#and people only talk about how shes transmisogynistic rather than just

[verdantmeadows]

Rant post about transphobia

Something that really bothers me is that when someone is a big transphobe everyone only talks about how it ever affects trans women and if you try to bring up that their transphobia affects trans men and other trans people just as much, they call you a transmisogynist when in fact transphobia is just transphobia regardless of the individual's gender identity. There is of course transphobia that is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny (transmisogyny). But some people become literal supremacists in feeling that the oppression trans women face is morally above or more important than the oppression of trans men when in fact they are one in the same because transphobia is transphobia and both trans women and trans men face misogyny. Too many people I see online become supremacists in certain identities over other identities or certain ways of existing rather than realizing that becoming a supremacist over a certain thing is always bad and we need to be kind to each other and our different experiences. I have seen a lot of people who are supremacists regarding trans women to the point that it is nearly impossible to talk about or include trans men in discussions of transphobia without being told that you are transphobic to trans women. Anyways this is kind of a rant I am just sick of the rampant exclusion of trans men from transphobia.

[doberbutts]

(Some other guy entirely here) I do think there's not much of a reason to be so against the terms tma/tme though, and I don't really understand why some people are? Like, in the same way we want a word to describe our experiences so do transfems, and while I do believe that all trans people are affected by transphobia and misogyny, it's obviously also true that we're affected by it differently depending on how we present, cause otherwise we'd all be satisfied with just the term transphobia (not saying anything new here so far)

So, since it just so happened that the term transmisogyny was coined to mean specifically the oppression transfems face (regardless of what anyone might feel on the matter, that is what it means in practice), what's really so wrong with having terminology to specify whether you're affected by it or not in online discussions of specifically transmisogyny? I'd think that would be relevant enough information, and you're not obligated to share it unless you want to.

I think what's really bothering a lot of people is that these terms exist for half of our community but there's no acceptable equivalent for the other half, and there's constant backlash against attempts to fill that void in the language. But that's not the fault of anyone who advocates for the use of tme/tma, or rather, they are separate issues that I don't believe should be conflated even if the proponents of tme/tma are the same people who are against specific terms for transmasc oppression.

When we do this, from the pov of trans women we are the ones rejecting their terminology and trying to silence them when they talk about their discrimination, and since we know exactly how that feels, I think we as a community should take a step back on the matter and just let it be.

Just because we feel dismissed when it comes to a similar matter doesn't mean we should dismiss in turn.

Not that anyone needs my permission or anything for this but:

I don't really have any problem with the words transmisogyny or trans-misogyny, as I think they are valuable labels to discuss a specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny.

I am not sure I necessarily have a problem with the terms TMA or TME themselves, outside of that I think it is not possible to be exempt from oppression because it will apply to you even if the label itself is wrong. This is also how hate crime and discrimination law works in this country- it is both your label and what the offender thinks of you, not just one or the other.

In other words, the guy who screamed at me about how I'm a Mexican is incorrect because I'm not Mexican, but it is still considered to be discrimination against Mexicans because it was his hatred of Mexicans that fueled the attack. It doesn't mean that actual Mexicans aren't the actual targets or this, but it does mean that it's not possible for me to be exempt from anti-Mexican sentiment. It doesn't mean that hatred of Mexicans doesn't exist, it does mean that if I want to stop getting screamed at for saying non-English words while visibly brown (I said pate, which is FRENCH and not Spanish, in reference to a can of dog food he was buying), then I need to ally myself with Mexicans and see what I can do to help decrease this hatred of Mexicans within my country.

What I do have a problem with is how these words are used and applied.

Caster Semenya is a "TME" intersex woman who was caught by transmisogynist Olympic rulings intended to hurt trans women, and to this day is still not recognized as a woman. How is this exempt from transmisogyny? She is literally being affected by transmisogyny- and interphobia, and misogynoir, and lesbophobia. And there are more examples than that, but this will already be a long enough post.

Moreover, I'm finding a lot of hypocrisy in the theory itself, labeling certain instances of oppression as things only TMA people experience and then refusing to listen when TME people say that they experience it too. I don't really care what or how people talk about their own experiences, but I do think it's a little ridiculous to be told that someone else who is not me can tell me what I experience better than I can. And then refuse to listen when I say that I have felt the hurts they're saying don't apply to me.

If TMA/TME had stayed within the limits you've set, being about descriptors of your own personal experience rather than trying to apply theory to entire demographics in a way that very little other theorycrafting does, I wouldn't have cared. Unfortunately that's not how it's being used and I don't like that.

[drdemonprince]

Any advice for supporting someone who’s being publicly called out in a pretty vile transmisogynist way? This feels worse because it’s something in the local scene (small city where everyone knows each other) rather than purely online. Don’t wanna re-litigate the merits of the callout - this is a girl I know somewhat but don’t talk to and there are a few friends of mine either spreading the callout or who are friends w/ someone who got in a public shouting match with her over it all. Feels fucking slimy and gross regardless of whether there’s merit to the claims - I’ve never cut ppl off before (avoidant & cowardly) but idk. It’s coming off rlly nasty and hypocritical from ppl who espouse a radical politic, i wanna dm her some words of support but I wanna do so knowing I got the backbone to stop fucking with these ppl. Better to talk to these friends abt it or ice them out? How do u talk to ppl who feel they’re doing this shit for the common good / social murder can be justified and is only a problem when it’s not

I'd check in with the cancelled person first and see what it is that she wants. She might be very uncomfortable with the idea of you cutting of a segment of your own social circle as a principled stand in her defense, or it might have broader social consequences that kind of escalates things or creates a sense of different "camps" existing in ways that could absolutely make life way worse for her. Before you throw yourself into this fight, best make sure it's a fight of only your own making and that it doesn't go back to her. Typically, it's the trans woman who gets blamed for fucking everything.

I think it's best to just keep in mind that certain friends of yours are willing to take these kinds of actions, and let that inform your trust of them and your degree of social exposure to them. If they did this to her, they can do it to you, and they might do it to her even further to punish her for whatever you do about it. It's much better potentially to de-escalate, keep yourself out of the noxious feedback loop of the cancellers entirely, not give them any fresh information or drama to become incensed about.

Quietly and *privately* do what you can honestly do to show up for the trans woman herself. Hang out with her. Invite her to private gatherings with people who don't know or care about this dumb bullshit. Help her pay her rent if her living situation is now threatened. Cook her a meal. Just listen to her vent.

Only offer support that you are actually prepared to consistently provide, whatever that might be, don't do so out of guilt or pity or abstract obligation, that will not be sustainable.

To the extent that you can, build social networks that are not dependent upon this scene that is currently cancelling her. Find some older queer people's running club or a book club or something completely divorced from this shit. It will help you see your way over and above the tangled mess of the people doing the cancelling, and less alone in your resistance to it. I understand it is far harder to escape the blast radius of in a small city with a highly interwoven scene, but there are almost always other people out there who don't care about this shit and have a different perspective on life and treat people differently. And you can help build those kinds of social connections, too.

[velvetvexations]

on the you talking abt racism as a white person thing. isnt that a huge prt of being an ally? because people are likely to listen to people like them? white people are mostly gonna listen more to white people. same with straight people or cis people. how is calling out racism when you think you see it bad just because youre white

I have seen several TRF posts urging "TMEs" to speak out against transmisogyny whenever they can so yeah you'd think they'd get it lol. But the issue they're claiming is that I spoke OVER a Black trans man and did so by claiming I "spoke for" other Black people, rather than me going "okay well I disagree because what I've read from other Black people."

I guess I'm supposed to like everything Black person says about racism. And you can say "uh well it's not your place" but not only did I not know his race because I didn't read his bio, I also deleted my reblog of his post in less than five minutes anyway, and then I only continued to engage on the issue becuase HE tagged ME going "velvetvexations just deleted her post calling me racist because she realized I'm Black, I can't believe she did that!"*

And now me going "uh well sorry but yeah I called something racist because a lot of people of color have educated me on it being racist" is being portrayed as "I know more about racism than you could ever know and I shall continue to speak for all PoC forevermore."

To a man who called me a transmisogynist and insisted he knew more about transmisogyny than me.

By someone who claims that White trans women have to speak up against TMoC for all the TWoC they've driven off Tumblr.

*which would have apparently been bad of me, actually? like I'm sorry, but is that not what's now being called ideal behavior?

[nothorses]

I have an acquaintance who I believe has been gone to the tirf side and while I don't think she's going to be able to be talked to on this the thing she posted to me to try to be like "well this trans man thinks you can't be specifically against trans masc people" did make me think like,

If transmisogyny has been expanded from just being about the type of extreme violence described by serrano to a lot of other items, but some people don't believe that anything similar can be described to trans men, then it feels like they are saying that men are the default in the way that anything bad that happens to a trans man or trans masc person is just transphobia but bad things that happen to trans women are transmisogyny.

Like I feel like it's a bit like, what is just transphobia any more then, is it something which just applies to all trans people or is it the same transphobia which can affect trans masc and trans fems?

Are there limits to what can be called transmisogyny like people are putting to transandrophobia?

Honestly, I think this idea kind of rests on this very weird model of gender categorization that really just ignores what transphobia is, and how it actually works on a systemic level.

The implication here is that trans women are women, therefore what they experience is misogyny. Which means that because trans men are men, what we experience cannot be misogyny.

We see this same logic in "TME/TMA" ("transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected") language, which also conflates oppression with identity: do your actual lived experiences with oppression determine your "TME/TMA" categorization? Or are people of certain identities simply considered exempt from transmisogyny, by nature of those identities alone? In practice, it is overwhelmingly the later.

If we consider transmisogyny to be a system of oppression that is expressed in particular ways, rather than a kind of oppression that only impacts certain people, "TME/TMA" categorization immediately falls apart. Nobody is "exempt" from a system of oppression that, for example, polices conformity to idealized western standards of cis womanhood in sports; we know for a fact that women of color are regularly deeply affected by transmisogynistic rules and laws in sports. Those same women do not face many other aspects of transmisogyny-- currently they are not in danger of being places in men's prisons, for example-- but clearly, that doesn't mean they're exempt from transmisogyny, either.

The point here is that these are systems of oppression, and while they target certain qualities in people, their goal is ultimately to police certain societal rules. It doesn't matter what your identity actually is; only that you are breaking those rules.

Trans women are women, but they are not seen as women by these systems. They are seen as people who are breaking a particular set of rules; not "woman", not "man", but "other". Even "defective", "failed", or "outlaw". Transmisogyny exists to police their particular ways of breaking those rules, and it does not particularly care how they actually identity themselves, on an individual level.

Trans men are men, but we are not seen as men. We are breaking rules, too, and there are systems in place to police those rules; we've named them "transandrophobia" (or "transmisandry", or "antitransmasculinity", or whatever) so we can talk about them a little more easily.

[turbobyakuren]

sending as anon, and you may be tired of talking about it but love how queerness, especially genderqueerness is only ever used as a punchline in the barbie movie rather than as anything that might yknow, contribute to a feminist message.

be it the gay men ogling ken, or singling out Kate McKinnon as the weird barbie (for looking the most dyke-y (but we need to make sure she also says the only overt heterosexual thing in the entire movie so that people know she's not gay!!!)), or Hari Nef being set-dressing at best, and being a subtle transmisogynistic caricature at worst, or the aforementioned haha penis and bagina stuff. it just feels like a "feminist" movie that is entirely averse to discussing queerness in any way shape or form.

i don't know how anybody is actually gunning for it to win any awards outside of set design lol

You know what this film feels like to me in the way it approaches feminism and queerness? It feels like 2013 feminism. Except it's 2023 and there's so much more progress made, I don't see any excuse for the surface-level "women! amirite!" and "women jajana and men snepis. #tuth!". It's kind of malicious.

Also in your list of stereotypes, I also want to raise Allan. I really liked the concept of the character on the paper, but what they did with him is a really pathetic in a way, just like how you talk about Hari Nef's role, is kind of homophobic at worst (HAHAHA look guys he is an EMASCULATED MAN next to the Kens he has to hang out with the Barbies like a LOSER).

I really wanted to give this film a chance but my worries started when Barbie said "HE DOESNT HAVE A PENIS AND I DONT HAVE A VAGINA" (how does she know that? Isn't she supposed to be naive about the real world??) and confirmed on the very last "JOKE" of the film. What a fucking mess.

[runthepockets]

I've been reading The Secret Life Of Men by Steve Biddulph and I think it's the best men's wellness book I've come across in a hot minute. It goes into a lot of things-- navigating your post pubescent body, how to talk to your father and fit the missing pieces of the puzzle into your own masculinity, how to develop deep and enriching friendships with other men, how to get your point across in arguments with female love interests without having to resort to violence or petty insults or stonewalling, etc-- but what I'm most fixated on right now is the way he talks about sexuality. He does it in ways I'm always thinking and can relate to, but have never quite have the words for.

Basically this guy is like, when you raise boys to treat women as objects, when they're coming into their sexualities and you give them nothing but pin ups and rock music videos and degrading film and tv shows to latch onto, they grow up very ignorant and ashamed. They talk about women in context of "scoring", they keep "body counts", they don't know the difference between ejaculating and actually climaxing because you've taught them that masturbation is anything from a sin to necessary evil rather than a natural bodily function that keeps you healthy and sane (especially when you're not using low grade porno to get to the end) and that sex is a fleeting experience where someone else just happens to be along for the ride; that it's an excersize routine rather than a pleasant, fulfilling experience where both parties have fun, bare their souls, and become a little closer as a result. He said his biggest sexual awakening was when he was 14 and watching a very intimate scene in a movie where a woman made love to a parapalegic Vietnam Vet. And like. Yeah.

I'm frequently afraid to talk to other men about the intricacies of my sexual desires-- about what I want, about how I want it, about how I like kissing and hand holding and telling her she's pretty a lot and how I like back rubs and muscle stroking and all sorts of other cutesy shit-- despite being a pretty vanilla straight dude, because sometimes you give other guys an inch and they take a mile. Even if I simply say "I hung out with a girl" or intentionally and appropriately use phrases like "courting" or "making love" or "intimacy", I get crude metaphors and graphic questions about the woman's appearence in turn. I get told I have "another notch under my belt" and that I "scored" and that's really not how I like thinking of my partners. It feels gross, vouyeristic, disrespectful, invasive, both to her and me. I made a friend, we had a nice evening. All of this is doubled by the fact that I mostly pursue trans women and that makes a lot of other dudes antsy and/or ready to pounce with homophobic and transmisogynistic commentary.

Up until pretty recently I thought being a straight guy was all about having all kinds of porn catered to me, I thought sex was the only thing that mattered because that's the only thing other straight guys really talk about, and only in the vaguest terms and most degrading phrases, I hadn't even known there was a difference between ejaculating (the sensation a guy gets when he's close) and climaxing (actually cumming) and how important it is to really pay attention to your body until I had started reading this book, despite being a person who masturbates pretty regularly. Even though I'm the top demographic of people that the majority of mainstream sexual content is catered toward, I still felt unhappy and confused and ashamed and angry, and now I know why. Dudes really be treating sex like it's a game to be won and that makes me not want to engage in any sort of discourse or merrymaking unless absolutely necessary.

[reversetimelord]

Also I feel like the aligning folks using she/they with Harry Potter was very deliberate given Rowling’s violent transphobia and transmisogyny. Just the implication that a cool trans woman is too good for a nonbinary person and being one step away from calling someone a ‘theyfab’ (which no I’m not claiming is on the same level as the most popular transphobic slurs but it’s still an insult targeted at someone’s gender and how they’re perceived), making weird assumptions and implications in the guise of HaHa Funnie Post.

As well as OP, I saw someone else say that they saw people objecting to this post as “tmes” creating “a fantasy about how evil trannies are discriminating against them by fucking their wives”; just accusing people who are like “no this post sucks actually” as being transmisogynistic??? Plus yeah, it is possible for trans people to do/say things or have bigoted opinions towards other trans people. Making the “evil trannies” point then suddenly not knowing the concept of intracommunity aggression.

Plus the assumption that only ‘tme people’ (read intersex people’s opinions on the term in particular. We need ways to talk about transmisogyny but this one just doesn’t work and has pretty much straight away lead to more binaries and infighting rather than raising awareness and introspection) have problems with the post when the initial reblogger of this thread is transfemme

That trans girl mutual you think is so cool? The one you have a huge crush on? Yeah I have some bad news for you buddy. She's taken. She's dating a she/they. That she/they is on here too and their blog consists entirely of the most unfunny normie reblogs you have ever seen in your life. Some real "what is Harry Potter was in the TARDIS" type shit. And they're monogamous. They're monogamously e-dating. They call each other "my wife" sometimes too so it's hard to tell but they might actually be monogamously e-married. You can fix her. Only you can save her. Slide into her DMs right now.

[fearoftheminotaur]

So a trend I've been seeing, and not quite aligning with in transmisogyny discourse, namely discourse over the B*rbie movie ending on here (which, non-transfems should be fucking off from), and twitter discourse on body hair, is a sort of choice to differentiate instead of to show solidarity, in circumstances where I actually see solidarity being the better choice.

Because the point where solidarity stops being the correct option is when something is not speaking in favor of your interests, and I think that in both of these cases the transmisogyny present actually presented ample opportunity for favorable outcomes. In fact I think a lot of transmisogynistic discourse is doing the same thing to us, claiming differentiation and appropriation when we call out problems that affect more than just ourselves.

To zone in on the Twitter example, there were some posts about how women shaving our body hair is an unhealthy beauty standard. And while this sparked the general "it's my choice/I am not shaming you I'm just saying we live in a society/well I think she should be shamed" back and forth, there was also some that honed in on the way that shaving can be a part of transfems' survival, and how trans women's hair is scrutinized in a way that non-transfems' is not; and that piqued my interest because I truly did not see a contradiction between critique of our society's attitude towards body hair, and the fact that I'm going to keep shaving.

I guess what I'm driving at here is that if body hair discourse is being promulgated by people who don't include trans women in their beauty standards, I think that hypocrisy is a great jumping off point to talk about how this stuff affects us, and that the main alternative we have is continuing the propagation of this beauty standard that hurts us. I'd rather have a hypocritical enemy than a consistent one.

And it's not just about stigmatizing vs encouraging transition/assimilation, because with the post I saw about the MargRob movie it's the opposite. This is kind of a spoiler, but a certain movie ends with a female character who earlier stated she did not have a vagina, going to a gyno. In context this did stem from a cis-centric view of feminism, however it was also compatible with the experiences of many transfems. I think in a time where healthcare for trans people is so under attack, it feels a little misplaced to attack the idea that someone would be happy about having stereotypical feminine anatomy - some women have penises, and the ones who want to change that shouldn't be told "be happy with what you have".

Yes, when a lot of people say the word "woman", they aren't thinking of us, and maybe they don't even include us: but we are women whether people see us that way or not, and that means that not everything they say will exclude us and that is an opportunity to prove we are who we say we are. We shouldn't have to, but we are being asked to, day after day.

Obviously, the pink movie is a giant hit that probably most transfems who watched it liked, and body hair discourse basically did what it needed to do; I just think there's an interesting trend in discourse arguments that I disagree with - something about this pseudo-separatist point of view that isn't gelling with me.

And I think it's the same thing that fuels charity streams being taken down because the people and content weren't 100% unproblematic, even if the recipients were clearly worthwhile; or a hashtag for a killed trans teenager being called in bad taste because the girl was white - things that kinda feel like they are derailing positive change.

I don't care about civility and respectability. I don't care about compromise. I care about being able to identify the best action in the long run, and I think that focusing on the ways that we are different only matters when someone is trying to make your life worse. Otherwise the instinct becomes to punish wrongdoers, even if that means hurting yourself in the process.

An instinct to say "you don't include me, so I'm going to be the scorpion to your frog". Maybe that has validity in the long term, at least for one or two of the examples I gave above; maybe cracks in an "inclusive" movement fester into something far worse, like often happens to certain pundits and YouTube channels shifting to the right.

But in the short term I just look at conversations that separatism (from any group) derails and think, "this could have helped us all".

[whitehairedanimeboyfriend]

trans man here who came here to block u from a terf list and have instead discovered that transandrophobia does not mean what i thought it did and i fully support having a more active transmasc movement in tandem rather than lumped in w trans women. im close friends w trans women and know that while our experiences are similar theyre also different enough to warrant different approaches so as not to speak over one another. working together is important but also recognizing diff needs is too.

also. glad to know im not the only trans guy uncomfortable with experiences i have had being lumped into lesbian activism and having lesbians (both cis and trans) make wildly uncomfortable transphobic comments.

sorry this is long i just like to read through to make sure people arent being unfairly targeted by blocklists if i have the time and i really think you (and the arguments being made around transandrophobia) have been unfairly targeted.

I have lived, worked with, protested next to, loved, and dated trans women. I have been in situations where I have been fully supported by the trans women around me, and I go on to support them.

That being said I have also been in situations where I felt left out of the conversation.

At a local trans and dyke march, we had a group of speakers. One (1) of them was a trans man. The person who spoke after him said that "Next Year, I hope we get more speaks that are trans women" (he also spent a good part of his speech apologizing for taking up space and about how privileged he is, since he's a man, and didn't talk at all about issues specific to trans men.) All despite her being one of four trans women speaking that day, and there being only one trans man.

An ex friend (who is a trans woman) asked me about my views on abortion. I said I think anyone should get an abortion if they wanted to, and that if I got pregnant, I would definitely get an abortion. She proceeded to tell me that was a very privileged for me to say that, and that I was rubbing it in her face that I could get pregnant in the first place. That not keeping the baby is transmisogynistic. Somehow. This friend was also a well known trans activist in my community, often on the news and even got on the front cover of a couple magazines.

There's a couple other stories but those get a little dark and personal and are "too soon" if you know what I mean.

Some of the good stories? When I was homeless and in another city, there was at a shelter not inclusive of trans people. They were repeatedly misgendering me. Saying I would have to go the the emergency floor (and wait until midnight to claim the bed) or the women's floor. A trans girl came and sat with me outside while I waited to be able to claim the bed. (She was allowed on the women's floor because she passed.) After that day she got me connected to a trans emergency housing group and I ended up staying with another trans woman for several weeks.

I've got more stories like this as well, but a lot of them aren't mine to tell, and have identifying information in them. There's this idea floating around that I hate trans women... I don't. I love and support trans women, and have been loved and supported by them. I am asking the queer community at large to wake up to the idea that trans men are frequently left out of the conversation. (or are ridiculed when included.)

I see trans women the same way that I see any group of people. Made up of individuals, forming loose communities, worthy of respect and love, capable of both bad and good as either individuals or in those groups.

Apparently this is a really controversial opinion though.

[velvetvexations]

"False" accusations of transmisogyny have no bearing in a discussion of real accusations of transmisogyny not being taken seriously. But you know that :)

Sure?

Like... I don't think you want to be admitting that out loud honey.

When you say people wave away all but the worst transmisogyny, it's like, what do you mean by that? What are some examples of that happening? Because a lot of the times what I see people "waving away" is freaking out over non-transfems liking a plushie. The queer community in general...does not usually wave away actual transmisogyny. It does sometimes for sure, but certainly not more than other trans people have their own issues dismissed. I can't even say "transandrophobia" here because people have taken to that being an MRA dog whistle that blames trans women for everything. The point is that you're framing this entire conflict as being TMAs vs. TME, when there are actually a ton of transfems who also think not every single claim of transmisogyny is necessarily accurate.

am I, a transfem, supposed to stop using it at all, even correctly, because someone who is not transfem used it wrong?

In a vacuum, no, but it's an example of an extremely common pattern, that person and many others who have said so would not have gotten that impression otherwise. Are these people, who think TMA/TME language is good and use it, just uniquely uncomprehending, or is how it's used most often one root issue of many that makes it not only much less helpful than ideal but also actively harmful?

I have personally seen you go to lengths to paint a TWoC making racial comparisons as white

I have definitely never "gone to lengths" to paint someone as anything else. At one point I got an anon saying one person in a list of examples was Black and I offered to remove it if they told me who it was,* but that doesn't change the truth of what I said - overwhelmingly, it is white people doing this thing, and overwhelming, it is PoC telling them how deeply uncomfortable it makes them. Literally every time with these comparisons, AFAB trans people are compared to White people, as though that were anywhere close to the relationship between them and AMAB trans people. There are a lot of White people telling Black non-binary people that they can call them a slur because it's "like cracker." That's grotesque.

Pretending like uninformed transfems making bigoted comparisons to racial dynamics is the only thing my post references is bold.

What other comparisons are people objecting to transmascs making?

At no point did I make this post about Transandrophobia- it is exclusively about transmisogyny being ignored while transfems are being accused of wielding it to deflect criticism.

Criticism for what? I admit I should have been more inclusive and said "AFAB trans people" rather than transmasc, that was my mistake, but beyond that, were you thinking of any cis people within the queer community saying accusations of transmisogyny are used to deflect criticism?

I was talking about a pattern of transmisogyny I have personally witnessed, and if you need further proof of this pattern, I can start trauma dumping but something tells me it won't make you change your mind.

If people were transmisogynistic to you and you had your claims dismissed on the basis of criticism deflection, that sucks and I'm sorry it happened to you. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not a trend.

Good point! She definitely has successfully used transmisogyny to dismiss complaints of her.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or what, but indeed she does. Social power deferentials can exist between different individuals and transmisogyny can be wielded as a bludgeon because we all exist in an online queer social space surrounded by people who do indeed take transmisogyny seriously. Your post is getting a ton of notes because it was picked up by very popular bloggers and it's being reblogged by their many followers who take transmisogyny seriously. It's entirely possible for a trans woman to bring a hate mob down on a transmasc kid and then brush it off as transmisogyny when people object.

Honey, when your followers clap and tell you are one of the good ones, You might want to ask what they mean by "one of the good one" before they decide you are no longer one of the good ones.

I'm so tired of repeating that I first became aware of this discourse because two close friends brought something to my attention and asked my opinion because they didn't know how they should feel about it, and I found it really disgustingly bad completely of my own volition. I refuse to buy into the idea that trans women cannot harm others and are always at risk of being turned on by people who claim to love them.

The sheer mockery of saying to take this in good faith just to proceed to accuse me of being a privileged queer avoiding critique- Not much word on what critique I'm avoiding.

I didn't mean to imply you're privileged, although I definitely think some of the popular transfems who feed this fire every day are. But even through a completely value neutral lens, it just a fact that you are dismissing objections to the way transmisogyny is discussed without even engaging with those individual objections because you believe it's impossible for the idea to ever be used in such a way.

*they did not

Still thinking about the person who said being rightfully called on their transmisogyny was a dogwhistle. This is where we are at.

How have we got to the place where people can suggest transfems weaponize accusations of transmisogyny to silence others with no hesitation???

TMEs* will hand wave away all but the most vile and violent transmisogyny and then complain about accusations of transmisogyny being wielded against them.

if it were any other marginalized identity- keeping it generic because transfems using well established dynamics that the general public respects in analogy to describe our own dynamics is terrible obvs- if it were any other marginalized identity, would you not see that accusing said person of weaponizing their identity to deflect criticism as blatantly bigoted?

The idea that accusations of transmisogyny are so powerful that being accused of that means you have no recourse to ever criticize the transfem that accused you? Laughable on it's face and actively hateful.

When accusations of transmisogyny are actually being taken seriously instead of framed as privileged queers avoiding critiques I'll consider thinking "weaponizing accusations of transmisogyny" is something that is actually happening.

*I do mean transmisogyny exempt- as in nontransfems including cis people of both genders and transmascs, just to clarify before I'm accused of using it just to mean transmascs.

[doberbutts]

Hope this isn't a weird thing to say but thank you for articulating your feelings on the "why would trans men want to be cis" ask, since mine are similar, and I've been feeling a bit alienated by how commonplace it became to either be bewildered by or outright mock trans guys who have a less positive and more stereotypical experience. It's been making me feel extremely lonely and kind of guilty. So it's nice to see someone express some things I'm scared of talking about.

Honestly I really don't know what's happened to trans social media. It's always been a bit of a shitshow and a train wreck but it just seems like nowadays we're so disconnected across generations rather than weaving our interconnected lives together and recognizing that with changing attitudes and culture comes generational changed approaches to trans-ness.

The trans woman who mentored me had such a compelling story, that nowadays I feel if she had her story played out as a movie people would consider her very character transphobic and transmisogynistic. But she's real, that's her life, her past and her present and her future, and she existed during a time that many my age can barely remember and those younger than us can barely comprehend. That was just how trans people existed back then.

And I personally harp on this every pride with my own experience. It took me until 2014 for me to see a trans man in mainstream media. I could go and deliberately seek out LGBT media and find one, sure, but just out there in the wild on a game that I'd bought? On a wildly popular franchise that most people had at least heard of if not played? Seeing him explain who and what he was, was amazing to me. I wish it'd come before I turned 22.

We still have a long way to go, but now there's nonbinary characters on cartoon network and lesbian weddings and gay kisses on nick. Disney announced their first homosexual couple scene or character every couple of months. I accepted, when I decided I wanted to transition, that once I changed my gender marker that I wouldn't be able to get married. Now I can, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it, because I'd made my peace with marriage being a probable impossibility.

My mentor wrote a letter for me that I will never need, to prove that I really am transgender. Instead I walk into a gender clinic and walk out with a new testosterone prescription and a 6-month 12-month plan for top surgery and a hysto.

Transitioning means something different to me than it does to people only a few years younger. To some of them, my life, my perception, my reality is transphobic and misogynistic. I've been told that to my face. I've been blocked over it. I've been harassed over it.

But it doesn't change anything. I'm a binary trans guy who wishes he was cis, who if I thought I could go stealth and actually succeed I would in a heartbeat, and I'm only open about it because I don't think it's possible for me to not be. None of that is shameful. That's just what being transgender looks like to me.

[ocdhuacheng]

i get that people genderbend male character to be female in mxtx stories (esp if those ppl are wlw) because the majority of characters are male and it is focused on mlm content. so i support wlw simping over cool necromancer lesbians you go girlies, but in general i tend to stay away from genderbend stuff because sooooo much of it is made by cis ppl and it can be a bit transphobic? it also a lot of the times falls into the cishet gender stereotype shit of "women big boobie slim waist small big lips big eyes, men big buff strong macho 8 pack square" which is! oh no cringe!

yeah EXACTLY like my thoughts too. bc the vast majority of genderbending made by cis ppl really is just. like you said. biological gender stereotype shit. i feel like most trans people i see are made pretty uncomfortable by this, and i can totally see why, so i am too. but at the same time i DO understand wlw who want more content with girls/wlw characters esp when there are so few to begin with. so like im kinda willing to give wlw the benefit of the doubt in this case even though i dont rly like to interact with it myself. but also, my beloved sisters in christ... baihe exists

the only genderbending ill really interact with is works with sqx, he xuan*, and hua cheng like since theyre the ones that are shown to or mentioned to change gender in canon. (ling wen too, tho tbh i dont rly care about male!ling wen lmfao, just for the sole reason that, well. i am a lesbian. tho i do have to say the lore behind her male form is actually rather compelling and i think if mxtx were more skilled and open to writing analysis about gender, it could lead to a very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of how ling wen views herself, rather than just if she looks like a cis woman shes a woman if she looks like a cis man shes a man. because iirc she only shapeshifted to get the extra power she had in her male form? that doesnt mean that she is now a man, but in those scenes the book automatically refers to her as such. would love an extra about ling wen's self image and gender. but no, we had to get the statue sex and weird underage amnesia stuff 🙄)

BUT ANYWAY like idk if it really counts as genderbending in tgcf's case? but either way i know mxtx made that ~gods and ghosts can change gender at will~ thing just as a haha comedic relief thing like i think them having the power to do that is totally cool but i do not think it was done respectfully at all, especially with sqx, since mxtx kind of either intentionally or not sends the message (at least to me) that you can only be trans if you pass as cis. ive said it a million times before and ill say it again but the way sqx is never referred to as a woman (by the characters, the narrative, and even THEMSELF) after they lose the ability to LOOK like a cis woman is so so infuriating to me. like theyre not going to just STOP being genderfluid/trans just bc they cant change their appearance. and also not to mention throughout the book they were just kinda treated as being silly and immature for wanting to change their gender in the first place, so, another win for transphobia i guess. though i can appreciate having a canon trans/genderfluid character, they definitely could have been written better in that regard

*while i love fem!he xuan... it did leave a kinda dirty taste in my mouth when mxtx had to make sure we knew that he xuan only did it to appease sqx, and actually hated being a woman. and the way it was talked about too like 'oh he was forced to be in a womans body so OF COURSE he was super pissed the entire time' like i cant explain it but it was just kind of upsetting. kinda transphobic and misogynist. one might even say,..... transmisogynist 🤔

this answer kinda ended up going on a tangent but yea lol thanks for the ask ^^

[transfemstarscream]

give me your unpopular starscream opinions queen. you seem to have actually good takes about them

AWH RIGHT! ! !

literally all fanon interpretations of starscream sort of suck ass. creepily sexualized nymphomaniac who everybody is very creepy towards? garbage. woobified helpless little cute seeker who everyone wants to hurt? garbage. angry bird gremlin with no other personality than just that? annoying. the fandom’s favorite one dimensional “mean and sassy”? terrible. if people should be able to enjoy things then i deserve to hate things.

low ranked seeker/scientist origin story > prince of vos/high ranked politician origin story. feels more meaningful and endearing.

jetfire/starscream as a concept is sweet but i don’t mind that a lot of official material never really tackled it after g1. i don’t like jetfire being reduced to some magical boyfriend who can fix all of star’s problems by the fans as well. i appreciate g1 actually trying to add depth to one of its characters but i think there’s better ways they’ve done that.

any attempt at trying to imply that starscream’s awfulness was only formed after meeting megatron makes them a lot more boring to me, honestly. don't like the idea of that at all. letting them be portrayed as a jackass even before the war is one of the best things cyberverse did with star.

starscream is best written when it's not the writer listing off symptoms of a personality disorder and thinking that calling starscream, an explicit abuse victim in the idw1 comics, "sexually aggressive" towards the woman they're spiteful towards is something a good thing. stop being weird about them, weirdos.

starscream is a tragic character, but not necessarily a sympathetic character. there’s a difference.

cybertron may not technically be my favorite, but i will stand by on cybertron starscream being the best starscream objectively.

tfp starscream bad okay. don’t like the design, don’t like the voice (sorry steve blum), story bad, character bad, etc. if they’re you’re favorite, by all means, but best starscream? really? like i don’t care how many “redemption” or tickle torture autobot starscream fanfictions you wrote. they’re not well written like come on…

rid2015 starscream’s arc isn’t that much better than a lot of rid2015’s story like people say, and i feel like people only praise it because it’s starscream. it’s nice that you’re self-aware about star’s issues, writers, but i prefer when something is actually done about them.

cyberverse starscream isn't really that good but like... i care about them, y'know? like that's my guy. that's my girl. you deserved so much better king. hope you're flying high and well.

starscream is one of the best examples of how bad people can be victims of abuse. material that tries to implement the idea that starscream was never mean at all until megatron and/or that “starscream was just a poor cinnamon roll who got corrupted :(“ enforces, although not always intentionally, that abuse victims are always 100% good, pure, and kind people at least before the abuse started and that you can’t really be a victim if you’re not conventionally appealing in personality.

starscream’s abuse is not black-and-white. you can believe they didn’t deserve any of it while also not trying to justify them hurting other people. you can still call starscream a bad person without implying that they deserved all that happened to them. you can talk about their abuse without the mentality that they’re either a perfect little babu or a malicious evil being put on cybertron by unicron himself and is incapable of feeling emotions. you guys……

starscream’s best foils are usually female characters. arcee, windblade, etc. hell even slipstream if we ignore the obvious weird joke she stems from. i like to ignore what mscott the writer's intent was with windblade and starscream's interactions in taao.

star is trans coded but not very good representation at all. their canonical body dysmorphia, although excellent in concept, is kind of shallow in-story and rather vague. their femininity being tied to why they’re considered freaky to a lot of bots is… not good and the fact the fandom plays it off like “stupid sexy starscream” and not the weirdly transmisogynistic attitude the canon has towards star is weird. smokescreen calling starscream “the stiletto-heeled freak” is not the progressive compliment you think it is.

starscream endures a lot of transmisogynistic and homophobic subtext/attitude placed on them that is perpetuated by both official material and the fandom alike; starscream’s likeliness to die in almost any continuity and them being thrown around by the “tough guys” + the fandom’s creepy obsession with inflating their flamboyancy/effeminity and freaky infatuation with their suffering (usually physically, but mentally as well) are connected and inherently tied to the gay/transfeminine coding they have.

let's not erase transmisogynistic undertones and try to shape it into something else to make it "progressive".

i got off into a tangent but these are opinions i've already wrote down some time ago so i hope you don't mind. anyway he's a good character.

[scriptlgbt]

TW: Transmisogyny, and mentions of sexual assault

Ask

Hi, I'd like to mention my ask is on sexual assault.

The victim (f) and abuser (m) are both cis and straight and the victim now shys away from men. But how would she see people who are not cis? Could she see a trans woman as an abuser if she knew she had a penis aka has the body part that the abuser used? How about a trans man? Or another gender identity? Especially if gender identity is not easily seen or when people don't pass as their wanted* gender. Say, the victim says she needs a woman's comfort and approaches a nonbinary character who uses male* pronouns, I don't know how to deal with that. I don't want to make it sound cissexist or transphobic but still be able to validate abuse triggers and circle of comfort. Otherwise my only solution is to put all non cis people or even cis people who are nonconforming and don't present as cis out of scences with the victim, but isn't that cissexist?

Answer

I first need to link our Writing Trans Characters: Corrections of Common Mistakes post, as you've made a couple of missteps when it comes to wording. I have put red asterisks beside the issues, if it helps any. But just in case, the first one should either just say "their gender" or "their actual gender" rather than "their wanted gender" and the second asterisk is covered in the linked post.

First, I think you are asking about how one hypothetical individual would respond when this isn't necessarily the purview of this blog. Everyone responds differently to sexual assault. Not all responses are healthy coping mechanisms. And some people get PTSD and some don't. (And contrary to popular belief: the presence of PTSD is not always 1:1 with the severity of the event. But I digress.)

I can try to advise on writing this in a respectful way. I don't think people who aren't trans women specifically are qualified to write a version of this story that involves genitalia as being the factor for safety. It is specifically trans women who are constantly seen as predatory and whose genitals are seen as disqualifying them from experiencing oppression. Despite trans women facing some of the highest rates of sexual violence out of any other demographic. It would be most responsible for you as a writer to write this character's aversion to be around people who directly remind her of her assailant. Personally, I do double takes around people with the hair cut and colour of my rapist. For different reasons, I also can't deal with people when they are expressing anger, especially if it involves some kind of angry interaction with their environment, like kicking a wall or slamming down a keyboard or mouse. My reaction is to become small or initiate a fawn response, especially if I can't flee. I'm probably projecting with this one but for other survivors that I've talked to, a lot of our trauma is more about the circumstances than people who fit a whole category that our rapist belongs to. Things like a certain style of bench, certain events, florescent lighting. Being alone with just one other person you don't know very well in a situation can also make things harder. I think it makes sense to be skittish around men after experiencing violence from them. BUT It does not makes sense to group an exceptionally marginalized group of women in with them, in a fictional story you are writing. There's just too much baggage to address there, too many things tied up in that which are harmful (explicitly transmisogynist) when put in public.

It also goes into committing sexual harassment to actually ask and assume the genitalia of people you interact with. That's not information everyone has the right to, regardless of what they've been through.

Trans women are targeted by narratives that claim their bodies are somehow dangerous. Often it revolves around their genitalia, regardless of what their genitalia actually is, regardless of who they are, regardless of their experiences as survivors (when applicable, which is at least 47% of the time). That's a very specific, very transmisogynist belief. It is specifically used to justify taking their lives.

I am not trying to deny that trauma can be illogical. But it is unhealthy, maladaptive, and oppressive, to use trauma in order to marginalize people. Writing this into something fictional is dangerously irresponsible and will most likely be used as transmisogynist propaganda. Even if you mean well. It is an attitude which people use to rationalize policies which criminalize trans women and put them in extremely dangerous situations just for existing. This sort of thing has been used to rationalize hate crimes and, in cases where transmisogynoir has come into play, lynchings.

For these reasons among others, I would find a different way to write your character's triggers. Or else get a trans woman survivor to co-write these scenes. I do not trust that anyone outside of that group could write this in a way that is remotely respectful.

- mod nat

*Note: I am TME, but a TMA person was involved in sensitivity-reading this answer.

[magnoliae]

Hii, I saw u had ppl who support the penumbra podcast on ur DNI, and i was just wondering, what was the hiring event u were referring to? It's on my list of podcasts to listen to n I was wondering if I should take it off

Hi! Ill start from a beginners perspective of the penumbra as the main controversy is very much a direct result of all of penumbras past mistakes, sorry if you know parts of this already. Also Im white and started listening mid season 2, so this is more of a rundown than like an authoritative judgement.

Theres two unrelated stories that are just going into the fourth season, one a scifi noir show with many themes on family, trauma, recovery and corruption, and a fantasy D&D like fiction which I have not listened to as much so I dont know the themes as well. However both stories are really popular because of their diversity in primarily LGBTQIA+ charcaters, but also race, disabilities, age, gender.

The main protagonist of the scifi noir is Juno Steele, a black disabled nonbinary character who has PTSD and other traumas. However, the penumbra has a predominantly white cast and writing crew, especially at the beginning of the show, and didnt explicitly give any charcters a race or ethnicity (except for iirc the antagonists of the now non-canon pilot who were south asian and said to "breed like rabbits" yikes).

Then in 2017, penumbra hired Michaela Buckley, whose art is a whole nother can of worms of racist and transmisogynistic caricatures. As the first "official" artist she gave the characters a lot of their traits that are still seen today, especially races and ethnicities like black for Juno, and South East Asian for his love interest Peter Nureyev. As a white person its not my place to judge the harmfulness in making an angry alcoholic character with a broken home black, and a suave homme-fatale thief Asian, but it doesnt sound good on paper.

When people brought this up with the creators of the show, they sort of made it canon but not really? Nothing really was mentioned on changing their ways or combating fandom racism. According to this timeline by @/ofdreamsanddoodles they later apologised, but still sold Buckley's merch. They also kinda sidestepped it by making their future "race blind", however the setting is very much not a utopia so idk the decision to avoid race as a topic seems a bit glaring imo. I think Buckley as well apoligsed separately, and she never intended to be like, the voice of god on canon representation.

The recent controversy however is around the newest artist penumbra have hired after their season 3 artist left. They hired Ellison Estephan, who also has a history of drawing racist, lesbophobic and transmisogynistic caricatures. the link goes over one of the most offensive artworks, which the penumbra team later address.

The first "statement" was given by one of the showrunners, Harley Takagi Kaner, on twitter I think a day after the announcement. However they basically only talked about the bullying theyve received in the meantime. It was mentioned later by Kevin Vibert how this was done in the spur of the moment by Harley. Vibert did compare the numbers of slurs sent to him, a white cis gay guy, vs Harley, a nonbinary POC so like, I understand why Harley would try to stop like abuse rather than criticism, but it wasnt great when this looked like their only official apology. Ellison also dismissed their offensive art as "goofy", which was also not great when fans hadnt heard anything else from the team. They did later apologise properly.

Then a week after the announcement, Vibert releases an 12 page statement on the matter. However, a large part of this was more going over why it took the team so long to respond and their hiring process, rather than an actual apology. In regards to Ellison's infamous artwork, he only goes over Alessandra Strong because no one on the hiring team was a black woman. And the response was it made sense to make a tall gruff muscular woman black because of her personality and because previous fans (like Buckley) had drawn her as black so it'd be taking away representation. I cant truly make a judgement on that, but he handwaves away the overly offensive caricature style which is what people mainly had an issue with, and didnt bring up the other characters. The crew have also decided to keep Ellison as their artist, so this is just another case of the penumbra team refusing to make changes and not take accountability in writing their characters and plot.