brought up enough in discussions of how the man-hating variety of radical feminism is based in homophobia. Like does no one remember when lesbian separatist radfems tried to claim that all gay men are predators? I think that a lot of people on tumblr who haven't really unlearned that rhetoric spread it unknowingly and will say shit like "well I'm not like those other misandrists, I don't hate gay men because they're gay I hate them because they're men!"

Ok but the effect is the same. Patriarchal structures of manhood and masculinity oppress queer men and men of color with their manhood/masculinity as a modifier. I do not like the word misandry for many reasons but the patriarchal role of a man is more than just the absence of womanhood or the position of power over others.

Butches, trans men, and some nonbinary people are all groups that do not generally have access to male privilege, but we still have the modifier of "male" factor into our oppression. All marginalized men have this modifier to an extent. Gay men are not simply oppressed for being gay, they are oppressed for being gay men specifically and occupying that position in society. While most cis gay men have access to cis and male privilege, they are still oppressed for how their gender and agab intersects with their gay identity.

What I mean when I talk about marginalized manhood is the common threads between different oppressions of minority male identities. It doesn't imply that misandry is real or that misogyny isn't. I don't know if there's a particular name for this type of theory/thought, but it perfectly explains how trans men are oppressed as a type of marginalized man while still experiencing misogyny.

Binary, radfem thinking makes people believe that marginalized manhood is characterized by the absence of misogyny when this could not be further from the truth. Woman—man is not only a bad way of looking at gender identity, but is also not how social positionality works. There are ways to explain how trans and intersex men are able to experience misogyny and marginalized manhood at the same time, but that requires us to quit thinking that the two social positional genders are "male" and "non-man".

[decolonize-the-everything]

Transmisandry isn’t real. They’re getting hate for being Trans not for being men.

Misandry isn‘t real. It hatred for their race, not for being men.

Whatever men of color get, women of color get it twice as much.

Listen to women of color. Don’t silence us.

I do loudly listen and platform and follow and support Black women. I tell people all the time the Combahee River Collective was right when they wrote that if Black women free then everyone would be because their freedom would "necessitate" the destruction of all systems of oppression.

In a way that why I made that post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Women of color get it worse than everyone.

Kimberlé Crenshaw created the term intersectionality after looking at a case where a factory worker had fired all the black women that he had employed. He had white women working for him and he still had black men working for him.

So the judge threw out the case Black women has started because courts did not have the infrastructure to recognize this overlap and said it would be a "Pandora's box" of other people trying to get rights if they did.

Isn't that wild??

And be honest, do you really think feminism listens to women of color? Mikki Kendall said this in her book Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women a Movement Left Behind.

"Feminism that could ignore police brutality killing women of color, that could ignore the study abuse and disenfranchisement and abuse in national and local politics of some women based on race and religion, wasn't about equality or equity for all; it was about benefitting white women at the expense of all others."

"We cannot and will not abandon our sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, or friends, because for us they don't represent an enemy. We have our issues with the patriarchy, but then so do they, as the most powerful faces of it aren't men of color. My husband may not always understand how misogyny impacts me, but he can absolutely grasp what it means when a boss's or a coworker's racism is an impediment. We sit together at that table, even if we don't face the exact same battles in every aspect of life. Women in communities of color must balance fighting external problematic voices with educating those inside our communities who are bad actors, and we expect feminism to do the same work on itself."

Here's something else that helped inform me

Black women have it worse than everyone and while the rest of us absolutely should shut the fuck up and listen, nobody does so I don't see where white women have gotten in their head that they don't have power over Black men or why they can't say anything?

When cis women absolutely hold power over trans men? (Esp trans men of color) since since you threw transmisandry in there.

You see where I'm going with this?

I think it very much an extension of white supremacy, anti-blackness, and anti-intersectionality to say that because you have it worse than someone else that someone else should shut up and not even have the Language to describe their experiences.

Either it applies to everyone and we all shut up for Black women or it doesn't :)

You have to judge people by their character, not their gender, weirdo.

Solidarity is for everyone and all their intersecting identities or it's just a white supremacist patriarchy for women.

Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk 💗

[abyssal-debonair]

“Masculinity and patriarchy are one in the same” is one of the ideological pillars of patriarchy. It frames masculinity as something that can only be affirmed via a dominance relation and renders all forms of counter-hegemonic masculinity invisible. Ceding that territory to patriarchy only serves to erase the butches, trans mascs, trans men, nonbinary people, etc. who explore and live out subversive forms of masculinity. We would be far better served by understanding masculinity as something that patriarchy attempts to capture, rather than something it inherently owns, therefore shifting our understanding of masculinity away from seeing it as a component of the enemy and towards understanding it as continuously contested territory. Patriarchy attempts to enclose masculinity, rigidly define it, tie it to domination and control, and punishes all unsanctioned expressions of it. This capture is not inherent nor is it complete. Trans and gnc people have been undermining that project since it began! Many of the positions explored above take for granted that masculinity is a real and consistently definable phenomena: invented, made material, and defined by patriarchy alone. They assume that patriarchy’s word on masculinity has been the only real word, cis men’s understanding of it the only real understanding of it, its deployment in rigid gender roles its only possible manifestation. Cis men have been at the wheels of centralized power and thus have had more means to make their own voices drown out the rest of us, but subversive masculinities have always been here, have always been a threat to the patriarchal narrative. Many also assume that when queer and trans people refer to masculinity we are always referring to a masculinity that at least gains its meaning from patriarchy. It is time to inform you that your imagination up until this point has been disastrously stifled. Certainly, popular conceptualizations of hegemonic masculinity are inherently patriarchal and gain their meaning from that system. However, it is too far to assume that trans people are always referring to the same framework of masculinity that cis men do. We create our own meaning even as we expand masculinity to the point of meaninglessness. I take testosterone and am seeking top surgery to affirm my womanhood. Glitter, dramatic eyeliner, platform boots, and extremely slutty deep-V shirts validate my sense of my masculinity as much as work boots and button-ups do. Some of us are simply not referring to patriarchal masculinity when we are doing masculinity and what we’re doing is not new. Not only is masculinity not inherently patriarchal: masculinity is not inherently anything at all! Masculinity, femininity, and all gendered terms are vibes-based only and vibes are always changing with people and context! They are not real! Their utility is in play and self-exploration and any insistence of inherent reality beyond that will itself necessarily refer to patriarchy.

read the entire essay by Lee Shevek (@butchanarchy) — she does an excellent job breaking down the problem with conflating masculinity with patriarchy, especially how that leads to vilifying masculine people who are harmed by the patriarchy.

[doberbutts]

You mentioned in response to another ask that you don't use "transandrophobia" because the trans theory you were taught by trans women told you that "transmisogyny" covered those things and that is a total revelation to me. I've been thinking for a long time that it seemed to me that the idea of transmisogyny *does* cover transandrophobia, it just impacts trans femmes and trans mascs differently a lot of the time. But I had no idea that there has been theory/discussion that says this. I'm more used to the idea of "TMA" with the implication that only trans women are affected by transmisogyny. Is that more of a new thing and transmisogyny used to be considered as a more broad term? And would you trace that change to the same issue you're talking about with a lot of current feminism forgetting how feminism is also a "men's issue"?

Idk if I would call it "new" per say. The word trans-misogyny was coined in 2007 and did not include trans men, but the book in which it was coined did mention that language was likely needed to describe the trans man experience as well. There have been a number of different attempts, but none have really stuck.

I went to college starting in 2010, so roughly 3 years after Serrano coined the word. While in college, my school's GSA wanted LGBT elders to come and talk to all the scared freshly-minted adults who were trying to figure out this being gay thing. The woman who ran my GSA found a Trans woman who was willing to be my mentor and sponsor, she wrote my letters for me back when that was still necessary for medical transition, and we met frequently for her to teach me more or less how to be trans safely. Some things she did not know- how to bind safely, how to attach a semi-permenant packer, etc. But others she knew very well, because she herself dealt with both being seen as a man by society as well as the effects of testosterone on her body for decades before she transitioned.

Anyway. This woman was great, and is a significant portion of the reason I'm still alive to this day. And she is who taught me the word transmisogyny, and that it should really cover all trans people because all trans people experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. Whether that was popular theory at the time or not, that is what us young kids learned directly from the mouths of trans women at my college, which to me means that others were also learning this particular version of transfeminist theory.

Unfortunately by the time I dropped out of college in 2013/2014, online trans spaces were having stupid arguments such as "transtrenders are bad" and "neopronouns are bad" and "nonbinary people are cis people who want to feel special" and "trans men should be hunted for sport" and "trans women are incel nazis" and. Well. I went "wow this place is a cesspit and I feel like no one here has actually talked to another transgender person face to face" and then did not engage with the online community. So I don't really know how common or popular the understanding I was taught was at the time, though it certainly seems quite rare now.

(As a caveat I don't really think trans people of any gender have anything that isn't similar with each other when it comes to oppression, outside of certain bodily things that can't be helped because that's literally the thing we're transgender about, and I think we all experience very similar oppression but sometimes with a different hat)

As for what caused this particular defining to fall into obscurity? I really can't say. I don't know how popular the transfeminist theory the trans women who spoke at my GSA meetings taught us actually was in the broader world. Every once in a while I meet someone who lived through that same time who remembers that theory, which tells me it had gained at least some traction if it was being discussed in multiple parts of the country, but... that's really it. And it's pretty unpopular theory nowadays, I get people calling me a scumbag and claiming that I say transmisogyny doesn't exist just for mentioning that the theory I was taught includes trans men in the discussion.

But I don't think it's specifically the whole TMA/TME thing. I think it's a lack of understanding of what oppression and what intersectionality are, how they operate, how they work, how we define things through them. There are many people who believe that men do not experience misogyny. But, they do, that's why it's an insult to a boy to call him a girl during a moment of femininity or vulnerability, as a means of calling him weak because girls are believed to be weak. There are many people who think intersectionality turns oppression into additives, as though stacking marginalizations like dnd buffs. This also falls apart because oppression is not like quick math where you add a +5 to every roll if any part of your identity is privileged and a -7 if any part is oppressed.

I've had people get mad at me for saying that straight people experience homophobia while we also have sitting politicians that make jokes on live TV about how they'd drown their (presumably straight) children if they found out their kids were gay. For saying that GNC cis people experience transphobia when butches are getting kicked out of bathrooms and drag queens are getting jumped in bars. For reminding people that when Sikhs are killed due to being mistaken for Muslim in this country that hates Muslims over a national tragedy our Muslim population did not cause, it's still considered and called Islamophobia, because just because Americans are too stupid to tell a Sikh from a Muslim doesn't mean they weren't spurred into that hate crime by their rampant hatred of Muslims and the sight of a turban and long beard.

[genderkoolaid]

i am genuinely confused by something you said in your joan of arc post & i would love if you could clarify. you said "women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans." i understand how that applies to intersex people, who may be assigned a sex they identify with but have other sex characteristics that they get dysphoria from. or theyre assigned as one sex but once puberty hit they developed far more traits of the other sex, so they had to transition back to what they used to be. i understand those scenarios. but as far as we know, joan of arc wasnt intersex & you dont bring up intersex in your post. how can a non-intersex person transition to something they already are & have been for their entire life? changing how one presents, like changing their style of clothes to better suit their gender & personality, doesnt count as "transitioning" imo, cis people do that aaall the time, multiple times throughout their lives. so what do you actually mean by this??

So my definition of trans is very much inspired by Leslie Feinberg's definition of trans(gender): An umbrella term for "everyone who challenges the boundaries of sex and gender," in which ze specifically includes cross-dressing and GNC people who are men AMAB and women AFAB. I would define trans as being inclusive of anyone who queers sex and/or gender.

In my humble nonbinary opinion, we way over-rely on the idea of trans as being about identifying as a gender that isn't your assigned sex. I, for example, was assigned female and identify as (amongst other genders) a woman, but my womanhood is very much trans. For one, I was on T for two years and intend to get bottom surgery, but I was also alienated from typical cis girlhood for my entire life and my womanhood is inherently tied to me also being a man and abinary. My womanhood is not cisnormative at all.

"Woman" and "man" (and male and female) are all constructs. Just because someone may call themself a woman, and have been assigned female at birth, does not mean they identify as the same kind of woman that society expects and demands them to. There are different ways of constructing womanhood. The "gender identity that isn't AGAB" definition was built on the idea of trans people as going from one binary point to the other, with the assumption that "woman" and "man" are still Real Things with one natural meaning. Attempts at being nb-inclusive have basically just said "well nonbinary isn't a gender assigned at birth, so its trans!" which is completely true, but it also ignores all the nonbinary and genderqueer people whose genders are more nuanced than that.

On Jeanne d'Arc specifically, I actually have some relevant quotes on this:

(from Vested Interests: Crossdressing and Cultural Anxiety and Clothing and Gender Definition: Joan of Arc respectively)

This is why I included that line: because we often assume, in our exorsexism, that a historical figure must identify as a man/woman (cis), as the opposite (trans), or maybe as neither, but those are the only options. We are still limiting ourselves and these historical figures' by limiting how we understand gender and genderqueerness. To Jeanne, being a cross-dressing female virgin soldier could be its own gender, something different than the genders of cisnormative mothers and nuns.

& as a note: I feel like, a lot of the time, non-intersex people in the community will make exceptions for intersex people (like "well, intersex people can be transfemmascs/male lesbians/etc" but no one else!!!") which. doesn't actually seem that great for intersex people? Like aside from assuming that these genderqueer experiences can only be had by intersex people, it also means that if you identify that way, you must Prove that you are Allowed to be doing that, by both outing yourself as intersex and arguing that you are intersex Enough.

[pawberri]

thank you for all the posts you've made, your takes are always so refreshing to hear.

I want to know your thoughts (if it's okay with you, you can also totally ignore this) about all the "men hate" I see online. like I (poc transmasc non-passing) get it, there are genuine societal gender problems. transmisogyny does exist-women face more challenges than men do. but it genuinely hurts when women, especially trans women, think it's funny/quirky to call men trash or say they want all men dead or whatever. idk I just am hoping someone else understands, you know?

There's a lot of nuances to this question. First, I just want to caution against focusing too much on trans girls as the perpetrators of this. A lot of the asks I get from trans men seem to really fixate on trans women as the perpetrators of hard line gender essentialism. I really think trans girls are not the main people we should be focusing on here. If a trans woman is saying this stuff, take the time to analyze her ideology outside of that pithy comment and consider how much trauma and how little power she has in the world. That said, trans women are affected by this kind of ideology just like us, and they rarely have the power to wield it against others in the way cis people can. I know it hurts to feel isolated by your own community, but that kinda gets into my second point.

Part of dealing with this is learning an impulse progressive cishet dude have had to get used to over the decade. Sometimes, "men are trash" or even "kill all men" are not literal phrases. They are things women say when they're in the throes of trauma to vent their frustration. "Men are trash" in particular is generally pretty lighthearted and used to complain when you have a bad date or something. You have to get used to analyzing what someone actually means and airing on the side of empathy. You, as a man, are the one with some amount of systemic power over that woman, so you are the one who needs to prove you are dedicated to not being a misogynist. The same thing happens when my friends say they hate white people. I have to assume they don't hate me given that I'm their friend, but that I still have some of the negative traits of whiteness. I need to care enough to be a good friend by being anti-racist and checking myself on my behavior. I need to be willing to prioritize their comfort over mine. That includes not becoming this meme:

Now that that's established, there ARE times when "all men are evil and should die" is an actual ideology. It's an ideology that hurts tons of minority groups before it hurts the most powerful, but it's also not really great if we assume it only hurts cishet white guys. Following it to its logical conclusion, it just proposes a reversal of oppression dynamics. This gender essentialism is a key part of radical feminism, trans exclusionary or not, but it leaks out of that community to general feminism all the time.

As a young person on Tumblr and Twitter, this deeply affected me. I internalized the idea that you can "just be a girl." It was repeated by some trans girls, but also a LOT of TME people. It was framed as trans inclusive, but it's trans inclusive in the way "political lesbianism" is lesbian positive. It posits gender as a moral choice that is completely up to the individual and unrelated to biology. It's the lazy version of "gender is a social construct." I felt sick and disgusting for wanting to be a boy because tons of well-meaning friends of mine had made it clear that "being a boy" was a choice, and it was the wrong one. "Boy" was a social category that could and should eventually be eradicated. Trans women were conditionally supported because they, in theory, made this future possible. This didn't amount to actual support, of course. It was an ideology mostly spread by afab queer people that mostly benefited afab queer people. There were a few trans girls who spread it, maybe some due to genuinely believing in the ideology and some due to social pressure, but there were also a lot of people straight-up grifting as trans girls who used this thinking to feel powerful in a niche community of teens. Remember fucking Yandere Bitch Club???

At a certain point, I genuinely thought of being a man as an unambiguous moral failing, and I lashed out at out trans men because of it. I wanted to feel powerful, and here was a type of man in my community I could shame and exclude. I still feel bad for making a bunch of ~girls only~ stuff in HS that excluded the one out trans dude at our school, my friend, because he was just a ~binary man~ and leaving him with no friends and no community. I treated transphobia like it wasn't a real oppression on its own and, in doing so, perpetuated transphobia. It happens a lot.

I wasn't really able to accept that there was nuance to the concept of manhood until I read this article while struggling to accept my own gender:

This is a pretty seminal piece of writing. It has its flaws, of course, but the empathy and intersectionality it highlights was life-changing. It also shows that this kind of thinking is largely perpetuated by TME people and hurts trans women greatly.

Gender essentialism is a bad ideology, it's a transphobic, transmisogynist, racist, etc etc ideology. It's literally essential to patriarchy. But it's also very easy to repackage into leftism and easy to dogwhistle. As a result, it's natural to be hesitant when you see someone saying they hate all men, but you have to tread extremely lightly and actually care what they're attempting to express. Because, yeah, men as a social class still hold power over women. They still have reason to fear and hate men.

I'm writing a comic about this stuff, actually, so look out for it in the future..........

[vroomvroomwee]

I think what some people overlook when it comes to non-binary representation, but that Good Omens has managed to nail on the head (as usual), is how often we see afab nbs being masculine (short hair, gender neutral/male clothes etc.) and amab nbs being feminine (long hair, feminine characteristics etc.).

And that's just... I don't want to say wrong because it's not, but it's just so telling of how they still see that person as their agab.

What I mean by that is, if someone only accepts afab nb people when they're nonconforming or should I say deviating from their agab, then they still view them as women. The same goes for amab nb people. If someone expects gender nonconformity from them and a more feminine expression, then at a basic level, they still view them as men. And yes, there's been that discussion about trans people not being required to perform and how stereotypes are harmful, but I mean this on a more psychological/ingrained level. (That's why I'm mentioning afab and amab so much (sorry))

And Good Omens absolutely knocks it out of the park with this. Not only does it say a giant fuck you to gender expectations for nb beings, but it has such a diverse range of identities represented. Muriel, an afab nb person who dresses feminine. Beelzebub an afab nb person who presents masculine. Andrew, an amab nb person who presents feminine. Aziraphale, an amab nb person who presents masculine. Crowley, an amab nb person who is somehow every single one of these combined. (I know none of them are humans. I'm speaking about how they are perceived by the audience)

When someone only views nb people as afab=must present masculine and amab=must present feminine, then all they're doing is saying they still view nb individuals as their agab, because if they didn't tie nb people's agab to their personalities then them presenting as their agab would have no influence on a person's perspective of their identity. Nb people deserve to present as their agab without their identity being invalidated or them being viewed as cis.

[transmascissues]

a lot of people aren't going to want to hear this, but if you actually want trans men to stop "playing up" our assigned sex/"female socialization" or "walking back" on our manhood in conversations, here's what you need to do:

accept that it is possible for men (yes, 100%-men-and-nothing-but-men) to experience gendered oppression, including misogyny. accept that it is entirely possible for captial-m Men to have a lifetime worth of experiences with misogyny. accept that it is possible for men to be not just hurt by but systemically oppressed under the patriarchy. accept that being oppressed for one's gender does not require any proximity to womanhood. accept that it is possible for men to experience the things you call "women's issues". stop calling the misogyny specifically directed at us "misdirected". stop acting like our manhood somehow cancels out the oppression we've experienced. stop considering yourself more of an authority on our oppression than we are just because we're men and you're not. stop supporting activist spaces that expect men to "shut up and listen and be good allies" while everyone else task about their oppression. stop simplifying the complexities of gendered oppression to "man = privileged, woman = oppressed". you would distance yourself from your identity too if people used it to gaslight and silence you about your lived experiences.

stop acting like being a man makes someone somehow "less trans" or "less queer". learn how to view all trans people as equally trans and equally part of the community. unlearn your tendency to view manhood and masculinity as inherently less queer than other gender expressions. stop talking about how trans men are "the weakest link" or making "jokes" about how much worse we are than other people in the community or blaming us for all of its problems. stop acting like being men means we have less of a right than other trans people to speak on what it's like to be trans. you would distance yourself from your identity too if you knew that doing so would mean being more accepted by the community you rely on.

deconstruct your belief that cis manhood is the gold standard of manhood. stop telling trans men that it's transphobic for them to assert that their experience of manhood might be different from that of a cis man. stop trying to pressure trans men into never acknowledging how their transness makes their experience of manhood unique by accusing them of "misgendering themselves" or "saying trans men aren't real men". accept that trans men are not cis men and never will be cis men and are still 100% very real men anyway because cis manhood is only one type of manhood. understand that if you hear "trans men are different from cis men" and think that means "trans men aren't men", you're the one who's actually saying cis men are the only real men. you would distance yourself from your identity too if people said that claiming that identity required being exactly the same as a group you're not a part of.

get yourself a personality that isn't just talking about how much you hate men. stop telling all the men in your life how much you hate men and acting like their willingness to just take it is a measure of their moral goodness. stop making "jokes" about how trans men are "joining the enemy". stop talking about how much you wish you weren't attracted to men, or how much of a shame it is that someone else is. stop acting like womanhood and femininity are inherently pure and good and harmless while manhood and masculinity are inherently gross and evil and dangerous. stop acting like there's something inherently corruptive about existing as a man that fundamentally changes someone the second they come out as one. stop acting like it's funny to say you want to kill all of us as if there aren't countless people actively working to eliminate us. you would distance yourself from your identity too if everyone you knew spent their free time talking about how much they hate it.

help put spaces and resources into place that take trans men into consideration. stop getting mad at trans men who "call themselves men but still want access to women's spaces" and start looking at the world around you and asking why we want access to those spaces. open your eyes and realize that there is nothing out here for us, that all of the spaces and resources catered toward our experiences are marketed for everyone except us. ask yourself where the hell we're supposed to go when every clinic specializing in care for our bodies is a "women's clinic", when the only men's shelters are really just for cis men and the people advocating for "inclusive" shelters see all men as a threat to be warded off, when no one is willing to make an actual place for us and we have no choice but to just find the place that looks the least risky and hope they let us stay. put some effort into making this world more hospitable for us. you would distance yourself from your identity too if the resources you need to survive were offered for every identity but yours.

actually show trans men some fucking love for once in your life. find it in your heart to actually give a shit about trans men, to see us as real whole people who are deserving of love and community, to see our needs and feelings as worth your time and energy. care about us, care about our lives, care about our health and happiness and well-being instead of abandoning us the second we come out as men. start valuing our presence in the community and realize that we actually have a lot to offer if you could just listen to us. ask yourself why you're so comfortable leaving us to fend for ourselves in a world that wants us dead and is currently being very loud about that fact. you would distance yourself from your identity too if the community that supported you for years suddenly stopped caring about you the second you embraced it.

y'all will spend all day talking about how horrible it is that some trans men emphasize that they were assigned/raised female but nobody actually cares why so many of us do that. no one actually bothers to ask why we would put so much effort into being recognized as men but be afraid to fully claim that identity. no one wants to consider that they might be part of the problem, that they might be partially responsible for the thing they're complaining about.

if you want trans men to be able to stand firmly in our manhood and not undermine it with a million disclaimers, you have to actually put in the work to create an environment that's less hostile to trans men who do stand firmly in it.

because right now, regardless of my own personal opinions on the ways some trans men talk about their experiences as "afabs" or their "female socialization" or being "men but not like that", regardless of what issues i personally have with those kinds of statements, i can't blame them. not one fucking bit. and if you actually looked at how the world treats us - how our own community treats us - when we do fully own our manhood, you would feel the same way.

and if you aren't willing to do these things - which are literally just basic respect and care for other human beings, by the way - you don't get to complain about the ways trans men deal with how people like you treat our manhood. you can't expect a problem to disappear when you won't even acknowledge the part you might play in causing it.

[beforetimes]

my thoughts on the trans charles headcanon!

let me just start off by saying i love it. just to make that 100% clear at the beginning of this.

ok i think that charles being a trans man would change his relationship with the characters in the movies + his relationship with his mutation in the films as well. for one, i think that his first encounter with raven would hold more weight. because raven would be his first look at someone like him—a mutant—but also his first look at someone who was able to defy gender norms in a way he was unfamiliar with. i'd imagine that as a child he would be so isolated that he would assume his feelings in wanting to be anyone but himself [pre-transition] were inherent to everyone. and encountering raven changed that perspective but also drove home the fact that his expression of himself didn't change who he innately was. as raven changes how she looks frequently but at the end of the day, is still raven. i feel he would get his first realization that, ah, just because i look like a girl doesn't mean that i am one.

(i also like to imagine that his telepathy would be a tool for him to use before he's given access to the resources he needs to medically transition. it would work as a way to help along his social transition, maybe by subtly changing people's surface level perception of him if they were interacting in his youth. when he grows older and he does have the ability to medically transition, he would stop purposely affecting people's perception of him but that habit would be so engrained that it would subtly colour his interactions with the general public unconciously.)

anyway, i think the way this plays into his relationship with his sexuality would be fun, too! the flings he's implied to have in first class are obviously just superficial (as he repeats the same routine to pick up girls multiple times). we could argue is his version of comphet, if we're assuming he's gay, but the way he was raised makes him want to strive to be the person his parents wanted him to be. or the relationship of his sexuality with his gender identity and how he feels slightly invalid in his dual identity as a gay and trans man, because, to him (with internalized queerphobia), he would assume he's just taking extra steps to come around to liking men as a cis women.

besides that i think his relationship with erik would also change. because, like, i like to work with the idea of erik being a bisexual man (as he does have a relationship with a woman a decade long in canon and i'm not opposed to it in the context of the story) but him still interacting with charles as a man would still be pretty validating to charles. because, i imagine in first class, charles would still be welcome to float around the periphery of erik's thoughts (as erik wasn't opposed to charles' mutation as most people try to say he is—as far as i remember, erik lets charles into his head during first class multiple times without becoming angry!) and charles would see (at least on the surface level) that erik's attraction to him isn't because he sees him as a woman but moreso that despite being attracted to both men and women he still respects charles' identity as a man and builds a relationship in that context.

i have more thoughts about this that i'll probably add to later but this is just a summary of a conversation i had with someone in my discord server that i thought had enough substance to make into a proper post. thanks for reading!

[this-is-exorsexism]

I just saw a post about how transmasc and transfem aren't labels you can "opt out of," how if you transition like this then you ARE transmasc and if you transition like that then you ARE transfem, whether you like it or not. Because it's just a "fact" about your transition, not an identity.

And it just made me so sad. I'm transneutral. Sure, my transition might look binary to an outside observer. Yeah, people might look at me now and see me as far more masculine than I was before I transitioned. But that's other people. Not me.

Does this count as exorsexism? I feel like it does but I'm also worried that they're right, and maybe my identity is offensive and maybe I AM lying for not calling myself transmasc. I don't know. I just feel really bad and insecure right now.

this is exorsexism.

through and through.

i'm assuming this post was by a trans person, because cis people tend to be less educated about trans terminology in the first place, and will often just parrot whatever is popular but not think of it any further.

a lot of trans people, even some nonbinary people, seem to be really invested in upholding the gender binary in its various forms. "these are the two options you have, and you cannot be neither" is just gender binary 2.0.

people want to group especially nonbinary people by our AGAB, because a lot of people can't handle the fact that us simply saying "i'm nonbinary" doesn't give them any information about our AGAB, about "where we came from" the way that "trans woman" or "trans man" does. never mind the fact that some intersex people who were (c)afab are trans women and some intersex people who were (c)amab are trans men, but these people usually aren't just exorsexist, they're intersexist too. if the term "trans woman" doesn't necessarily tell you what gender someone was assigned at birth anymore, apparently the term loses all its meaning, since everything hinges on AGAB... somehow. but i digress.

and people have definitely started using transmasculine and transfeminine as "acceptable" shorthands for AGAB language, whether they admit it or not. if you were afab, your only options are cis woman, trans man or transmasculine nonbinary, and if you're transmasculine nonbinary we treat you like a man anyway, and vice versa for amab folk.

bonus points if it all hinges on transition steps, i.e. if you were amab and take oestrogen, you're automatically transfem regardless of how you identify (and if you don't take enough transition steps you're basically cis anyway - their line of thinking, not mine).

because we're definitely dismantling cissexism by still acting as if hormones are inherently masculine or feminine. we're definitely deconstructing the gender binary by just changing the words from male and female to transmasc and transfem. (heavy sarcasm)

so much of it goes back to people really just upholding cissexism and the binary, probably without even realising it. by saying it's about "what we were born as" or about how we transition, people are just using the same violence on nonbinary people as cis people use on all trans people. just because cis people assume you're masculine, trans people somehow think it's what you want and do it as well.

transmasc and transfem nonbinary people obviously exist. it's part of many people's identity. others actually do just use the term as a shorthand to what they're transitioning from, where they're transitioning to, how they're transitioning, certain experiences of transmisia, etc. and that's fine - if you use it like that for yourself and don't force it onto others.

and people also love framing words that have a heavy nonbinary association as somehow offensive, dirty or otherwise bad. people will go so far to avoid saying the word "nonbinary", they hate the word "enby", in fact, they hate when we have any term that is more specific than nonbinary, and they also hate our trans- terms, be it transneutral, transandrogynous or the many others. they really hate when we're actually somewhat equal.

[jellybeanium124]

Do you legitimately think men don't harass women in bathrooms? Like genuinely? Cause I can tell you right now, my middle and high school had shared bathrooms and the boys absolutely fucking harassed the girls all the fucking time.

To make fun of them when they heard period product wrappers and to make sex jokes.

I'd love to live in your world where people avoid eye contact in bathrooms 100% of the time, but alas, some of us live in the real world.

You not having a shitty experience with a predator or an abuser doesn't mean others have never experiences such.

I'm sorry that happened to you and I am aware this thing happens sometimes.

on an unrelated note, trans women are women. they aren't men. and they are much, much more likely (MUCH MORE!!!!!!!) to be assaulted than do the assaulting.

on a third unrelated note, you can go into whatever bathroom you want because there are no bathroom police. I (cis woman) have gone into multi-stalled men's bathrooms multiple times and nothing happened. I did not cross dress in order to do it. I didn't have to! because there are no bathroom police. I especially did not have to go thru the mega-hassle of getting T or doing any other sort of medical transition. I walked in there, boobs boobing, hair long, no make-up, and did my business and left. crazy how you can just like, walk thru doorways, huh. that's always the thing that gets me about your arguments. you can go into whatever bathroom you want, and so can everyone else, and the only thing stopping you are societal rules we impose on ourselves. there is no potty police. no bathroom brigade. no privy vigilantes. no can commanders. no facility fighters.

on a fourth unrelated note (brought to you by innuendo studios), you are falling for the conservative framework where bad things either happen, or they don't. school shootings happen or they don't. people either die from preventable illnesses or they don't. sexual assaults either happen or they don't. therefore there's no point to doing anything about it because you can't regulate evil. or, really, you can't regulate all evil. there is no world where every single assault, shooting, death from preventable illness, or whatever doesn't happen. you are leaving absolutely no room for scale. if one woman gets assaulted in the bathroom, then assaults happen and we all need to fear the penis!!!! when that's just not the world we live in. penises are not evil contraptions of the devil constantly trying to penetrate you. most people, regardless of gender, do not give a shit about you. most people mind their own damn business. nobody is out to get you. men are not constantly thinking about preying on you. they're probably thinking about football. or work. or music. or their kids. or shopping they need to do. or about their blorbos. or about plans this saturday they're looking forward to. or a million billion things that have absolutely nothing to do with you, some stranger they will never see again.

I'm not saying we should all go walk down strange dark alleyways at night hugging the wall but like... I am really genuinely sorry if you spend all your time afraid and angry. I've perused terf blogs on occasion. all y'all are afraid and angry all the time. and sure, that's just a tumblr blog. idk what you do offline. but anyways, you don't have to be afraid and angry all the time. you shouldn't be in a community that constantly affirms your worst fears in order to keep you afraid and angry. terfs prey on hurt, confused, scared women and tell them "yes, all men are evil!" and "yes, you are valuable just for being a woman!" and suck them into this ideology of hate (ironically this sentence is also a borrowed observation from the alt-right playbook, and maybe the fact that your movement does the same thing to you as the alt-right does to vulnerable, hurt, confused, and scared cishet white men should be a red flag but idk).

maybe that just sounds patronizing. but I mean it. you really don't have to be afraid and angry all the time.

but if you send me any more asks especially if they're nastier you're getting blocked.

[nothorses]

About that "a trans man committing a mass shooting proves trans people really are the gender they identify as" post: women have committed mass shootings too? Okay it's a lot less statistically frequent, but it happens (as the song "I Don't Like Mondays" demonstrates). It reminds me of the time TERFs on Reddit assumed the woman who shot up the YouTube HQ in 2018 was trans, and then when she turned out to be cis, someone immediately speculated she was getting justified revenge on an abusive BF who worked there (though that comment got downvoted and may have been a troll)

I took this opportunity to look more into statistics around mass shooter demographics, and interestingly, there are a lot of myths tied up in this issue.

This article looks into a few studies and databases to investigate the "90% of all mass shooters are white men" myth, and finds that in actuality, "It really depends on what type of mass shooting you’re talking about. Several of the highest-profile mass shootings in recent memory [...] were committed by white males, such as the 2017 Las Vegas attack by Stephen Paddock. But much beyond that, the stereotype breaks down; Muslim man Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016 on behalf of a terrorism group; white male Adam Lanza killed twenty-seven people in 2012 at an elementary school, though Asian student Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007. And so on."

This article fact-checks the gender-specific claims as well, in the context of trans people, and finds that there have been more claims that shooters are trans than can be reasonably substantiated, and that even this number is overshadowed by the number of cis women who have committed mass shootings.

I bring this up because I think the first article in particular brings a lot of much-needed nuance into the issue:

"The whites-are-overrepresented-among-mass-shooters meme does serve a useful purpose in that it helps displace another myth about mass shootings: that they’re most often perpetrated by angry immigrants from travel-banned countries, and that nothing is more dangerous to America that the scourge of Islamic terrorism. … These are worthy ends, but we shouldn’t have to build another myth to reach them.”

What are we saying when we talk about these kinds of incidents this way?

What I find interesting is that in a lot of these conversations around crime, we recognize that crime is often the result of poverty. Indeed, this study finds that the number of mass shootings increases in countries that experience an increase of income inequality.

We can also often recognize that these numbers are skewed because they rely on media coverage, arrests, and criminal charges; all of which are influenced by societal bias. The first article on mass shootings notes that, "mass shootings with white victims tend to get more attention, both from journalists and those on social media, than those with victims who are people of color. This is a well-known pattern and explains why the public is quicker to react to a missing young blonde girl than a missing young black girl."

Are white mass shooters covered more because their targets- being overwhelmingly people and institutions they have ties to- are also usually white?

If "white men are overrepresented as mass shooters" means white men are particularly dangerous and must be feared, what does this imply about other demographics overrepresented in certain crime statistics? What does it mean when we find this isn't true- is there suddenly just is not an issue of white cis male violence? I would certainly disagree.

And I think this gleeful claim that "trans men are proving their gender" by committing acts of violence- again, far more rare than cis women doing the same- only plays into these issues.

Is crime the result of entitlement and privileged anger, or is it the result of a broken system failing its citizens? Are cis men committing acts of extreme violence because they are all- regardless of race- whiny pissbabies who take joy in hurting others, or is this the result of a system that teaches men they can only express emotion through anger and violence? That human connection is not for them, and that needing things makes them unworthy of manhood, love, or even life?

I'm not saying we need to coddle and woobify mass shooters. I'm asking: is this an issue we fix by fearing and hating and wishing death on whole demographics of people based on how represented they are in criminal statistics, or can we make systemic and cultural changes that meaningfully prevent this from happening in the first place?

Do we condemn groups as Bad because some of them have done violence, or do we examine the causes and work toward meaningful solutions?

Obviously, trans men and trans people in general are not in any way "overrepresented" as perpetrators in mass shooting statistics. But I think the people reveling in any new trans male shooter are making it very clear that they don't care about solving problems; they're just interested in looking for reasons to hate, fear, and condemn this specific group of people they already dislike.