#I mean I know TERFs probably don't think men (in which category they include trans women) can get raped but still

[kyliaquilor]

Really should probably get that Shinigami Eyes thing, shouldn't I?

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

I should clarify I didn't mean that I endorsed the idea that a term like TME, or something to replace it, isn't needed.

And there is a difference is using TMA and TME broadly and allowing people to identify themselves with one or the other VS labeling someone else with those terms. But unfortunately the later is happening WAY more often than you are acknowledging. And unfortunately that has left a bad taste in people's mouths. And unfortunately that's currently being used to try to pit trans men and trans women against each other, and so unfortunately, TME has become a loaded term.

I am not saying you can't use it. I am saying it is a loaded term and explaining why because you asked.

And I am not saying we don't need a term for the very specific category of bigotry that's leveled against explicitly known trans women.

**and by bigotry I was being broad, but I do mean all biases in all people, including other leftists in leftist spaces, what I am saying holds true for that too. Bigots+, if you will...

I am explaining why people very generally don't seem to agree that "trans-misogyny" and TME fit the bill. Even if you think they were originally intended to.

Because it's about how the masses actually use those terms and what they actually mean by them, not just how we think they ought to use them.

You asked why people are arguing it's bioessentialism somehow, so I explained how people have started interpreting it that way. [and I am maybe going to have to explain how you are kind of doing the -thing- now]

You are right that we need a term that describes the part of a trans woman's experience that is leveled at them only because the person doing it is explicitly in the know of them being a trans woman. Because that is a thing that happens.

But it does also feel like you took -part- of my argument in bad faith.

When you said:

"I'm not talking about the fact that women experience insults and harm if their body looks too much like what people think a man looks like. I genuinely don't think that's transmisoginy.

To me this feels similar to when a skinny person say they "experienced" fatphobia because they develloped an eating disorder out of fear of being called fat. Like, yeah, sure, they experienced this because of the seething hatred people have (and cultivate) against fat people, it might not even be just internalised, they might have been bullied into it by a relative, but they're still skinny. They can probably relate to the experience of a fat person, but if they call a fat guy a creep, people around them who can see that they're skinny and see that the guy's fat will be very, very inclined to believe you, because you do not, in fact, experience fatphobia."

This is a completely false equivalency, and you might be being earnest but it reads as disingenuous. This absolutely reads as "straw manning" and entirely mischaracterizing what I said and my position. But I am going to assume you didn't mean that, and still take you at your word that you are being sincere, and not just trying to start a fight, and explain,

And let's be clear, in this example you yourself are making the assumption that -like a skinny person can be seen to not be fat- all masculine looking woman/afabs can be visually identified as "not actually trans women"... Which sounds a lot like the TERF ability to "clock" trans women, being wielded by someone I would assume is a trans woman... [Or posing as one].

The hangup I have about this is -you- are talking about internalized transphobia "fear of being perceived as trans" and -I- am talking about actual harm done to people because they ARE being seen as trans woman. They are assumed, consciously or unconsciously, to be trans women, whether or not they are. To pretend this doesn't happen or doesn't "count" is absurd.

The fat vs skinny isn't equivalent because a skinny person is still socially seen as skinny, no matter how fearful they are that it might change, and regardless of dysmorphia. A masculine cis woman or trans man being attacked because someone assumes they are a trans woman IS actually experiencing trans misogyny [which has overlap with misogynoir in the specific case of black women being assumed trans, Misogynoir is a whole separate issue unto itself also, but they heavily intersect on black women, both cis and trans.. That's what intersectional MEANS babes!]. It isn't just an internalized fear in their heads. Characterizing it that way and saying it matches "the examples [I] gave" feels entirely disingenuous. I didn't 'give examples' I stated something broadly happens, and you read into it the kind of example/behaviour you wanted to assume I was talking about, or characterize me as talking about.

When you characterize this as just being in their heads, that they just IMAGINE that's why they are being targeted... You are discounting a strangers ability to rationally understand their own lived experiences.

We are all familiar with the "you'll never pass as a man/woman" and then going "Lol, I am not trans in the direction you think dummy"... So acting like trans men and trans women can't be socially confused with each other is... disingenuous... I am going to go with that or with "wilful".

Because there is a difference between internalized phobia, and being mis-targeted by a form of bigotry that one would assume conflicts with your "actual" identity. Theory of mind doesn't make exemptions for bigots+... A bigot can't tell what you "actually" are by looking at you, they form their own idea of who you are -and what you are- from the traits they observe on the outside.

Let's be clear, not to mischaracterize you, you are stating that "Anyone not a trans woman who thinks they are experiencing trans-misogyny at any given point is just mistaken actually, because I have decided 'trans-misogyny' is just these specific acts I have already defined, in cyclical logic, to only happen to trans women because they are trans women"... Please clarify if that is not what you are saying.

Because it sounds like you are imagining what kinds of social harms I am referring to, imagining the 'actual' intent behind it, making it all fit your current understanding in your head, even though you aren't in any of our shoes or a direct witness to any of our lives, and then projecting that onto what everyone is trying to explain about their own experiences. It sounds like you are saying that trans men, masculine women and intersexed people cannot be confused for being trans women and therefore aren't subject to trans-misogyny.

Because idk if I should have to point this out, but a woman can be sexist to another women, a gay man can be homophobic, a black man can be racist etc... and them leveling that same harm at others doesn't erase that what they themselves are experiencing is the same kind of bigotry.

So it would follow that just because someone else who is only being mistaken for a trans woman sometimes can still be trans-misogynistic, and that this doesn't erase other people being trans-misogynistic at them.

The whole original POINT of TME and TMA were ORIGINALLY to acknowledge that non-trans-women, afabs of various descriptions or people who are intersexed, may in fact NOT BE trans misogyny exempt! I was there! I remember that discussion! So just using it to replace "trans woman amabs vs not", IS absolutely missing the point of having come up with a more encompassing term.

If you MEAN amabs and afabs, or trans men and trans women, then just own it and use those terms. We already have a term specific to trans women, it's "trans women"... If you mean ANYBODY affected by trans-misogyny, then use TMA. that was supposed to be the whole point. But it got co-opted by exclusion.

But it -sounds like- you are mad about it being used for it's original intended purpose.

And it -sounds- like you are buying into the constructed discourse of this being trans men trying to co-opt trans women's struggles. Again, something divisive meant to try to create rifts within the community. Please correct me if I am wrong about what you are trying to express.

Yes, there is a particular brand of oppression that is INTENDED to be targeted at trans women. No one is arguing that.

There is even a particular kind of harassment and social attack that tends to rather explicitly be aimed -accurately- at known trans women, with very carefully selected targets. No one is arguing that.

We have seen the "pedophile" harassment and tumblr banning that has picked out known trans women as targets.

However, and I am explaining this assuming you are trying to understand in good faith...

If someone has dark enough skin -despite their genetics- that people are regularly racist towards them, you wouldn't walk up to them and say "You are racism exempt, because technically, genetically you are white" you wouldn't deny that the intent behind their experience was racism... You wouldn't go up to someone regularly assumed to be Jewish, who gets denied job opportunities because of it, who just got beaten by a Nazi in a parking lot, under the assumption they are Jewish and tell them "You are exempt from antisemitism because technically you aren't Jewish." You wouldn't absolve the people doing it of anti-semitism just because they missed a real Jewish person... You wouldn't imply they are imagining those experiences and that it's all just internalized phobia... At least I hope you wouldn't.

And -here- you have two other prevalent groups that can look masculine enough 'for women' to be assumed to be trans women. Whether or not they actually are.

If you had a whole demographic/nationality of people who were dark [or visually different, ie red hair and freckles as an example] enough to be regularly subjected to racism, even though technically they are genetically part of a population generally considered "white" in some way... You would just straight up call that racism.

If another nationality were commonly thought to be Jewish and attacked for it, you would still call that anti-semitism, but I would also hope you wouldn't get angry at those people for trying to point out it affects them too, or try to frame it like they are co-opting your struggle when they point out that antisemitism also splashes out onto a bunch of other people too.

Biases are a swinging bat, always, in dim light, and someone you weren't meaning to aim for is going to get aimed at and hit. And in this example trans women aren't the only people wearing red shirts.

Even if someone is mistaken about your actual identity, or not particularly examining it, just because they aimed for who they thought was a trans woman and missed an actual trans woman, doesn't mean that they didn't hit someone, and doesn't mean that the person they hit with it wasn't attacked due to transmisogyny.

Because the problem here isn't uselessly trying to make room for rare -nearly imaginary- exceptions [the way you seem to be characterizing it]... The issue here is that you have two other demographics of people who can regularly be confused with trans women. It's not like black vs whiteTM, or fat vs skinny where the difference is immediately visually obvious. Unless it is your belief that everyone can naturally "clock" all trans women, and by that virtue, anyone who isn't??

To put it another way, do you understand the different models for understanding what makes someone disabled? There's the theory that says you are disabled only if your condition makes your life objectively more difficult in a vacuum, then there's the social model of disability, that says any condition that has OTHER PEOPLE treat you as disabled, is disabling, because it socially disables you. I am sure you have heard about this and understood why even people who are happy to be Autistic are still socially disabled because of how other people treat them.

This is the social model of transmisogyny. If that makes it easier to understand what I am driving at.

The problem is that -while I understand the temptation, being autistic and all- we can't treat this as being about what terms personally mean to us, or how we personally think they ought to be used. The fact is the people are using these terms to refer to a broad range of social harms that they are pointing out are -at their core- due to someone being categorized as a trans woman by bigots+... Not just the handful of egregious bullshit that out-trans-women experience due to being explicitly known as trans women. And the fact is they ARE very commonly doing it using that specific term to explicitly exclude trans men and gnc women from the discussion. And the fact is that arguing that the term was meant to exclude afabs and the intersexed IS giving in to constructed divisiveness meant to... divide us [and isn't accurate!].

You are RIGHT! We maybe do need a term for the specific crimes against humanity perpetrated against trans women who are explicitly known to be trans women. And we do need to talk about it as a separate issue! We also need to acknowledge inter community harm when it is done! But that isn't how the MASSES are using these terms! And I am not saying it is right or correct, necessarily, but I am saying that is WHY people are treating it as bioessentialism 2.0...

Because -you- ARE using TMA as synonymous with amab trans women and TME as synonymous with "everyone else" [Unless that's not what you are saying?] And that isn't actually what the term TME was originally intended for.

Trans-misogyny is very real and yes the intended targets are explicitly trans women...

I am also saying I am not sure it's useful to try to kick everyone else off the term "Trans-misogyny", because it's already in broad use with a broadly accepted meaning, whether you, or I, like it or not. People use it to mean aggression carried out against people because the target is taken to be a trans woman or is triggering the same biases.

If we can agree -somehow- that this is a misuse of the term, maybe we can come up with a separate term for casual 'the particular type of misogyny directed at people who are assumed to be naturally masculine/male but trying to be taken as women, ie: people who are assumed to be amab or trans on some level'. .. Or maybe we could say there are some kinds of trans-misogyny that many groups get hit with and some kinds of Trans-misogyny, some specific transmisogynistic acts that are leveled explicitly at trans women, especially publicly visible, known, trans women.

I understand the frustration of having terms constantly shift in meaning or even being co-opted. Unfortunately, language evolves, and fortunately, language evolves. I am sure we can find a way to discuss these particular types of attacks against explicitly trans woman that doesn't make the inherent and directly implied assumption that no one who isn't a trans women could ever be subjected to some of the same things by being assumed to be a trans woman.

I just think it does way more harm in the community to keep cycling back to "only trans women aka TMA experience this particular harm and everyone else is trying to steal our oppression thunder" the way this argument about 'terms' keeps being used, than what good we get from using TMA to explicitly mean only trans women, whether or not you think that was the original intended purpose of the term.

Because it isn't really about using the term, or talking about trans women experiencing unique harms, is it? It's about wanting to use TMA to mean ONLY 'amab trans women' and getting mad that people are comparing that with bioessentialism. [maybe not you specifically, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you]

Unless you are saying you are okay with GNC/masculine afabs and trans men or intersexed people labeling themselves TMA?

Because, and I am trying to take what you are saying in good faith, but you seem to be trying to say I have somehow proven that "we need to correct people on this more and keep using TME" because "see this person doesn't get that only trans women experience this particular kind of oppression". Please tell me if that is not what you meant to express.

I am sure you can see how the term "TME" is being used to draw a line in the sand between people who "think non trans woman can be subjected to trans misogyny" and those who don't.

There is a difference, in short, between saying "this particular type of bigotry isn't aiming at you specifically" and saying "This particular kind of bigotry can't be hitting you daily anyway."

Nobody trying to point that out is saying there aren't specific acts, harassment or smear campaigns, etc, that are generally started against people because they are known explicitly to be trans women.

The problem that a lot of us have with the term TME is that it is commonly leveled against people who aren't trans women to STRIP THEM of the language they need to explain how being taken for a trans women affects them in their lives. And acting like that's a one-off or a "some few bad actors do that" is COMPLETELY underplaying how constant and aggressive it is.

"The examples that have been cited by you and other people always concern situations where someone basically says "you wouldn't understand, you're TME", and while again, I'm sure this happens, this is nothing. It's irrelevant." ~your words

To liken it to "people chucking boogers" feels a lot like we're trying to create a hierarchy of who's oppression is worse or most valid, more than just arguing over what term is meant to be used.

It isn't nothing and it isn't irrelevant, because it happens bloody constantly and is why people are pissed about the term TME being co-opted to manufacture discord.

I am sure you can see how constructing and buying into this arguing 'over terms' is being used to drive a wedge between trans women and trans men when we should be supporting each other as allies.

For instance you are saying you have a problem with the term being seen as bioessentialism2.0... But then going on to explain how you think the only people who are TMA is amab trans women, and how everyone else is imagining it and suffering from internalized transphobia... Again, your words.

It comes across like you are trying to wrap "only trans women are TMA" up in an argument about semantics.

So let's be clear. Are you saying that when trans misogyny misses an actual trans woman and still hits someone, even every day of their lives, that this makes it no longer trans-misogyny?

What term would you prefer non trans women who get hit by trans misogynistic intent to use to describe that particular experience?

ARE you saying only trans women are TMA? [it really seems like you are]

Let's set the term aside and aim at discussing the actual meaning of what we are trying to express without tricks of semantics.

Because I get the impression our disagreement is more fundamental than "terms".

I have no problem with "To be able to specifically call out the ways in which transmisoginy was used by people who do not experience it to cause harm to me and other trans women." and I never said I did.

What I explained is that I -and others- have a problem with people ASSUMING who does and doesn't experience trans-misogyny, and commonly using the term TME to do it. To wrap up their own assumptions and bias in social justice language.

And I am sorry but 'calling out' sounds less like discussing these issues in general to let people self identify, and more like pointing specific accusatory fingers at the people you -assume- are TME and -assume- have more social power than you, online, in a space where it can be very hard to tell the appearance/demographic/experiences of whoever you are speaking to at any given time... In a space that was also supposed to be safe for them.

i genuinely can't see any argument in favour of TME/TMA being bioessentialist terms that do not imply transmisoginy is a bioessentialist concept by itself.

like if you think that tansmisoginy is something us dolls made up to feel special or silence trans men or whatever it makes sense that you'd think that, but if you do agree that transfems endure forms oppresions that are specific to our experiences, then why would you think that stating that there are people who experience it and people who don't is bioessentialist, please, someone explain that to me, genuinely, because this feels like i'm strawmanning yall.

[florenceisfalling]

Sometimes I wonder what the point of labels in regards to sexuality even is when everyone insists every single label needs to encompass every single person. And when people say 'well the definition is old, now it means X!' and all they've done is change the "exclusionary" definition (i.e; the entire meaning of the label) so it now forcibly includes X, Y and Z.

And I know people are going to jump to conclusions and call me a TERF or a bigot or whatever, but I'm just genuinely confused why there's such an opposition to some labels and identities not including every single spectrum of gender identity?

Or why every single label has to be a spectrum? If that makes sense? Like when I was growing up, 'lesbian' was a label for women (trans or cis) who were exclusively romantically and sexually attracted to women. Unless you were an ace or aro lesbian, in which case you still exclusively liked women, just only romantically or only sexually.

Now lesbian seems to have no meaning, because it means 'non-men loving non-men' except it also includes men and people with penises who use he/him but they're not 'a man' so they're a lesbian, and its just... Super confusing?

Same with being gay. Its 'non-women loving non-women' but its fine for a person with a vagina using she/her pronouns to be gay, because being gay was forcibly changed because it was offensive to non-gay people who just wanted to use the label gay?

I do believe that every gender and sexuality is valid, but I also believe that we're reaching a point of extreme inclusivity and an extreme 'all or nothing' stance that is slowly eradicating the actual meaning of any of the identities within the LGBT+ community. If there's an identity that doesn't include your gender identity, instead of forcibly altering it because you believe you're entitled to it, why not just create an identity that does include you? Or find an existing identity that does?

Everyone is so opposed to 'boxes' and 'limitations' in the community but nobody is pausing to consider that actually, you can't have an identifying label without there being some form of actual criteria by which the label is defined. And that's not a bad thing. The term was created in order to define and give a moniker to X specific set of criteria. Its not an oppressive box you're being forced into.

anon i am like half asleep right now so this isn't going to be a big deep dive like i typically do but

just gonna drop my long post about the word "lesbian" and how it didn't actually really ever mean exclusively wlw

gay is an umbrella term for a reason, lesbian was originally an umbrella term, i don't know why people think the queer community just popped out fully organized into little categories when throughout history a ton of it was just "do you not fit the norm? ok ur probably gonna get associated with [insert group here]." like our community wasn't formed out of wanting specific labels, it was about people who cast out from the rest of society making a place for themselves. gay wasn't forcibly changed to include everyone, it's been like that for a long time

a lot of butches have been going by he/him for decades, a lot of gay femmes have been going by she/her for just as long (like. drag queens? hello), and trans people are allowed to mess around with their gender presentation just as much as cis gay people

also people did keep making specific terms for their sexuality that suited their gender identity and then kept getting bullied for being "trenders making things up" or whatever

this ask kinda irks me out in a lot of ways but i'm going to just assume you have ok intentions. but mate you gotta realize there's a reason people might assume you're a t/erf

if you want my opinion on the general concept rather than specific details, i think labels and boxes are just optional tools. i think the focus on specific labels being separate from each other is part of the problem in the queer community bc like... bi wlw and lesbians really should not have to feel super separated when their experience is so similar. & also sexuality and gender are both fluid. if someone cares about their labels because it makes them happy, so be it! respect! i want that for them, i wish every happy little gender euphoria moment and sense of belonging to them!! but i genuinely wish we'd stop treating every label like it's a pass to a certain club, or like it's a fucking hogwarts house we're taking a quiz on. the queer community has so many wonderful things, but we need to remember that it's not always a party, it's a pack of people sticking together to try and keep ourselves safe. the idea of every queer experience being "wholly different" based off labels our oppressors really don't care about is stupid to me