androphagy

[androphagy]

No idea how popular this sentiment is, but I want to talk about it before I go further into information from others (though I've done scouting beforehand, of course.)

I've been looking into gynecomastia as a part of physical appearance and as a hormonal condition and overall, it's not harmful to the body — the harm is oriented far closer to self esteem and the negative image which can result from the external reactions of others vs. internalized misogyny, which affects so much of perceived "male" (in parenthesis as perception of others impacts internal self image; and negative or perceived negative comments, even if meant kindly, still affect the person negatively) self image.

The health issues that can arise with hormonal disorders and intersex conditions should be treated to how the individual — not as an intersex "group", or as a demographic — in question will be the healthiest while also respecting their bodily autonomy. There is almost always a workaround for treatments; weighing different kinds of medications against each other, invasive or minimally invasive surgeries, pills vs. injections, for instance. Following that (in an obvious statement) the way someone wants to exist in their body shouldn't be pushed for or against a certain standard of appearance; but that's often not the case even in what should be unbiased clinical situations.

In the case of gynecomastia, which the root words of mean "feminine breasts", augmentation of the body is advocated for strictly under the clause of you don't want to be/look like a girl, do you? Once glandular breast tissue grows, it cannot be lost like with some types of fat or atrophy of tissue. This leads to the only way to rid the body of such tissue: surgical removal. In my own case, I had breasts so small I barely qualified for an A-cup until I got on a medication which made them go to a C-cup in size over the course of a few months, while the rest of my body stayed relatively the same. When I had my bilateral mastectomy a year or so later, I opted for periareolar, or keyhole, incisions. There was one problem: my chest had grown so much in tandem with my Ehler's-Danlos developing further that there was stretchy, loose skin that remained after and was having a lot of trouble sticking to the muscle wall to prevent fluid buildup (or seromas.)

This has left my chest looking a little strange, as full of serous fluid which I drain myself — however, I feel very comfortable with both the literal and metaphorical weight off my chest. This comfort is found in the "masculine" augmentation of my chest and breast tissue, which to the people I'm closeted to would see as one of the worst possible things I could to do myself...or could be done to me. The overreaction to a voluntary loss of breasts — a violation of what they feel entitled to know is a part of me, to look at, or potentially feel — is rooted in the entitlement, coercion, and manipulation of misogyny. It's not viewed as a transition to masculinity; it's a betrayal of the Feminine, whether that be to the individual in question, the people assigned female around them, those who sexually desire "female" breasts, and so on and so forth.

In how this is related to the perception of gynecomastia, both self and directed external, is rooted within misogyny and the indignity of the Feminine. When a trans woman grows breasts during her HRT journey, sexual desire overrules transmisogynistic disgust in favor of the Feminine Sex Object. The Feminine Sex Object exists outside of any gender or societal role. It surrounds anyone deemed "female enough" for unwanted sexual desire and domination (though, of course, kept secret for the taboo of the attraction) through rape, sexual assault, demeaning language, transphobic and misogynistic jokes, and cruel treatment of all types. When a trans man loses his Feminine Sex Object traits, whether that be through becoming hairier, having a deep voice, or surgical procedures to remove breast tissue and create a neophallus, he becomes a target of corrective misogyny.

In turn, the trans woman is faced with transmisogyny, which pits both toxic masculinity and transphobic misogyny against each other, both in varying high degrees of corrective and overt harm. On one side, she's being told that to "be a woman" is more than breasts, bras, skirts, and long hair; on the other, she's being screamed at that her anatomy bars her from womanhood entirely. Gynecomastia unwillingly draws "men" (parenthesis used once again at use of a generalization made due to societal perception of the demographic most affected by the disorder) into this paradigm of the Feminine, which works against their average internal perception of womanhood and the negative external reactions to "breasts on a man." The Feminine Sex Object is an unwanted misogynistic status that can be experienced by anyone, through many kinds of identity (or more often, perceived identity) related bigotry.

All of these observations are related and directly derivative of misogyny as a whole. I'd go so far as to say misogyny (and when I say the word alone, know that I mean transmisogyny as well) is the common denominator in nearly all conflicts across the world, despite me speaking more specifically on American and eurocentric ideals. The conclusion to the ideas written above naturally, in my case, would be that acceptance of breasts (or lack thereof) as neither uniquely male or female but rather a personal statement in support of an identity crafted to personality and experience, rather than label, would be the most desirable outcome in an ideal. Bras and other support garments for gynecomastia should be normal instead of jumping to surgery and attempts to get rid of breast tissue as fast as possible. In fact, nowadays teenagers under 18 can undergo breast reduction or removal surgery, providing they're assigned male at birth — which I'd argue is a form of gender affirming care.

The unwanted sexualization of any direct or derivative female identity is in correlation to the coercive nature of medical affirmation or intervention, almost always in favor of making the person (minor or adult) as close to "normal" as possible. That can mean doing something major like genital reassignment surgery on children to make them match a certain preferred outcome, or something minor like treating high testosterone in a cis woman with estradiol. This leads to the "need" to remove breast tissue of people assigned male regardless of gender identity (especially closeted, pre-transition, and questioning) through any means necessary. Misogyny permeates all cracks and crevices of society, but healthcare sees some of the very worst of it.

[androphagy]

Actually my own post. People are soooo fixated on whether or not they can "reclaim" xyz slur that they completely fail to consider whether or not they're in a social setting wherein slinging slurs around like candy is actually appropriate. Like it doesn't actually matter if "ummmm I can reclaim" if someone is like "hey this is a public Discord server can you stop saying 'faggot' every other message" because you're still making people uncomfortable by refusing to stop being an edgelord for two seconds. You are not "owning the straights" you're making other gay people uncomfortable and acting like that's political activism

[androphagy]

Wait I’m curious

[androphagy]

And anon, I got your message. I'm thinking of how I want to respond to it, but know that I appreciate the perspective and you have my sympathy; I can only imagine the frustrations you have to face between the LGBT+ demographic and standardized societal expectations. I'm in a similar-but-crucially-different situation and perception (and everything that comes with it) can be a total morale-killer. Once I have what I want to say — not that your story needs an adage from me, rather how I'd like to respond on how my own view has changed — I'll publish both messages.

[androphagy]

At first I saw use in the term "chauvinism" but it's become another buzzword that people say whenever they need to add a negative descriptor to pad their posts, and act as if the use in of itself strengthens the argument (I know this word, so I know what I'm talking about; thus, I'm correct.) Almost all of the times I've seen it in it's increased usage has been incorrect, or again, it's being used because it's a popular descriptor — which if you were to disagree is grounds for them to point fingers and screech "chauvinist!"

Part of me wonders if that could be the intent, a method of stigmatizing the "wrong" people from discussing pertinent issues, but it also wouldn't make much sense considering everyone involved should be just as concerned with each other's plight. Though words haven't held much weight in modern socmed unless it's diversionary to begin with, as we've seen time and time again.

[androphagy]

every hormone question ever is like No one knows and no useful studies have been done and if you get it wrong your bones will liquefy inside your body

[androphagy]

actually i think that it matters when things are true or things are untrue. and that it is not actually socially valuable or politically expedient to pretend that everything is so fundamentally relativist such that it becomes impossible to derive any meaning or factual reality from anything. but maybe that is simply just me. perhaps I simply believe in such dead-end and historically-defunct considerations like "we can and should work to improve society"

[androphagy]

i think the main character that differs transmisogyny from transphobia + misogyny, is the goal.

trans masculine individuals experience what we'll call "corrective misogyny", where they experience a derision of their chosen gender in an attempt to push them back into the class of [cis]woman this is transphobia + misogyny.

People I think confuse this with transmisogyny because it involves transphobia and misogyny, but transmisogyny is not "corrective". The point of transmisogyny is to push trans feminine individuals out of both the class of man and woman, into a gender underclass, a subaltern as some have called it. There is no premise of "rescuing" trans women. trans men are abused in attempt to bring them back into the protected underclass of women, while trans women are abused in an attempt at the opposite, the intent is explicitly to push us out of all protected classes.

[androphagy]

cis people be like. i would rather my loved one die than transition and be happy because it would be easier on me, the most important person in this situation, the cis person

[androphagy]

if you lean into or join in with misogynist jokes and threats as a trans man or transmasc because you pass as cisgender or are "man enough" to the person/people who are talking that way you are a traitor to the trans demographic as a whole. if you're scared of being outed and assaulted due to standing up for those affected by misogyny, sex or gender based, then don't say anything. keep your mouth shut. make it clear you're uncomfortable or glare at them or roll your eyes but if you can call it out, do it. do anything besides giving into misogynistic behavior under a misguided attempt at acceptance. if those men making the jokes and threats knew you were AFAB and/or you had any stereotypically "physically feminine" traits (long hair, breasts, makeup, etc) they would target you the same as they would anyone else they deemed acceptable.

there's nuance here, obviously, but the cis men making cruel and misogynistic threats and "jokes" will not see you as a man if you're outed. you are not allying yourself with people who will protect you. you are allying yourself with people who would hurt you if you were alone and they/he was fairly sure they/he could get away with it, and even then sometimes you don't need to be alone and it'll happen anyway. people will look the other way. the legal system protects rapists. law enforcement protects rapists. the other cis men will protect rapists. ask me how i know.

don't become someone who protects that behavior. believe that you're better than them, because you are, and put that treatment beneath you. is what they have to offer really worth whatever acceptance you may see in their eyes? why do you want their acceptance and approval at all?

[androphagy]

if someone has bad analysis about their own marginalized identity & positionality, and your immediate reaction is to assume that everyone in the world who shares that identity/positionality must understand themselves and their relation to power that same way, that is an odd reaction to me.

I won’t say it automatically implies that you felt negatively about the group already, but it certainly does nothing to dissuade the notion.

If you usually (or only) discuss people of a particular oppressed group when they have bad analysis or politics, I will probably start to suspect that on some level you believe the population represents some sort of a hivemind rather than being a class made up of individuals with wildly varying life experiences and politics.

Which then makes me question your politics.

[androphagy]

[do not use this as justification for sexist bigotry, this is a personal thought relating to the investigation of ideas and not a statement meant to be derisive towards feminist theories.]

disclaimer out of the way, I've been thinking about transmisogyny a lot lately and it's really interesting to consider the nuances of. I think a lot of the objections to transfeminist theory simply come from sexism, but there is one point of potential critique that I think warrants further inquiry. to get at this we have to first clarify something else though.

the distinction of tme/tma might sound like an issue to a lot of transmisogynists, but most of their objections die away as soon as you clarify it's not "never ever experiences transmisogyny" and is perhaps more accurately "trans misogyny exemptable" as this gets at the reality of trans women facing transmisogyny regardless of what we do, there is no way out, we are the intended targets. other people face transmisogyny as a sort of warning, a clarifying statement that "if you are transfeminine we will Other you" and they're able to exempt themselves from this in most situations by clarifying "I am not a trans woman" regardless of the particular form that takes.

not everyone is able to exempt themselves from all gender related bigotry though. you cannot, for example, make this distinction (of not being transfem) to escape intersexism, which is why many intersex repeatedly experience gender based oppression and cannot opt out of it. this is oppression is fundamentally not an result of transmisogyny, it is a result of intersexism.

with that clarification out of the way, I think there is an understandable critique regards the simplification that

"men have power over women" <- correct, easily verifiable, almost everybody agrees. "Black men have power of Black women" <- still correct and non controversial (at least in feminist spaces). then you go to "trans men have power over trans women" and everybody freaks out, yeah? like people start to object to this understanding suddenly, even though we've only changed 1 thing, which we've changed before and nobody found issue with it in those other areas. much of theee objections come transmisogyny, but I don't think it actually tells the whole story to write all of this off as transmisogyny.

I think why we run into an issue with this understanding (again, critique, not refutation) is that trans people's gender is often, perhaps even usually in flux. the statement "men have power over women" is trivially true, and is a statement on gender and misogyny. this comparison can be brought to trans men and trans women, but it's not without nuance, as the most basic information we can get from this is applied to gender, something which is often actively shifting for trans people.

the reason is don't see this as some kind of disproof of transmisogyny or something should be clear though, for two reasons (aside from the obvious statement towards trends rather than specific instances)

1. transmisogyny is fundamentally not the same thing as misogyny at large, and

2. though trans-gender is often shifting, we can use the prior distinction of exemptable and intended targets to largely do away with this problem.

despite the framework of misogyny not applying 1-1 onto trans people (many who identify as trans men have 'correctly' experienced misogyny), we can still see how it is useful to look at the intersection of misogyny and transphobia. While yes, trans men often experience both of these things, it is often not simultaneously like it is for trans women. As trans women transition our closeness to womanhood tends to increase so as our experiences of transphobia increase, so too do our experiences of misogyny- where as the opposite goes for trans men. it's not that one can't be sexist and transphobic to a trans man, they're not transmisogyny exempt in some metaphysical sense, but rather that for trans women our transness and our womanhood have a positive correlation, our transness and our womanhood are inseparable, we cannot denounce one by leaning on the other.

on the contrary, while trans men will still face transphobia and sexism which denies the validity of their transness and treats them with misogyny, as they transition their relationship begins to more closely match that of men, because of course they are men, this leads to them being able to escape transmisogyny not by being part of some magically 100% transmisogyny excluded class, but because they have the ability to meaningfully denounce trans feminity, to put down womanhood and to become "one of the guys", it's conditional, yes, but often the conditions are not to "pass" in the traditional sense but rather to express views aligning with the patriarchy and derision of feminity, i.e, misogyny.

I think we can see this in the popular responses to tme/tma discourse within the trans community: many trans men correctly recognize what is happening and stand in solidarity, transmisogyny is a genuine problem and it makes sense to talk about the intersection between misogyny and transphobia, trans men even experience both at times, so it is a good idea to stand against. Then, some men begin to talk about their experiences with denial of who they are and the misogyny that can come with that. This too is rather sensible, though it doesn't somehow counteract or disprove transmisogyny generally, it can be studied and acknowledge much in the same way we understand cis men are tested with transmisogyny to enforce what others call "toxic masculinity", despite them not being transfeminine. Then we have a third and wildly popular group, who appropriate the struggles of the second group, where co-option occurs by men who buy into or express sexist ideas for the sake of more fully exempting themselves from transmisogyny. Along with this, instead of recognizing the basis for transmisogyny as intersecting gender based oppression, because doing so would show their fleeting relationship to it, they redefine it as being intersection of two metaphysical identities generally, and thus "transandrophobia" is born, posed as being on an equal to transmisogyny, after all, they're both born from intersecting identities are they not?

of course, we know Androphobia is not something which actually exists, nor is Misandry - these arent axis' of oppression, and they largely know this too, but their goal is to obfuscate the ways in which marginalized men still benefit from their manhood. it takes what I think can be a rather genuine expression that trans men experience both transphobia and misogyny, and instead of grappling with the ways they can societally put down others to gain exemption from transmisogyny, the way their relationship to it is transient, they instead cling to it and invent new terms or fall on old bigoted talking points to justify doing so. "transandrophobia" yes, but also "sex based oppression" and "male/female socialization" these terms and rhetoric are regularly used against transfeminists by these trans men who have exempted themselves from transmisogyny, who have sided with patriarchy over their trans sisters, instead allying with the general terf movement at large and often implicitly misgendering themselves in the process.

and just to be clear, not exempting yourself doesn't mean you will experience the brunt of transmisogyny or to the same degree trans women do - you may be called slurs by bigots, may be harassed in given instances, or sometimes worse, but the systemic forces of transmisogyny go far deeper than negative interactions with individuals, and these transmisogynistic forces are again, aimed specifically at trans women. While I want to recognize the ways in which transmisogyny permeates all of society, do not see this and mistake it for support for the idea that everyone experiences it equally and their relationship is only changed by putting down transfemininity, it is and always has been about targeting transfemininity, the reason I clarify exemptable is due to society's constant enforcing of transmisogynistic ideas on everyone, even if the worst persecution is specifically and intentionally reserved for trans women

Lastly I want to say that these ideas are still developing and my understanding of them will likely change with time and discussion. I dont think these ideas are particularly new, they seem to underpin a lot of discussion on these topics, but this is my attempt to bring them from an implicit unspoken agreement into a more firmly expressed position. Doing so is necessarily going to expose flaws and I see that as a good thing, as doing so is required to elevate understanding of these theories to a higher level. Some of these flaws will be with my expression and understanding, and I will work to correct those, but some will likely be with the ideass themselves and it will take time for them to develop. Please read in good faith, thank you.

[androphagy]

[androphagy]

to begin: this is about the transgender demographic and anyone who believes they fall under that umbrella as a whole. no one is exempt from being transmisogynistic (or misogynistic in general) on basis of sex or gender. presentation absolutely contributes to level of bigotry experienced, especially in relation to transphobia; if you're a no-op no/pre-HRT transmasculine person, you are not going to see the same level -- if at all -- of transphobia the average trans woman (and someone who is medically transitioning, depending on the situation) does. that is another post entirely, but know that this is about trans people tearing other trans people down in an almost crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.

that being said: if your only critiques of other trans people are you're a credulous weapon for engaging with [gender demographic i resent] and on basis of sex you're ontologically incapable of being anything other than [variety of bigotry based on oppositional dynamics] and you should be mistrusted as such in every situation then mix it up with epithets such as "itfab" and, i quote, "i do not care about the poor little girls who didn't come out of T looking like an anime twink, at all, nobody should" -- you're not ready for any form of discussion beyond high school cafeteria gossip. and even then, that might be pushing it.

there are ways to discuss and condemn bigotry (of all kinds) within a certain demographic without smearing and insulting them under the idea of "they've had it too good for too long, they deserve it" and all but saying "transphobia is praxis if its the ones that see less overt effects of oppression." anger and frustration is natural -- and personally, important! -- but disguising vitriolic misogynistic rhetoric as a real and "valid" breakdown on the pervasive societal role of transmisogyny is not going to make anything better, aside from maybe a few minute's relief by offloading well-deserved but misdirected rage.

(again) personally, i don't believe that there's any true unity to be had in the hyperindividualistic-but-homogenized social media age. addressing any group within what could be loosely defined as "queer" or "TQ+" comes with having to make so many caveats, people telling you what you missed or wrongfully included, and is tied up in so much interpersonal conflict that gets mistaken for genuine commentary on the current existence and history of gender identity that it feels entirely pointless to make any posts attempting to speak in good faith to begin with, especially due to the (again) hyperindividualism and extremely selfish worldviews held by people who don't have to be or aren't ever verbally challenged outside of the internet aside from, as i said, interpersonal conflict. the lack of real life experience also influences these issues.

can said conflict be indicative of a larger issue? of course. you see it in the use of callout posts/blogs/docs and how they aide in transmisogyny as a tool for unpersoning and ostracizing trans women and those on the transfeminine axis; callouts would be on the board of things utilized by people AFAB/CAFAB (because in the interest of honesty, when "TME" is used in reference to online queer discourse, it's talking about trans men, nonbinary people CAFAB/AFAB, and cis women. i think we can agree that by-and-large cis men are not indulging in discussions of gender politics, especially through the lens of fandom and social media) to silence and chase away trans women and transfems from online and real-life spaces.

that, however, doesn't mean breaking up into insular cliques that use harmful rhetoric as basis for coloring worldviews with the beliefs that other trans people as a whole are the enemy somehow fixes this, especially when said cliques are doing nothing aside from being as mean as possible and centering a "target" of which is acceptable in said clique to punch down on. they aren't writing theory, bringing any new discussion to the table, or working towards a healthier and more understanding future for all involved; they are all interested fostering cruelty for the sake of being cruel.

i truly do understand the anger. i don't talk about my personal experiences here because i also understand that they're not the norm for someone of my typical demographic, and i've never been in any community for LGBT+ people beyond a short stint in a high school GSA which was overrun by cishet "allies" who decided to kick the few actual LGBT people out in favor of appealing to fans of rupaul's drag race (which is a long and extremely frustrating story.) i've given no reason to believe me, but i'm coming at this from years of observing many different groups from all over the "LGBT umbrella", along with research and readings in addition to my personal experiences.

in short: you're telling me that this group of transgender people are ontologically worse/"bad"/more dangerous than the others and should not be trusted until they prove that they're one of the good ones? isn't that exactly what we should be going against instead of encouraging?

[androphagy]

i appreciate and agree with that post where you talk about how "transfemininity is not a separate form of womanhood" but why do you have to refer to cis women as "anatomically female" ? because trans women aren't "anatomically male" thats just upholding the sex binary in a way that contributes to us (trans women) being seen as something separate or deluded

oh i meant as in "has a vagina" but in my reading and research it's a term i see used instead of AFAB, as AFAB doesn't cover internal intersex characteristics and CAFAB is specifically in relation to intersex gender assignment (with coercive being the first letter.) so i suppose i could use CAFAB/AFAB, but then that also groups together what can be very different situations person-to-person with gender assignment at birth and "corrective" assignment at a later date. anatomically female in the case of my writing just means a uterus, ovaries, vagina, and the "usual" external anatomy (though that varies as well with born superficial anatomical differences such as a lack of a labia minora, for example.) trans men and transmascs are also anatomically female until/if they have surgery to create a penis, testicles, etc. believe me, i would do away with male/female altogether if i could, but unfortunately for the culture and history i'm writing in relation to there's not another sex-based dichotomy in which i can use.

it's a situation i wish didn't have to have a delineation at all, but there are genital differences that are important to make distinctions on when speaking on certain transgender issues -- especially relating to SRS and other forms of gender affirming care. i'm still anatomically female as i'm not intersex and haven't had SRS yet (though hoping to change that next year!) though i have modified sex characteristics such as a large clitoris and flat chest due to my recent bilateral mastectomy. the same is for trans women and transfems when they develop breasts, fat deposits, and if genital atrophy occurs (along with many other changes estrogen can induce! there are a few different hormones and anti-androgens which can impact different things, so it varies.)

that's all i meant by anatomically female :) i hope i didn't come across as mansplain-y, transgender hormone therapy, history, and culture is something i'm very interested in, both MTF and FTM; unfortunately i'm less versed in FTX and MTX, as i'm in a certain "field" right now, but i do intend to learn more about nonbinary affirmative surgery and care.

i know the comparison is very overdone, but it truly is a metamorphosis akin to a caterpillar to butterfly. the human body's "base state" being able to be changed and modified so thoroughly to match what an individual really wants, instead of what they're born with, is amazing. the first phalloplasty was actually done in 1936, but it wouldn't be until 1946 that the first trans man would have one done, and that took 13 procedures over 4 years! if you're interested, i can see if i can crack a few of these papers/books and i can provide some readings.

i'm sorry that this got so long; with everything, there are going to be pros and cons with the language you use, and there's always going to be issues with the terminology, especially when it's a delicate subject with such a massive range of experiences. thank you for your message and for weighing in!! i will look more into alternative terms, though i really want to avoid using terminology like "penis-havers" or listing out all of the individual anatomical parts.

[androphagy]

anon 1. you have to try harder than that and 2. i'm not posting anything you send me because i know you want that more than anything, it's being deleted.

[androphagy]

my thought on tme/tma is that i don't know if necessarily having tme as a descriptor for such a large and complicated demographic is actually that helpful in breaking down who is exempt from what and on what grounds, especially when it neglects to cover any form of nuance or context for each situation beyond "no matter what, this person is tme", as i've seen by tme people being identified by putting the acronym in their bios/intro posts/carrds/etc. having tma itself as a contextual descriptor is very useful and focuses on the systemic and underlying transmisogyny that permeates everything (but affects transfeminine people most heavily.)