#anti transfeminism

[gremlingirlsmell]

hey just so y'all know, rhetoric like this:

is anti-transfeminist dogwhistling.

the "radfems" they're talking about are transfems trying to define and use language about our own opression like "transmisogyny" and who is targeted by it.

"gender essentialism" is used to mean different things. for one it's meant to denounce tme/tma language, saying that everyone is targeted by transmisogyny the same, and depraving us of standpoint epistemology. a second meaning i often see is: it's "gender essentialism" to say "we live in a patriarchy that benefits men over women"

this tactic is used mainly to paint transfeminists as dangerous and transmasc-hating, for applying intersectionality and materialism to feminist theory. it's to shun us by calling us terfs (a hate group primarily centered against transfems) which will immediately mark us as unsafe for other transfems and trans people in general. this is done instead of calling us baeddels, because calling us medieval slurs has fallen out of fashion and has become too obviously transmisogynistic

[taliabhattwrites]

I don't think there is a significant or notable number of people who believe transmascs are not oppressed.

I feel slightly insane just having to type this out, but this is rhetoric you inevitably come across if you discuss transfeminism on Tumblr.

The mainstream, cissexist understanding of transmasculine people is the Irreversible Damage narrative (one that's old enough to show up in Transsexual Empire as well) of transmascs as "misguided little girls", "tricked" into "mutilating themselves". It is a deliberately emasculating and transphobic narrative that very explicitly centers on oppression, even if the fevered imaginings misattribute the cause. As anyone who's dealt with the gatekeeping medical establishment knows, they are far from giving away HRT or even consults with both hands, and most transfems I know have a hard enough time convincing people to take DIY T advice, leave alone "tricking" anyone into top surgery.

Arguably, the misogyny that transmasculine folks experience is the defining narrative surrounding their existence, as transmasculinity is frequently and erroneously attributed to "tomboyish women" who resent their position in the patriarchy so much they seek to transition out of it. This rhetoric is an invisiblization of transmasculinity, constructed deliberately to preserve gendered verticality, for if it were possible to "gain status" under the sexed regime, its entire basis, its ideological naturalization, would fall apart.

Honestly, the actual discussions I see are centered around whether "transmisogyny" is a term that should apply to transmascs and transfems alike. While I understand the impetus for that discussion, I feel like the assertion that transmisogyny is a specific oppression that transfems experience for our perceived abandonment of the "male sex" is often conflated with the incorrect idea that we believe transmasculine people are not oppressed at all. This is not true, and we understand, rather acutely, that our society is entirely organized around reproductive exploitation. That is, in fact, the source of transfeminine disposability!

I know I'm someone who "just got here" and there is a history here that I'm not a part of, but so much of that history is speckled with hearsay and fabrication that I can't even attempt to make sense of it. All I know is that I, in 2024, have been called a revived medieval slur for effeminate men by people who attribute certain beliefs to me based on my being a trans woman who is also a feminist, and I simply do not hold those views, nor do I know anyone who sincerely does.

If you're going to attempt to discredit a transfeminist, or transfeminism in general, then please at least do us the courtesy of responding to things we actually say and have actually argued instead of ascribing to us phantom ideologies in a frankly conspiratorial fashion. I also implore people to pay attention to how transphobic rhetoric operates out in the wider world, how actual reactionaries talk about and think of trans people, instead of fixating so hard on internecine social media clique drama that one enters an alternate reality--a phantasm, as Judith Butler would put it.

Speaking of which--do y'all have any idea how overrepresented transmascs are in trans studies and queer theory? Can we like, stop and reckon with reality-as-it-is, instead of hallucinating a transfeminine hegemony where it doesn't exist? I'm aware a lot of their output isn't particularly explicative on the material realities of transmasculine oppression despite their prominence in the academy, but that is ... not the fault of trans women, who face extremely harsh epistemic injustice even in trans studies.

The actual issue is how invisiblized transmasculine oppression is and how the epistemicide that transmasculine people face manifests as a refusal to differentiate between the misogyny all women face, reproductive exploitation in particular, and the contours of violence, erasure, and oppression directed at specifically transmasculine people.

You will notice that is a society-wide problem, motivated by a desire to erase the possibilities of transmasculinity, to the point of not even being willing to name it. You will notice that I am quite familiar with how this works, and how it's completely compatible with a materialist transfeminist framework that analyzes how our oppression is--while distinct--interlinked and stems from the same root.

I sincerely hope that whoever needs to see this post sees it, and that something productive--more productive dialogue, at least--can arise from it.

[ftmtftm]

I just said this in a reply on another post but very seriously?

I really think some shit is stirring on Radblr and I think we as trans folks need to be very vigilant about it and block as much of Radblr as humanly possible.

I've noticed I'm getting more Radfems in my notes as a trans masc that blogs about Feminism - coincidentally right after that copy and paste sexual harassment anon pointing blame at trans mascs went around hitting popular trans fem accounts.

Something my ex-gf actually brought up to me when we were discussing that anon was that she thought it might be a Radfem trying to cause shit. The fact that I'm now seeing increased activity happening on Radblr - specifically in terms of Radblr seeking out trans masc bloggers, especially Feminist trans masc bloggers - all but confirms this in my opinion as someone who's been around the block on Tumblr regarding this kind of thing.

Please be safe, please be vigilant, and block those fuckers on sight.

[faggypuppywhore]

If there is only one side that is good and one side that is bad, then we are back to models of thinking that are singular and non-intersectional. Similarly, this model of thinking also paints masculinity with one simple brushstroke as “bad” and antithetical to feminism. If our model of feminist critical practice privileges a singular mono-linguistic identity only (gender), then so be it; FtM trans-sexual men have betrayed the cause. But, within the intersectional models of identity—where we understand power is distributed through a matrix of identities simultaneously—then this criticism of FtMs cannot hold.

What this criticism actually reveals when it seeks and thinks it finds privilege accruing to gender is, first, its own inability to think intersectionally and, second, its complete erasure of whiteness as a mark of power. Let me phrase this differently: When we think we’re seeing FtM trans-sexual male privilege, I suggest that what we’re actually seeing is whiteness modifying masculinity to give it power. If, for instance, trans-gendered “women” of colour transition into FtM trans-sexual masculinity, we’d be quite remiss to suggest that this FtM is transitioning into a privileged gender position in our culture. There’s absolutely no way that we can say, in good conscience, that a trans-sexual man of colour has more power than a White, born-female, heterosexual feminist, can we?

- Sons of the Movement: FtMs Risking Incoherence on a Post-Queer Cultural Landscape

[corvid-on-the-rock]

look im sorry but im sick to fucking death of people who were raised & socialised as boys and men never taking a fucking second to analyize the lens they view the world through like. half of the younger amabs, and yes i mean that, ive met never learned how to stop seeing afabs, and yes I mean that, as little girls who need to shut up. you just havent taken the time to unlearn that. it's fucking infuriating. im tired of not saying it. transitioning into womanhood doesn't baptise you of the patriarchy you've been taught to perpetuate your whole life, especially if you're white, or the behaviors you learned to do that. you have to actually look that in the eyes and deal with it and stop treating the LGBTQ+ community as a whole like it's our job to deal with the "complexities" of intersectionality while you just get to focus on yeah pretty much JUST white transmisogyny. Y'all are still fucking sexist deep down.

[intersexcat-tboy]

⚠️Reminder⚠️

⚠️Women are not the only marginalized gender ⚠️

[icarusxxrising]

As a trans man, I do not experience gender euphoria from being treated as "just another dumb man"

I do not get gender euphoria from being treated like I'm a cis man, because I'm not one.

I grew up with and still get periods, many of us face Endometriosis and pink taxes. Cis Men make kissy faces to me in the drive thru when I'm working. I don't walk alone at night. Doctors try to explain what anxiety is to me while walking out the door only 10 minutes into the appointment I've waited months for. Men catcall me as they drive by and laugh at my embarrassment for being called a "fatass piggy" in public. There is a trend of chasers who fetishsize baby trapping us so they can force us to detransition and this has only increased as abortion rights are under attack. We grew up arguing with the boys in class because they thought Assault jokes were funny. We dealt and deal with the creepy bosses and teachers and coworkers who seem to touch us every they pass by. We go on dates texting our friends who we're with, what they look like, and where we're going in case they decide to kidnap and kill us.

I'm not a cis man. Cis manhood is not the default I have to transition into to be a man. I experienced and still experience misogny, and they 100% are things I will always remember no matter how much Testosterone I inject.

So yeah, I am a man. I'm a boy. But I'm not a cis man or a cis boy. I am not "just as bad" as other men, and Malgendering me doesn't make me feel euphoric, it makes me feel like shit bc I'm being directly compared to the people who oppress me too. Stop trying to "validate" trans men by implying we are something bad and to be avoided.

[trans-androgyne]

Okay, a lot of people who use “transandrophobia” don’t like when people use “tme/tma” terms and vice versa. We call each other’s terms inherently transphobic in one way or another. But clearly nobody who’s genuinely using those terms is trying to be transphobic, that’s not why they’re using them. Can some of us who are willing get together and discuss why each other feels the need to use these terms, what they mean to us, and problems with their use that could potentially be worked on? I don’t think everyone is just going to stop using these terms overnight. Instead we can try to figure out which parts of them work and which don’t together. Some people could clearly use a term to discuss the specific ways transmasculine spectrum people face oppression. Some people could clearly use a term to describe the way they experience transmisogyny. I feel like these things can coexist. Feel free to constructively talk about them with me.

[k0rnym0thafucka]

If y’all can call TERFs “TWERFs” and completely ignore their transandrophobia, then I can call TIRFs “TWIRFs” bc they actually only include trans women in their shit radical feminism

[pringorr]

"trans women face way more sexual violence than TME trans people"

That's not true. Learn to shut the fuck up and educate yourself before speaking over us and downplaying our oppression.

.

.

"Non-binary participants who had been assigned female at birth were most likely to report sexual violence (66.1%) followed by trans men (54.2%) and non-binary people assigned male at birth (44.5%). Whilist trans women least commonly reported sexual violence (36.%)"

Most reliable data on this subject show the same trend.

[taliabhattwrites]

The Sexed Regime, or: You Probably Have the Wrong Critiques of "TME/TMA" Terminology

Let's begin by looking at an interesting dichotomy.

There's an oddly pervasive idea in queer spaces that a truly progressive trans or post-gender politic underscores the irrelevance of sex. In contrast to patriarchal society's utter fixation on "natal sex", queer existence must be transcendent, a space in which one's bodily configuration is understood to be entirely under one's purview, where presentation is simply something we inhabit and implies nothing about our sexualities or embodiments. It is an idea of emancipation rooted in agnosticism, an anti-patriarchal revolution spurred by the lack of belief in our cissexist society's deranged emphasis on knowing what's in our pants at all times.

It's a very appealing idea, I'll admit.

Here's the thing, though.

The naturalization of sex is the foundation of patriarchy, as well as the basis of the heterosexual regime it instantiates. Humanity is cleft in twain, with one sex marked for reproductive-sexual exploitation by the other. Like most other regimes, this one is also powered by belief--belief in the superiority of the 'male sex', the unfitness of the 'female sex', and most of all: absolute belief that sex is immutable, exhaustively binary, and non-overlapping.

What this also means, ultimately, is that those of us who dare to desert the sex we were conscripted into face different pressures and violence. It is obvious that many trans people are also subject to reproductive injustice, as cis women are, and consequently the transphobia they face is very acutely a regendering impulse, a patriarchal desire to drag them back to the confines of womanhood to fulfill their patriarchal purpose. There is, understandably, a certain amount of solidarity between cis women and trans people who have suffered these aspects of the heterosexual regime.

This is in fact the understanding that gives rise to even liberal-progressive uses of 'male socialization' directed at transfems. Trans women are understood to have been spared certain excesses of misogynistic violence and therefore expected to see and approach the world differently. It is simply a neutral observation, of course, no judgment behind it ... well, until it comes time to deny trans women epistemic authority over experiences of misogyny or womanhood, even their own. After all, can transfems really be said to have a full understanding of patriarchy? They weren't 'raised AFAB'!

Oftentimes, this becomes a double bind of proving that transfems did experience trauma, feminization, and abuse even pretransition, often as children, which is then usually dismissed as "trauma dumping" or "equating womanhood to being abused"--despite the minimization of our experiences being predicated on our "lesser" understanding of the trauma of being "misogyny-affected". So let's not retread that.

Instead, I'll point out that people assume a symmetry, a complementarian equivalence, almost, between the experiences of trans people. What I would like to stress is that there is no such thing as a coherent "AMAB" class or a shared "AMAB solidarity" based on shared experiences of oppression, because I have some shocking news that readers may wish to sit down for:

Trans women are oppressed by cis men.

Cis men are overwhelmingly the ones who rape us, beat us, kill us, and seek to abuse us. When we were children, we were bullied and violated for our perceived effeminacy, largely by the cis boys we were most proximate to. Most of us have been around cis men when they've voiced their most dehumanizing, misogynistic thoughts about women, and have been punished for not participating in these rituals of misogynistic rhetoric, too. The trauma of our upbringing involves being locked into spaces with those who sniffed out our differences, our non-conformance, and routinely punished us for being deviant. When we grow up, they are the ones who largely continue to prey on us.

The chief characteristic of transmisogyny is the presumed artificiality of trans womanhood, the idea that we are mimetics, and our womanhood is a farce, a costume whose only purpose is sexual. This dovetails with our disposability--our inability to be women who can bear children, further patrilineality, and secure what minuscule respectability is afforded to the domestically-confined women who continue the male line. As such, our hyperfetishization marks us for extreme violence, as sexual objects that can be freely used and discarded, guilt-free, because after all ... We asked for it.

Why would we "choose" womanhood if we did not want this?

Which, ultimately, brings me to my point: Sex is a social regime of difference imposed on us, but it is, unfortunately, a regime still in existence. My sex is the basis upon which my womanhood is denied and my disposability justified, because the transfeminized are degendered--we are not, as a rule, provided a path "back" to manhood. Our "effeminacy" ensures that we are 'failed' men, because gender is ultimately hierarchal. Losing status, being unmanned, is frankly trivial, and is what underlies the oppression of queer men--trans men included. Most of us are ultimately subject to some kind of degendering, largely due to how a patriarchal society regards those who defy the reproductive mandate, but transmisogyny is a specific manifestation of degendering that trans women experience.

"TME/TMA" may well be an imperfect categorization--all undertakings in boundary formation are imprecise, though not always violent, given that we need descriptive terms to communicate--but the real issue with it is that it's an overly-ponderous and ultimately clunky terminology for the frank reality that the binary sex imposed on us shapes the contours of the violence we experience. I have never experienced the specific kind of misogyny that sees me as nothing but a broodmare, because I'm a filthy troon, that dehumanized abject thing whose only purpose is absorbing (sexual) violence. Yet the acknowledgment that transfems experience forms of violence that others do not--or sometimes, even the acknowledgment that transfems face violent misogyny at all--is much less forthcoming.

Our struggles are indelibly connected, of course, stemming from the same source and promulgated by the same regime that seeks to define us as nothing more than male property. The shape of each is distinct, however, and because people frequently misunderstand the shape of mine, the idea that my struggles are even connected to theirs, that I experience misogynistic violence homoousian with that which they experience, is frequently dismissed, or considered outright offensive.

This is why I talk and write about transmisogyny, and why more people need to become more familiar with how the naturalization of sex and the regime of heterosexuality under patriarchy necessitates our common struggle.

And unfortunately, in order to properly express these ideas, we do need to talk about the regime of sex.

[aronarchy]

[CW: transphobia]

Transmisogyny is misogyny, transphobia is patriarchy.

The only main difference is that trans people are more oppressed than cis women so while cis women have gotten relative progress from feminism trans people are often left behind by cis feminists, and “progressive” transphobes will even naturalize patriarchal gender roles and definitions and manufactured constrictions, specifically bringing them out or bringing them back when it comes to defending transphobia.

This dynamic is especially exacerbated by racism, colonialism, Orientalism; the cultural imperialist Western gaze targets racialized trans people and even cis women and queers to naturalize or essentialize the patriarchal oppression they experience, treating it as an arbitrary cultural quirk occurring because of happenstance which must and/or can only be preserved, rather than a historically contingent form of oppression with specific material causes and consequences which can and should be overthrown. The relativist authoritarian often chastises consistent anti-authoritarians for supposedly being racist, white-privileged, disseminating “Western” viewpoints, etc. (erasing the non-white/Western intersectionally marginalized people who are the most harmed by such discourse, of course), but don’t be fooled: they’re the ones leveraging structures and ideologies originating in Western imperialism (the notion that The East and The West are ontologically different in grand historical ways, that nothing “Western” can be related to anything “Eastern” and vice versa, that The East is static and unchanging and underdeveloped, that The East’s cultures, values, practices, etc. are mysterious, exotic, inscrutable by The West, and so on), and when we expose this we peel away their façade (an important step that they always struggle to prevent by any means possible). (I don’t just say this in a vague abstract online discourse way; these dynamics also pop up in day-to-day personal political contexts, often the mechanism of violence/abuse; they are behind a great deal of material oppression in the real world today and have left a great deal of trauma upon marginalized people.)

It doesn’t occur to relativist transphobes that if someone doesn’t consider themself a woman / man because they feel they aren’t allowed to identify as or be one because they don’t fit the cissexist standard of having to be able to give birth (and fulfill the hegemonically defined (subordinate) wife role) / impregnate (and fulfill the hegemonically defined husband (patriarch) role), then that might possibly be a result of internalized patriarchy/misogyny/(cis)sexism and not an ideal state, and their mental health and self-image might improve and they might be living lives more closely in alignment with their internal selves if some friend went up and told them it could be an option. This is liberal choice “feminism” but specifically a version targeting trans people and transphobic oppression under patriarchy.

If a (white) infertile cis woman / cis man vented about feeling like they’re a failed Other rather than a real woman or real man because they can’t give birth / impregnate and the society around them says Real Women / Men are people who can give birth / impregnate (respectively), would people like this say as readily that it’s true they really are an ungendered unwomanly / unmanly Other, despite their own desire to be a woman / man and feelings which align with that? Or likewise for other forms of gendered nonconformity among cis people. (Much less likely, I think.)

Would they say, “cis women without children” is a whole separate gender from “cis women with children,” a third gender after “cis women with children” and “cis men with children”? Then “cis men without children” as a fourth gender. What about married with children versus married without? Then split the above into eight. Some trans people do get married, either while closeted, as an attempt at conversion or punishment by family or society, while passing for their correct gender (if they have a gender from the binary), or with updated laws which have assimilated trans people more. Trans people can have children too, even if not in the same patriarchal way which secures intergenerational patrilineal inheritance. More gender-categories for them then? (It’s obvious where this leads: there are in fact as many ways to be women and men as there are women and men, and different gender roles and social gender locations are assigned or designated in a gradient or internally distinguished way for all gender differences or social role differences, but there are some general categories which could be broadly termed different “genders” which group together, and thus it would be irrational/illogical and arbitrary to exclude trans women from womanhood or trans men from manhood under such a linguistic system.)

The transphobic takes above prioritize what “society” says, what other (cis) people surrounding someone says about what gender is, what their gender must be, as if what they say matters so much in defining us (or even at all), and then also equates the viewpoint of oppressive surroundings with the viewpoint of the oppressed individual (as if the oppressed will always just bow down and accept their oppression). That is not how we define gender or determine what anyone’s gender is, because that literally goes against the whole point of transness in the first place, which is that we define our own identities, we say what our genders are, we don’t limit ourselves by a cissexist society which constrains people by setting rigid inaccurate definitions; the subversiveness, the contradiction with surrounding norms, is literally the point; it wouldn’t be transness if there were no preexisting cisness (top-down/nonconsensual gender assignments) to struggle against in the first place.

It’s especially nasty to imply that Western trans people identify as “really” the gender they feel they are because the West’s social definitions of gender uniquely recognize that women don’t have to be wives, childbearers, and mothers (for patriarchs) and men don’t have to be husbands (patriarchs) and property-owning child-investing patrilineage-obsessed reproductive futurists. That erases the fact that there’s rampant institutionalized socially prevalent patriarchy in the West too; many people do believe that still; the point is, no society, no culture is a monolith. But it’s very obvious why sweeping portrayals of white, Western PoVs highlight the “progressive” parts while sweeping portrayals of non-white/non-Western PoVs highlight the “regressive” parts (racism, Enlightenment teleology). (And yes, people oppressed by racism can also be racist themselves.)

That also implies that trans people and our feelings and desires are dependent on cis people and their choices. That none of us will think against the grain until cis people create the conditions which allow for it. This prioritizes cis feminism and cis women’s rights over that of trans people, telling us they’ll always come first, we’ll always need them (though they won’t ever need us), if they’re not class-conscious yet then there’s no scenario where we might be more class-conscious already, which erases how we’re actually pressured to know much more about feminism than them, to understand their issues and ours and to be able to argue perfectly for both our rights and theirs in order to be relatively tolerated. These notions are only legible because of cissexism.

Trans people whose gender includes one (or both) genders from the binary are only treated as not being “allowed” to be “properly” considered as people of that gender because of cissexism. This denial is a form of oppression and social subordination, not something neutral or good or just naturally occurring. It’s cruel and it’s wrong. Notice how such discussions about “difference” never say that, e.g., “cis men are Different(tm) from trans men because they occupy different social niches, and trans men are more manly than cis men, because cis men don't fit into our/the Paradigmatic Image of What A Man Is(tm) and we only begrudgingly acknowledge cis men as probably ‘men’ in some way because of their self-identification but that won’t alter how we fundamentally categorize ‘men’ and we couldn’t possibly put forth a cis man as Paradigmatic, Archetypal, or Representative because smh he’s cis not trans, we couldn’t do that, that doesn’t intuitively make sense, a Man(tm) is a trans man unless otherwise specified?” (or likewise for women). Which makes it clear that this is about a power imbalance, a hierarchy placing cis people above trans people of the same gender and prioritizing cis people, which pushes out trans people from equal recognition and epistemic authority. (And no, the “unless otherwise specified” is not good enough, it’s still implicit misgendering; it’s just a half-assed attempt to cover the problems with your ideology; we want more.)

There is a (very obvious) reason why, despite having very different contexts at times, all patriarchies share certain common characteristics (patrilineage; intergenerational private property/power transfer of some sort; socially-mandated, enforced, or disproportionately incentivized binary heterosexual marriage/the couple-form; child-ownership by the patriarch; rigid definitions of “woman” as childbearer and mother and “man” as the one who possesses/owns the children (and “girls” and “boys,” respectively, as future “women” and “men,” requiring coercive socialization/indoctrination); condemnation of autonomous deviation from the prescriptive binary definitions of gender (in desire, in self-regard, in private or public identification/claiming, in differences or alterations in aesthetics/appearance/biological sex characteristics or role performance); etc.). Of course it’s not just arbitrarily landing on that every single time. These are social structures which arose from a historical process during which children, women, and queers were domesticated or forcibly excluded (as colonialism is imposed through an initial conquest and then ongoing counterinsurgency), relatively stabilizing after the patriarchs won the battle.

There is no reason why “man” or “woman” (or male, female, wife, husband, mother, father, boy, girl, masculine, feminine, gender, sex, “two genders,” “third gender”) would be terms any more transhistorically relevant, self-evident, coherent, or applicable than “transgender,” “nonbinary,” “trans woman/man/girl/boy/female/male,” etc. (And for that matter, “transmasc(uline)” (and “transfem(inine)”) shouldn’t be treated as “safer” terms to slide in third-gendering of binary trans people to avoid using the words “trans man” or “trans woman”; there’s no reason why they would automatically be more accurate either.) The people who would be called “trans” here today have existed and will exist in every society, and there will always be trans people under any patriarchy, and some language that would apply (whether a word or set of words or phrase or set of phrases or way of describing) to denote people rejecting or not aligning with their birth-assigned gender, so long as gender is assigned at birth. There will always be resistance, at least somewhere, sometime, when there is oppression. You will never have 100% internalized acceptance of cissexism. It’s time that relativists recognized this.

[faggypuppywhore]

"The whole thing with considering theyfab like a slur when it is literally punching up reminds me that transmisogyny is like not a serious social pressure to most people."

Im sorry please go talk to trans people for the love of god like speak to trans people this is not fucking feminism misgendering and reducing trans people to their assumed or actual AGAB is fucking digusting

[thurgikal]

Once you understand what drives many/most transfeminists you can predict how these people will talk about AGAB categories.

If they talk about AFAB as a social position or class, they'll just point out all its perceived social and political advantages, never the disadvatages. Afab as a class will be thought as dominant class not as dominated one, while they'll talk about AMAB to highlight the disadvantages associated with this category, never to acknowledge the advantages It enjoys. AMABs will be positioned as a dominated class.

Now, they don't explicitly use these categories because queer, social justice milieux are still too influenced by feminism (even if they are ideologically transitioning towards sex-aware masculinism) so allowing the use of AGAB categories in such contexts is dangerous because it would recreates what trans''feminists'' see as terfism.

[intersexcat-tboy]

Saying "you're not a woman so it's not misogyny" doesn't make something not misongystic

(Doesn't matter if it's said to a trans man or a trans woman, for different reasons)

[havenofcybele]

Some thoughts on feminism from a trans perspective

What has feminism done for trans people? This is, surprisingly, a question that isn’t often asked. But the answer is quite revealing: nothing, unless one wants to include negatives, in which case, a lot of bad things.

There’s an expectation for trans women that you’re supposed to be a feminist. So much as questioning feminism, or even expressing indifference to it, is frequently met by vitriol and hostility, typically expressed through misgendering, whether covert or overt. I’ve even had trans women say I deserve transphobia for not being a feminist. ‘Vitriol and hostility’ are really understatements of how tense other trans women can get when you don’t have the right opinion on this subject. The only possible outlet for criticism of feminism is criticism of TERFs, and transfeminists are extremely eager to point out that the TERFs are supposedly a minority, and hell, they’re probably not even real feminists anyway!

But again, my mind just returns to that question. What has feminism done for trans people? If you actually pose that to a transfeminist, they begin to stumble. They’ll stop talking to you, or they’ll deflect, or they’ll ignore the question and focus on something else you’ve said, or they’ll claim that somehow feminism laid the foundations for trans rights and that we don’t owe trans rights to the trans men and trans women who fought for them, or even to the researchers and surgeons who developed lifesaving transition-related care, but instead to activists who were fighting for unrelated concerns and who, by and large, were and are hostile to us.

What they’ll never do is actually name something substantive. I’m not saying individual feminists have never done anything substantive for trans people, but I can’t think of a single thing, and seemingly even transfeminists can’t either, otherwise they’d tell me. I can think of a large number of bad things feminists have and continue to do in regards to trans rights. Janice Raymond contributing to the removal of trans healthcare coverage under the Ronald Reagan administration of the United States, resulting almost certainly in the deaths of trans people, for example. Or the fact that gender recognition reform in the UK has been utterly derailed by feminists, or the fact that feminists have effectively destroyed youth transition resources in the UK. Or how about the time Sheila Jeffreys called trans people parasites to the Houses of Parliament? Feminists have been calling for the elimination of trans people since at least the second wave, constructing glossy looking pieces of academic tripe from The Transsexual Empire in 1979 to the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights in 2019. In my own homecountry, the people spearheading the anti-trans movement aren’t a bunch of far-right Handmaid’s Tale larpers, dreaming of a Gilead knock-off they hope to institute one day–they’re feminists.

Of course, I’m ready to hear the cry of ‘those are TERFs!’ or ‘those aren’t real feminists!’, well, where precisely are the real feminists? Again, what have feminists done that is good for trans people? Can you blame me for being antifeminist, when all the feminists I see having any influence on my life and the lives of my people, both now and in the past, are ones who want to eliminate us? At the very best, most feminists are utterly indifferent to trans issues, in which case, why should I support a movement indifferent to my suffering? At worst, most of them harbour transphobic viewpoints–not, perhaps, as toxic as your average TERF’s, but transphobic nonetheless, and such a conclusion is the one I lean to, considering how prevalent transphobic attitudes are in all areas of society, and my own anecdotal experiences.

What is interesting though, is that even if the correct choice is to support feminism despite its sordid history, the response to antifeminist or even just feminist-sceptical trans women is still insane. You think a movement which has been tarnished so badly by transphobia would be a little bit more understanding to those trans women who are reticent to interact with it, but instead all they receive is shaming, misgendering, and outright hostility. There aren’t even attempts to create dialogue around this issue, unless you first kiss the feminist ring and swear undying allegiance, in which case any dialogue you do attempt to make will be neutered from the start, set out entirely according to the terms of cis feminists. 

A retort might be that feminism means equal opportunity for women, or ending oppressive structures against women, or gender equality, or whatever else, and so the only reason you could be opposed to it is due to being a misogynist who hates women. This is a specious argument. Movements are defined by their members’ actions, goals, and political stances–not by a pithy, idealised definition which floats in a vacuum. Unless you transfeminists think that the only reason one might be opposed to MRAs is simply because one thinks men should have no rights?

In sum, I see no reason to support a movement that hates me and wants me gone, nor do I see any reason for my sisters to support it either. Antifeminism is the only path to true liberation for trans people, and I dream of the day most trans women shed this unhelpful ideology.