#CLARIFICATION im not saying trans men aren't oppressed i'm literally starting this from the fact that they do

[andromachos]

denying a trans man gender afirming surgeries and trying to legally make him incapable of having decision over his own body, is transphobic, undoubtly, but the legislation exists to control cis women. the societal expectation of fertility and searching all the posible means to have control over the womb and vagina of another person is both fundamentally racist and ableist in nature, as ranging from liberals to full on conservatives, will see people they oppress getting forcibly castrated and relish in the thought of them having "no legacy"

' irreversible damage ' was written about trans men, but we should not forget, from cover to the author's intention, that it's expressing the fear of losing women's fertility and societal indoctrination of baby makers. this is because, to the misogynistic mind, the idea of gender non-conformity presents the idea of questioning gender roles, which between many things not only proposes a woman that does not live for men, but also a woman that can find fulfilment without birthing kids through pregnancy. for these reasons self proclaimed "radicals" venerate the divine feminity and conservative groomers defend their right to refuse to teach girls about anything other than how to carry a pregnancy. it is the fear of losing the conditioned woman who is submissive to patriarchy, and the hipocrisy of considering race, class and disabilities despite claiming to be "pro-life"

trans liberation will come with women's liberation and viceversa, as they both encourage body autonomy and the concept of the woman happy with her existence without serving men. we should not think one cannot advance without the other, as transmisogyny shows us how deeply settled the standards of cis womanhood are, even within cis women themselves, when needed to shame women into conformity and submission and the shame of failing to be molded "correctly"