#i am being oppressed in this situation. that is what transandrophobia is.

[therevengeoffrankenstein]

😒

[transyashiro]

Hi, genuine question, why transandrophobia is not real? I just thought it was a word to describe the transphobia specifically targeted to transmascs, but if that is not the case id like to be corrected. Also your art is so beautiful I love it!

hey anon. firstly, thank you, i'm glad you like my art. secondly, i am at the end of the day just a guy who draws sometimes. this is a question which was already answered many times by transfeminists on here, and ideally you'd want to get the perspectives of tma people rather than mine. and just in general, keep up with discussions of transmisogyny and listen to transfems, yeah?

all that said, since you are asking me personally... to put it as simply as i can: transandrophobia, or transmisandry, is not real because misandry is not real. that should be the end of the discussion, really. there is no need for a special word to describe transphobia targeted at transmascs, because transphobia and/or other forms of oppression (real ones, Not misandry) depending on any particular situation already cover everything. why is there a desire for a special word to begin with, anyway? girls got one, we want one too? c'mon

but also like, all that aside, regardless of how real or not real transandrophobia is, it is a dog whistle. if someone associates with the transandrophobia crowd, they are most likely a transmisogynist. that should be enough of a reason to steer away from those guys and not trust them. sure, some posts by them might seem compelling or validating at a glance, i've definitely seen younger trans guys who don't know any better start looking in that direction because they feel like they are finally being given a tool to discuss their experiences. i assume that's partially why your question is framed like that, too, because a simple "we just want a word to discuss our oppression" is a lot more convincing than "we hate trans women and want to make them out to be the true oppressors" or "we're just men rights activists but with a trans flag, which also means that we are incapable of oppressing trans women because of our inherent connection to womanhood. don't worry about what that logic implies about our views of trans women" or... you get the picture. it's transmisogyny through and through, you don't even need to dig much

again, i hope you'll look more into what trans women have to say on this, it would do more good than my short clumsy explanation, but hopefully it at least gives you some vague idea

[0w0tsuki]

One thing this recent bile that's been spewed at me is just how reactionary the "Transandrophobia" movement is.

Oh hey look it's everyone's favorite transandro bro looking to coddle the dude who called me a "Deranged Hysterical Screeching Wailing Pro Cop Pro Eugenics Victim Racist Ableist Cunt Bitch" because I said "hey don't lie about my friend being a fascist who who wants to genocide nonvoters. No where in her post did she say that where did you even get that?"

The post that's supposedly downplaying transmascs anxiety specifically

Like the most hostility your from this is an irritation at the notion that this is the end of all life forever for trans people. No where is she attempting to downplay the risk. The summary of her statement is "Things are tough. They've been tough before. Don't lose hope and let others control you. There are options even in seemingly hopeless situations and maybe don't kill yourself a". A statement which doesn't call any group out in particular because it's addressed to ALL trans people who are concerned about the election and their hormone access.

And this is the sentiment I've seen from all the trans girls who have been talking about it. Nowhere have I seen transfems attempt to use this as a way to belittle AFABs specifically for being afraid cause guess what? WE'RE SCARED TOO. These posts are an address to a giant of doomerism about the elections that "I'm going to die because Trump is going to take away my hormones and Death before Detransition".

For a group who so commonly accuses trans women being self obsessed and wanting every discourse to be about us, they are incapable of even considering that we might address our own in this. Not only can they not conceive the notion that these are positivity posts meant to elicit hope, they are convinced that we are using this to attack and belittle them specifically. Because in their mind ONLY AFAB people are expressing concerns about being jailed for being trans. Cause it's not like, you know, this is all about an election where the PROGRESSIVES candidate had a history with throwing trans women in men's prisons. What do trans women have to fear of prisons? For a group whose half of their rhetoric is "it's not all about you" they are unable to even fathom that they are not the only ones scared of going to jail for being trans.

You can't even argue this is a straw man because that would imply that there's some fringe Transfem legitimately arguing this that they are using as representative of us as a whole. It can't be a straw man because that would require the physical material of straw to construct it from. They are reverse engineering what our opinion must be from their preconceived notions of us. They are boxing at shadows.

That's why there's no "Unity" with these guys. For all the big game they talk about it they don't WANT unity with us. What they WANT is a bitch to yell at and take the blame whenever something goes wrong in their community. They WANT their whipping girl. I am surely convinced that even if there were no "beaddels", that trans women just shut up about their own oppression forever, these dudes would still be out here twisting the most banal positivity posts aimed at the wider community by trans women, and finding ways to spin it as us attacking them specifically.

[cepheusgalaxy]

look guys i very strongly disagree with the "trans men hold privilege over trans women" point of view and i'm finally able to articulate why:

I think trans men don't hold privilege over trans women, because privilege is kind of a consistent thing.

Like, bear with me: I'm an abled person. I have privilege in relation to disabled people. Because, if me and a disabled person are in a Situation where this distinction is relevant in some way...I'm literally never gonna come out with the worst hand. Never. No matter what the situation is. This is a consistent fact.

Now, when we talk about different transgender identities, I think this gets more shady, because the "who has privilege in relation to who" is a relative statement. One example I saw of people explaining why in their view trans man have privilege over trans women is kind of like this: Imagine there are two passing and stealth trans people, a trans man and a trans woman, in a workplace. Then, it comes a coworker, being blatanly misogynist. Regardless of their views on trans people, in this situation, the trans woman is gonna get the worst of it, in relation to the trans man, because he will be viewed as a man.

It makes sense, and I don't think this hypothetical situation is inaccurate or anything, but I'd also like to point out why it doesn't work as a good point to why transmascs have privilege over transfems. Imagine we change about any variable in this situation. Let's say the trans woman is closeted as a guy, and the trans man is openly transgender. The misogynist coworker then would very much target the trans man in their points, especially if they are particularly transphobic. Now imagine both of them are out and openly trans, with the bonus that now both the man and the woman are gnc. Depending on other specifics, the misoginyst coworker might be bigoted to just one or both of them.

Like, do you see? In different situations, the different trans people have the worst hand. So that doesn't mean that because of the first case, trans men have it generally better. Because there are many kinds of trans men, and simply not all of them have privilege over trans women. In some cases, they might even have it worse precisely because they are trans man. So the privilege the trans man in the first example has is not a consistent thing over trans man! Maybe it's common, I don't know, but when we compare it with someone who has real privilege, like me, an abled person, I ain't ever encounter myself in a situation where I'm having it worse because I am abled in comparison to someone who is disabled.

That's why I think trans woman and trans men simply don't hold privilege over one another, simply because it varies. It depends on who the trans men and women are, it depends in what situation they are in, it depends on the people around them, it depends of so much!!! So saying that trans men have privilege over trans women sounds simply surreal!

I think that, also, the different patterns of the situations in which trans woman have it worse are important to be discussed, and that's why we have the word Transmisoginy, to discuss these issues pertinent to the nuanced oppression trans woman face (and on a similar note, that's why it's also important to have fucking words like Transmisogynoir, because a black trans woman's Situations will be different from a white trans woman's Situations and it's important to to recognize that). THAT's why I also think that we need words like Exorsexism and Transandrophobia, to identify the patterns of situations where trans men have it bad precisely because they are trans men and not something else or because nonbinary people have it bad precisely because they are nonbinary.

SO, in short, my opinion on the "trans man have it generally better than trans woman and that's why they have privilege" debate is that trans man don't generally have it better than trans woman, but some trans man in specific situations have it significantly better than trans woman and that in other situations trans woman have it significantly better than trans man and that is basically a case-to-case scenario and that's also why we need the specific words for different shapes and faces of transphobia to better understand these cases and why x happens with y at z situation. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[trans-androgyne]

tbh i agree with you about the hate against the word transandrophobia rly just being people not wanting to admit that they might have been acting kinda of shitty when they bullied and excluded and gaslit us about our oppression (tbh i think with some chronically online transfems it's just an I Am Upset When Is Not About Me situation. but i also think they have that pov after being legitimately traumatized and jaded by the transmisogyny that *is* rampant in queer and feminist spaces so there's nuance or whatever ig) but at this point ive had to just start ignoring it when people i follow start ranting against the word as long as its just the word they have issues with 😭😭 like the bar is so low ive had to set it at "anyone who accepts that we might suffer from sexism and systemic misogyny like women do" because otherwise it's like the only trans people i can follow are those who are *specifically* transandrophobia bloggers or those who just never post about community issues- which is often a breath of fresh air, except half the time i end up having to unfollow those people after they start reblogging posts like "trans men need to admit they have male privilege and really yknow what they can pass so easily they basically have cis privilege too and clearly they're all skinny and white and able-bodied so actually they're just The Enemy but also they're all lame and cringe and The Reason Cis People Hate Us because they're so lame and cringe and they should all just detransition and be good normal quiet pretty cis girls tbh." (:

quietly praying contrapoints or jessiegender (heard contra explicitly say that terfs and society at large oppress us in a unique way that can be just as harmful as transmisogyny on a podcast, and jessie has explicitly talked about transandrophobia and used the word on her second channel) does even the slightest gesture of support towards us in a more public-facing way so that maybe the delusional idea that patriarchy respects our gender enough to give us more than the flimsiest, conditional male privilege stops being quite so dominant.

I’m so sorry you’ve had to settle for interacting with people who don’t respect you or recognize your oppression. I get what you mean, I’ve been willing to settle for people who use tme/tma and think transmascs see privileged above transfems, I’m just so desperate for people who discuss trans issues but understand that transmascs experience gendered oppression. I hope popular non-transmascs discussing our issues will help increase acceptance of our discussions.

[exeggcute]

I hope you don't mind me sending this ask, feel free to ignore it, but I am trying and failing to understand your point about (trans-)misandry.

In my understanding, "misogyny" is a name given to a collection of negative attitudes and prejudices towards women (and femininity). It plays a role in the structural oppression of women, but it is not synonymous with it. Accordingly, "misandry" just denotes a collection of negative attitudes and prejudices towards men. Misandry does not play a role in structural oppression, because men are not structurally oppressed as men, but claiming that negative attitudes and prejudices towards men do not exist just seems silly to me. Just because misandrists are not a huge societal force does not mean they don't exist.

I think it is quite useful for thinking clearly about the matter to keep the words for attitudes and prejudices separate from the words for power structures: Even if tomorrow, every man on earth stopped being misogynistic, women would still be structurally oppressed, because the laws and social structures and unequal distribution of resources would continue to exist. Likewise, if we ever do get rid of the structural oppression of women, some men will probably continue to be misogynistic.

"Transmisogyny" as I understand it also started out as a word for specific negative attitudes and prejudices towards trans women (and in the original conception also towards feminine boys and men and drag queens and transvestites afaik), so using "transmisandry" (or "transandrophobia", already a concession) to mean certain attitudes and prejudices seems uncontroversial to me. The attitudes and prejudices on display in "Irreversible Damage" do seem to me to be rather distinct from the attitudes and prejudices targeting trans women, so it is useful to have a word for them, no? I find it quite fascinating how typical misogynist attitudes are in a way split up on the issue of trans people: The infantilisation is reserved for trans men and the demonisation for trans women, while in traditional misogyny these two go hand in hand. Why are you against using the words "transmisogyny" and "transandrophobia" to talk about this phenomenon?

hey, I appreciate you reaching open a discussion about this. also apologies for the delay, today was a little busy lol. typing on my phone rn so bullet points:

I am obviously not the Keeper Of Language (as much as I would love to be), but in my opinion one reason "misandry" is not a useful word is because of the implied false symmetry to "misogyny". you correctly recognize that one is underpinned by structural opinion and the other is not... but many people do not, lol. and a personal/professional axe that I've been grinding for a while is about reducing ambiguity in the way we talk about stuff, like generally speaking, so I'm of the opinion that "this word means different things to different people and causes a lot of confusion" is a solid reason to avoid using it when possible.

similarly, I think the fact that misogyny is a structural oppression and a major societal force is what makes having a specific word for it so useful. there are a lot of types of non-structural prejudice that basically boil down to Sometimes People Are Sometimes Mean To You, but we don't have a particular word that means "the thing where people are mean to redheads" or "the thing where people are mean to theater kids." maybe that'll change, but as it currently stands I just don't think having a single word for these things is useful or necessary, hence why there isn't one.

to your hypothetical about "if structural misogyny 100% ceased to exist but sometimes individual men were still mean to individual women," maybe not everyone would agree with me on this, but I kinda think that "misogyny" would no longer be the right word for the situation. like if someone with an innie belly button was mean to a person with an outie belly button, we'd just call that "being an asshole," ya know.

also part of me is curious about the origin of the word "misandry" now and like, whether the first people to use it were the bona fide men's rights motherfuckers who think men are structurally oppressed. totally speculating though. further research required

(I was gonna say another thing about how a lot of negative prejudices and attitudes around men have roots in cissexism and to some extent misogyny, like the idea that men shouldn't do X because only women do X and if you're a man who does X that means you're basically a woman, which is bad, because women are bad. or just plain old biological essentialism. but I don't know if I'm articulating this well so take it with a grain of salt.)

re. "irreversible damage" and similar panic about "oh no our precious innocent daughters are turning into men," I would argue there's a couple reasons that "misandry" isn't the word for what's happening here. one is that these transphobic parents don't categorically hate men or think badly of men; they love and accept their cis sons. the other is that I'm reasonably confident that parents who are transphobic about their transmasc kids would not be ANY less hateful about "son" who came out as transfem. which is all to say, their problem isn't just about having a transmasc kid. their problem is about having a trans kid, period.

and that also ties into the "infantilizing vs demonization" thing, which a lot of people have pointed out basically comes down to... transmisogyny. there's an element of both cissexism and misogyny in the way transmasc people are cast as victims (because they're "really just girls," and girls are weak and easily influenced), AND an element of both cissexism and misogyny in the way transfem people are cast as predators! because what's happening here puts transfem people in a sort of limbo where they're not recognized as women, but not exactly recognized as men either: the accusation is that by virtue of their birth assignment, they can't truly be women (cissexism), but also that by eschewing maleness and seeking femininity they've become something "other," a failed man, who will always be marked by an unacceptable affinity for womanhood (misogyny).

the "predator" part of that is informed by a number of factors, including the way that people assume Being A Girl On Purpose must be a sex pervert thing because they think womanhood is inherently about sex and sexual availability (misogyny!), but I don't know if I can articulate it very well and I don't have any good quotes handy. if someone reading can explain it better or has a quote to throw in, please do!

[velvetvexations]

I think the idea of "binary privilege" is very caught up in a certain idea of privilege that is all or nothing and Adds tangible benefits as opposed to simply meaning someone doesn't face a specific form of harm. There's multiple types of privilege imo and there's some where it's like ok yeah it's a privilege not to face X but not in a way that truly confers Active benefits. Like do transmascs on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transmisogyny specifically? Kinda. But does that make transmascs "privileged"? Not really. Like transfemmes on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transandrophobia but same as vice versa, but it's like okay is it a privilege to be facing a different but similar form of oppression? It's like asking which is the privilege, hypervisibility or hyperinvisibility, but neither is actually, truly privilege. Or for a more specific example, is it a privilege to have transmisogynystic caricatures in media to know that trans women are a thing in a way that leads to knowing you're trans but also causes emotional harm, or never finding out about the concept of trans men and not being able to conceptualize of ftm transition which leads to never knowing what you are which causes emotional harm. Neither benefits the person who ends up harmed by society, but it is Technically a privilege not to face one even if you do face the other.

Then for nonbinary people and exorsexism, binary people do, often, not face certain struggles that nonbinary people often do, and should keep that in mind. Binary people have the option to be gendered correctly by m/f paperwork and the like and can more easily exist in the framework of cis minds, etc, but that doesn't make them not trans or erase other negative things they face. There's no absolutes in this. Many binary trans people will face issues that nonbinary trans people don't and vice versa. It's simply a difference to keep in mind, but it's not an oppressed/oppressor privilege dynamic like some privileges are. The no nuance view of privilege just erases positive conversations that can be had that can help strengthen the fight against transphobia of all types.

Following up on the ask that I just sent about privilege having many contexts and meanings for binary privilege discussion, I saw someone else compare it to abled vs disabled dynamics and I think in this case it's far more comparable to like, invisible vs visible disabilities where both are disabled but because it's in different ways, they face different struggles in different situations. Like one could argue (incorrectly) that it's a privilege for handicapped spaces to exist whereas accomodations for many other disabilities don't exist but like that's stupid and accomodations for that kind of physical disability arent actually treated any more seriously/face different struggles. Like someone who can't access a certain space due to disabilities doesn't matter if it's because there's no stairs or because the strobe lights would cause meltdown/seizure/etc , either way, they can't enter the building, and people's responses could range from ignoring them to taking them seriously depending on their personal bias. Some people will accommodate visible physical disabilities but not invisible ones and some will do the opposite. More often, they're shitty across the board. Having Some spaces take Some groups more seriously in Some ways Sometimes doesn't mean they're privileged, and this applies to both "sides". One group just faces one side of a double edged sword and the other faces the other side. Both are wounded.

All very good words, anon! I wish I had more to say but once again I feel I am more platforming people and learning from them wrt this.

[cardentist]

well ! I'm making this post to make a point.

for context, I made this post [Link] earlier, wherein I spoke first about my frustrations with cis people not considering the trans perspective, and Second about my frustrations with me doing so immediately being framed as an attack on trans women specifically Because my frustrations were tied to me being a trans man.

(I do Also consider myself trans fem, but that wasn't particularly relevant to the original post, so I didn't mention it at the time).

this was then followed by an interaction in dms wherein the quiet part was spoken out loud.

1: that trans men Are Not equal to trans women, and that it is taken as an attack on trans women to present them as such (it is not).

2: that the idea that any individual trans man could face harm within the trans community from any other individual is, itself, transmisogynistic because it implies that trans women are capable of oppressing trans men (it does not).

3: that it is Impossible for any individual trans woman to ever speak over any individual trans man, because trans women are women and trans men are men (it is not).

4: that trans women possess some Secret Additional Layer of oppression that no trans man could ever match up to no matter what their individual experiences are, even when that trans man is Also a trans woman (they do not).

5: and by extension, that every single individual trans woman has it worse than every individual trans man in every situation (theoretical or real) no matter what, thus making anything that a trans man experiences Lesser Than by default (do I even need to say anything).

I am going to put the entire conversation (censored) under readmore, but I need it to be understood that This Is Not Hyperbole.

when I say that trans men are singled out and attacked for the simple act of having a voice This Is What I Mean. it is considered by some people to be Inherently Transgressive, Inherently Bigoted, for trans men to consider themselves equals. for trans men to consider their experiences equal.

and so, it is Assumed by Default that a trans man speaking on his own experiences is harmful to trans women Regardless of whether trans women are being spoken on or not.

not everyone thinks this way of course (and the people who Do think this way aren't dictated by gender, this isn't trans mascs vs trans fems this is about bigotry, which anyone is capable of)

but a Significant Enough proportion of people Do, and people don't recognize or realize this fact.

if you feel that I am being hyperbolic, if you've never been exposed to this way of thinking before, if you find yourself Agreeing with any of the points I have listed above, I do suggest reading through this conversation and the posts linked to it.

content warning for a brief non-graphic mention of rape/csa within the linked posts and this conversation.

Me: I know odds are you don't want to hear it, and that's fine you can ignore this message entirely if you'd like. but I Do think you'd better understand what my perspective is if you were to read my response

I do think I Understand where your perspective is coming from, and I get it on an emotional level. but there's a disconnect here where intent is assumed when it doesn't need to be [Screenshot of tags written by anonymous that reads: transandbros (transandrophobia + bros) they think that they can’t be the most privileged in a group because they think trans women have privilege over them. End Transcription]

I am trans masc yes, I am also trans fem, and I don't enjoy assumptions like this being made about me.

Anonymous: i said trans women as in TMA [transmisogyny affected] people. not transmasc or tranfem which can be used by tme [transmisogyny exempt] and tma [transmisogyny affected] trans people

Me: like I said in my response, I want to go on testosterone, physically transition, and then present femininely. I want things like an audibly deep voice, facial hair, a square jaw. I also want to keep my breasts, I want long hair and feminine features, I want to dress femininely and be read as a feminine And masculine person

I also live in mississippi. 

now do you think that if I do that I will walk outside and never ever experience transmisogyny.

Anonymous: also trans men oppress trans women and benefit from transmisogyny. i say this as someone who benefits from transmisogyny as well. i oppress trans women. i experience misdirected transmisogyny as someone w [with] facial hair and a low voice and long hair and tites. And when people in and out of my community learn about my gender and transition, much of tht [the] MISDIRECTED transmisogyny disapears[disappears]. my experience is better in certain situations than it would be for a similar trans women. if tht [that] is a statement you cannot aggree [agree] with than [then] there is nothing to discuss here

there is no way for a trans women to speak over a trans women [I think they meant trans men?] if they are otherwise on [a] similar playing field (white, abled, class, religion etc) thats not what speaking over means. thats like cis men thinking cis women are dominating the conversation when they make up even 30% of the conversation

Me: the post I was responding to was written by a cis person, I asked people to consider the trans experience and spoke about how it was frustrating that people Don't do that. /I/ was the trans person speaking to a cis person, and then it was decided after the fact that I was somehow stepping on trans women's toes by doing so.

Anonymous: okay great. shouldve kept that context than maybe you wouldnt have also revealed u [you] think trans women can oppress trans men

Me: this is why I suggested you read my response, because I don't believe that and I also explained explicitly why I didn't include the username of the original poster (though part of it, of course, is that I didn't want anyone to harass the op) 

Anonymous: i did read ur [your] response thats how i know you think trans women oppress trans men as equally as trans men oppress trans women

Me: that's not really how oppression works? I believe that trans people are able to Hurt Each Other, because all people as individuals are capable of harming each other as individuals. this is not the same thing as oppression, oppression is a systemic power structure that puts one group above another.

what I've said is that I believe trans people are equals, and you think this is a bad thing? 

I didn't even say that trans people are equals In The World As A Whole (though I do believe that), I said they're equals Specifically Within The Trans Community made by and for trans people.

Anonymous: and i wholeheartedly disagree with that! its incredibly clear as a tme [transmisogyny exempt] trans butch lesbian in community with trans women, its incredibly easy to see how tme [transmisogyny exempt] people are privileged over tma [transmisogyny affected] people

including in lgbt and trans specific spaces!!!

Me: so your point is that from Your perspective you have seen the way that people within queer and trans spaces have made you feel othered and hurt people for being trans fem.

my point is that This Is True, I have seen this as well. but I have Also seen people take that exact same energy and point it at other trans people. I have personally been othered and torn down both for being trans masc And for being nonbinary at different points in time. 

I am telling you that you are right, but that people need to be more open to other people's perspectives to get a clearer picture on the over all situation. 

because when we look at Everyone is saying, the truth seems to be that All trans people are torn down for who they are.

why is that a bad thing? what does it hurt to consider that I have also experienced something similar to you?

I Really hope that your point isn't that I am privileged compared to other trans fems after I spoke in depth about being raped by a man and how that's affected me for the rest of my life

Anonymous: no im litterally [literally] saying that amab trans fems and trans women experience another layer of oppression from afab trans people. i litterally [literally] told you i am also an afab transmasc person. why do you transandrophobia truthers litterally [literally] always jump to trauma dumping ! if you want to put it in those terms, you are privileged in comparison to amab transpeople who actually have higher rates of sexual abuse and rape. you are not more privileged than cis people who experience lower rates rape and sexual abuse.

and fuck u for reading me call myself a butch lesbian and calling me transfem so it suits ur argument

Me: 1: I'm sorry I called you trans fem when that isn't how you identify, I thought you'd explained to me that you were tme trans fem like you consider me to be. we're both upset and this isn't really the best medium to hold a conversation with, so it's easy to word things in a way that can be misinterpreted as well as misinterpret things that would be clearer if you had more time to sit on and absorb the information.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but I am frustrated with you continuously jumping to the most negative reading of my intentions possible.

to rephrase my point:

"so your point is that from Your perspective you have seen the way that people within queer and trans spaces have othered and hurt people for being trans fem."

followed by the rest of it

2: that's not actually true, there are a few studies that have found that trans mascs over all face similar (and at points higher) rates of sexual abuse to trans women.

(this is a link to a tumblr post, but that tumblr post is a link to a study, I've included This link because it has easily accessible pictures of the relevant graphs).

though coincidentally I've recently made a post that relevant to this exact topic

the point I made there (and the point I'm going to make here) is that saying "This minority group experiences This Thing less than That minority group" isn't useful when speaking to individuals because those individuals have still experienced trauma.

individual people Are Not every statistic about their minority group, and they cannot have their Experienced compared based on those statistics

because Experiences are not dictated by statics. and treating people as if their experiences don't matter because their experiences don't match the statistics is cruel.

the other point being, of course, that using studies like this to try to hard measure the Amount Of Oppression between different minority groups is silly.

these are self reported with relatively small sample sizes of specific locations at a specific time. they're Important to prove that there is a problem, but there has never and will never be a measure of the experiences of every trans man vs every trans woman that we can then calculate and compare.

I'm sure there Are some statistics out there that show trans women with a marginal increase of sexual abuse compared to trans men, just like there are some statistics out there that show the opposite.

what this tells us is not that one group Inherently has it worse than the other, it tells us that trans people experience sexual assault, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

3: I find it incredibly distasteful to insist over and over again that someone is not oppressed, that they are privileged, that they haven't been hurt in a meaningful way. and Then refer to them speaking about their lived experiences as "trauma dumping"

if you can't handle frank discussions on the trauma and oppression that trans people experience on a day to day basis then you really shouldn't be commenting on that trauma.

[End conversation]

screenshots of the full conversation can be found here: [Link] I would've made a video to fully prove that these aren't doctored, but I don't want to out the person I was speaking to. they don't deserve harassment

[fishtomale]

Hey just wondering, what's the whole thing with the transandrophobia tag about. I heard it was just to talk about transmasc struggles. Is the term problematic?

I am tired but this may be in earnest and I do think there are misconceptions here, so I will try to answer. I would highly encourage input from others in reblogs and replies if you feel I misstated something or could have elaborated or included more.

The problem with the term transandrophobia is mostly in the androphobia part that implies that manhood is, or can be, the basis of oppression. This harms all women and those impacted by patriarchy, but it definitely doubles down on trans women because it cheapens the use of the term transmisogny. The thing is, transmisogyny isn't defined as transphobia flavored to affect trans women, something the term transandrophobia implies by presenting itself as an equal opposite to transmisogyny. Transmisogyny is instead a unique intersection of two oppressive spheres that uniquely impacts trans women, and those spheres are misogyny and transphobia. There is no way to utilize the term transandrophobia and related terminology without implying that misogyny is a bias or flavor of transphobia, rather than it's own unique oppression sphere, therefore downplaying the oppression of all women, trans and cis, under patriarchy.

Trans men are oppressed for our transness, and our transness is inherent in our identity as men, but it is not necessarily manhood that is being punished by oppressive spheres. We are punished for our transness and perceived proximity to womanhood and our aberration from it, which is best described by the already existing term transphobia (and sometimes misogyny, but not the intersection of the two).

The thing is that while trans men face a lot of issues specific towards us, having a term like transandrophobia is dishonest to the fact that trans women are oppressed as a unique class of women and as a unique class of trans people and therefore face more physical and sexual violence as well as workplace and housing discrimination than we do. I wouldn't say that trans men have full access to patriarchal power in most situations, but in the trans community we do hold privilege of trans women, and there are still opportunities for us to talk about how our manhood intersects with our struggles without rendering trans women's language meaningless. Under our current patriarchal society there are multiple classes of men who face unique expressions of oppression and may in some cases not have full access to patriarchal powers, such as men of color, gay men, and disabled men to name a few. Men in these classes may face higher levels of violence, lack of agency, and denial of their manhood or humanity based on their unique classes of oppression, but generally not at the same level as women in the same communities (by large), and therefore we should not deny their male privilege or create new language to imply they are exempt from gender-based privileges and therefore denying women's oppression.

When I see people clinging to and defending terms like transandrophobia I see a willful ignorance towards and lack of regard and respect for trans women, and that's why I don't want to boost those voices or validate that word.

[leosabi]

okay what in the hell. if you use the current transmisogyny issue to try and claim trans men aren’t oppressed or are somehow the cause of the current problem i am going to assume you’re a 4chan infiltrator btw.

big rant below the cut. transphobia tw, i also mention a recent murder case. if you’re a mutual who’s reblogging posts about the current issue maybe read this?

i am aware this is very unlike my normal posts but it’s stressing me the fuck out bc of how many mutuals are reblogging stuff about it and bc of concerning language used in some of the posts.

THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT TRANS MEN IDK WHY EVERYONE KEEPS BRINGING US UP.

i have not seen anyone i follow say directly that trans men aren’t oppressed, but ive seen a few posts that indirectly insinuate it reblogged onto my dash. and i have been assuming the people who reblogged it just didn’t read the post thoroughly, but i saw someone genuinely say trans men aren’t oppressed in the notes of one of these posts (it was not someone i follow) and that’s fucking insane. an afab trans person (not a trans man, but someone who would face similar oppression) was brutally murdered in oklahoma just recently and jkr’s manifesto directly talks about trans men and afab nonbinary people in a disgusting, infantilizing fashion.

anybody who supports posts like that is getting blocked, mutual or not. including ones that claim transandrophobia isn’t real (it’s misogyny. transandrophobia is trans-specific misogyny that is called that because why tf would transmascs misgender themselves in a term they made. nobody is claiming misandry is real i have literally never seen that and that’s why the term was changed to transandrophobia instead of transmisandry. in addition, a lot of trans men don’t pass and therefore get to experience all the wonderful privileges (/s) of being viewed as gender nonconforming women. even ones who pass can be visibly queer as well. and much of the current anti-trans legislation specifically targets trans men who need top surgery as teenagers, which is a rare case but some do need it, and exceptions for breast-related surgeries on cis female teenagers is specifically written into much of this legislation).

people bringing trans men up in this context is suspicious as fuck because as far as i’m aware, there aren’t any trans men directly involved in this situation at all. it’s cis terfs, the cis ceo of tumblr, and trans women, particularly one, with the fbi car hammers thing, but there’s many more involved. bringing up trans men for any reason just distracts from the actual point of everything, doesn’t it? why is attention towards an unrelated issue being brought forth

i have no idea

how supporting trans women

involves putting down trans men.

from a trans man who hardly ever passes because i dared to grow my hair out. like just shut up about trans men for this whole situation. we do not belong in the conversation in this way. our oppression is uninvolved. whether you’re bringing it up to defend us or bash us or whatever the fuck, just don’t. this is an issue about trans women.

[ghostcrows]

i know ive made like seventy goddam posts about it...but i have still been ruminating like a mother fucker about like...trans gender issues

as you do

i want to listen to trans women right i dont want to be transmisogynistic and i keep on seeing that there are trans guys who are out of their minds high on terf fumes (whether they realize it or not), although ive known that already bc theres always been trans guys who want...whatever they think they get out of clinging to gender essentialism and the remnants of their claims to womanhood. radfem pussy from a female born womyn that hates you i guess

i also do want people to not brush aside transmasc issues as like, not real, or saying well you're a man arent you, so like, shut up and go get that privilege, that conditional privilege, that highly situational privilege, that goes away in dire straits situations such as um, medical environments....or to like treat us with disdain, or as a joke, which is what i see much more often than pure vitriol (its just like, funny to people to be a trans guy. a little too funny too often)

but we also have to recognize that many of the things we go through closely mirror transfem experiences - even if not all of them do, a lot of them do, and we aren't the sole understanders of trans oppression or misogynistic oppression, thats kind of like, the point right. it is not an inherently ~afab~ burden

i think its fair to want a word that doesnt step on anybodys toes that accurately describes our unique experiences with being treated poorly instead of vaguely gesturing to transphobia in a broad sense- we have consistently failed to find this ... theres a point i keep seeing that i agree with that we shouldnt scrutinize transfems who dont use absolutely perfect language to describe their experiences, i think that should probably also be true for transmascs, but we also do keep choosing like absolutely dogshit terms so...idk? the only one ive seen thats any good is "anti transmasculinity" ive also seen transandrosmia(sp?) but i dont know what that means and it seems to be just trying to replace the root words in transandrophobia/transmisandry. which to be fair was the main hangup because of the implications, to my understanding, but ...im not sure about it

i also see a lot of accusations towards either group that we "just see each other as our agab" which is like, in my opinion, true in the sense that everyone has ingrained transphobic beliefs from living in a deeply transphobic world, and you have to unlearn both the internalized forms and the externalized forms...you have to choose every day to continue to unlearn that stuff, catch yourself. even if you think youve done all the work i mean, no one ever truly has - but also like. so much of this stems from pure insecurity. not only "no one sees me as i am" but also "the 'other' gender has it better in some way" being very mch a thing trans people are inclined to feeling, even after they transition i dont think that always goes away, thats why you see like, someone saying "i hate my agab body" and someone else goes "ugh i WISH i had your body id be so lucky to have your body". absolute last thing that person probably wants to hear but you sometimes feel it anyway

and then like, at the end of the day, i dont feel like any of the ppl leading this current "crusade" are actually people who have a full picture...and i dont think i do either, like, so much of this is online for me, i have to wonder what other people are going through. i overall wish i knew more trans people in real life, i definitely wish i had more transfem friends irl, i know a handful of transmascs irl and that was a freak accident bc we all went to school together. if not for that i'd know basically no one trans near me. tho i have seen more people in public more often but i never say anything cuz im scared -_-

yeah....dk how to end this post. well bye

[lycandrophile]

correct me if I'm wrong (trying to find a cohesive thread through this issue) but it sounds like a gripe that people have with the terms transmisandry and transandrophobia is in part because they view it as theft of the concept of transmisogyny? i've seen that but i have also seen criticism of literally every other phrase trans men are trying to coin to describe their experience so it overall feels like a losing situation

yeah, that's one of many complaints people have about it

and i know you didn't really ask for my opinion on the criticism but in case anyone's wondering: you just...can't "steal" the concept of oppression. the concept of transmisogyny was coined first but saying that we somehow "stole" the concept by just...also talking about and creating words for our own unique oppression would be like saying the concept of transphobia is a theft of the concept of homophobia. i could keep elaborating, but the whole terminology discourse is honestly just too exhausting so i'd like to minimize the chances of someone trying to debate with me on this

generally speaking though, yeah you're absolutely right, there is no winning when it comes to the terminology fights - that's why they're so frustrating. people will never be happy with what we come up with because their actual problem is that we're coming up with anything at all. a lot of people just don't want to see us talking about our issues, and their reasons for not wanting us to be able to will vary depending on who they are and what circles they're in, but in general, having specific vocabulary makes our discussions easier and that means they're never going to like it, no matter how carefully constructed it is or how well we explain it or anything like that

and honestly, a lot of it isn't coming from a malicious place, it's just that the idea of us having a unique form of oppression challenges what a lot of people have been taught and some of them aren't ready for that so they fight it. a lot of trans women and transfems have been told by our current sort of ~activism culture~ that if you're not The Most Oppressed then your oppression doesn't matter at all, so the idea of other people in the trans community developing similar concepts of unique oppression genuinely feels threatening because they worry that people won't care about their oppression anymore if they're not seen as Definitively The Most Oppressed and like...yeah that's fucking scary, i won't pretend it's not! and a lot of trans men and transmascs (myself included) have been told by that same Most Oppressed philosophy of activism that, because trans women and transfems have been sort of placed as The Most Oppressed in our community, the focus should be on them as much as possible, so we end up feeling like we have to pick between talking about our own issues and getting pushed away by the larger community or just not causing a scene so we can retain our place in the community and again, the idea of being isolated like that is fucking scary too so i get why some people find themselves fighting against discussions of their own oppression for the sake of holding onto that community - i've had to fight the urge to do so myself. as angry as the pushback against our discussions makes me, i do have at least a little compassion for most of the individual people doing it because i know, for the most part, the motivation isn't malice, it's just fear. the genuinely shitty-through-and-through people are there for sure, but not in huge numbers

and honestly? knowing that makes it even harder to fight against the arguments sometimes because i can see what's behind most of them and it makes it a lot harder to be pissed, which is part of why i try not to get into it. obviously i think people should be held accountable for their actions regardless of how sympathetic the motivations are, but personally i feel like i'm better at just starting to have the discussions we want to have than i am at getting into the arguments about if we should be having them - i'll leave that to other people on here

that was a lot longer (and more rambly) than i was planning on and probably a lot more than you were expecting too, but i figured i'd kinda just put all my thoughts on the matter here (including the less "fuck you, this sucks" side of my thoughts, which don't always come across very much on here) since i don't usually talk about it at all. i'm a bit nervous to post it because i know i'm on that blocklist, but oh well, might as well

at the end of the day, most people's problem is that we're acknowledging our oppression in the first place, not the specific words we use (those are just easier targets), so i've personally chosen to just...not worry about the terminology and actually get to the discussions themselves. i have plenty of compassion when i think it's warranted, but i also have very little patience for the fights, yknow?

[transguysuggestions]

Hey idk if you care or not but that last post you posted the op doesn’t acknowledge transandrophobia and as a transmasc who constantly experiences things that fall under that umbrella (constantly being told I’m a “confused lesbian”, getting asked “why would you choose to be a man”, being lumped in with cis men on oppression issues like no fam I grew up afab I am the farthest from that, etc.) and I just thought that you’d like to know it made me feel uncomfy/unsafe to see that person didn’t care about that and said it wasn’t real

Anon, I say this with utmost kindness, but what you're describing now isn't an intersection of two different axis of oppression that needs a new term, but just straight up transphobia. Trans men are men, and we're oppressed on the axis of being trans specifically, not on being men, or the combination of being trans and men. You experiences are valid, but just as misandry isn't an axis of systematic oppression, transandrophobia isn't an intersection of two oppressive axis.

In addition, the coiner of the term "transandrophobia" is.... Not a good person, overall. I recently saw his callout, and I don't want to use the term he invented to describe the situations you're describing, which again, are just transphobia. That doesn't make it any less awful! But it's not an oppression specific to trans men, but all trans people.

[worms-in-my-brain]

Why do you assume I’m tme? Why do you equate being transmasc with being strictly tme?

I am transfemasc. And, for the record, if I go with the supposed definition of tme/tma, I am tma. I am a genderfluid person who is often a woman who transmisogyny impacts as a DIRECT target.

Also why are you assuming this person was cis? They were not. Their pronouns were they/them. I may not agree with them, but please don’t misgender them. Also, everything you’re saying now is the exact type of thing I saw on their blog. At this point you might as well go seek them out, it sounds like you agree more with them than me.

I also don’t like the implication that no cis person can care about trans people. Many cis people do.

Also this is in no way saying anything about my transfem sisters and siblings. In the post above, I never once said that other transfem people have made me feel unsafe—yes, some have, (i.e. baeddels), but the problem I’m talking about is not a problem with transfems, it is a problem with the way society at large treats feminism. Importantly, this tendency is FAR more common among cis people than it is among both transmascs and transfems.

To finally address your first point… yes, transmisogyny is indeed a unique form of oppression that is distinct from both the overarching concept of transphobia and the specific concept of transandrophobia as the intersection of transphobia, misogyny, and antimasculism as it applies to trans men and mascs. “I’m sure there’s a way for us as transmasculine/tme people to accept that transfem/tma people have a specific kind of oppression that we dont experience” yes there is. It exists right alongside the way for us as trans people to accept that many transmascs also experience a specific type of oppression that many transfems don’t experience. (Barring nuanced accounts on both ends, I’m not one to think in black and whites).

Overall imo this is a great example of the holes in the argument against the usage of “transandrophobia” and the assumptions that underlie those holes. Meaning:

• the assumption that anybody talking about transandrophobia must be transmasc and strictly transmasc, despite many transfem and genderweird people also talking about it

• the erasure of intersex people at large in these conversations (i.e. in the tme/tma dichotomy) and the ensuing erasure of specific individuals’ intersex identity in situations where it helps further the argument that “transandrophobia truthers” are dramatic and hysterical “AFABs”

• the implication that the concept of transandrophobia implies literally anything about the concept of transmisogyny

• the assumption that transmascs are somehow targeting transfems by talking about their own oppression and experiences, even when we are never mentioned

• a misunderstanding of radical feminism and what it entails that leads to people re-structuring radfem arguments in a nominally “trans-inclusive” fashion… despite those arguments still being harmful to many trans people, especially intersex trans people or genderweird trans people (i.e. multigender people, trans people with non-normative trans experiences, etc.)

Seeing someone with “ex-radfem, still unlearning” in their bio and “tmra/transandrophobia truthers” in their DNI makes so much sense.

So you’ve unlearnt the “vitriolicly hate trans women” part. Have you unlearnt the “women are better than men and always more pure and safe and good and men are always the aggressors and women are always the victims” part?

Bc that part is also bad. Y’know. Bc it leads to abuse, it leads to putting women on pedestals (something which like, is like feminism 101 sexist), and it leads to people denying the importance of intersectionality (ex. radfems claiming that black men hold systemic power over white women bc of the man/woman axis while completely ignoring the entire racialised component).

[nothorses]

Hi, I'm a transmasc person struggling with internalized transandrophobia (heavy warnings for trans/NB-phobia)... I always feel invalid because I'm AFAB and my intrusive thoughts say "all AFAB trans people are cringy and not valid, they're not oppressed enough" and while I try to respect every trans people, my ex was a white radfem who hates all transmascs (or any masculinity) so I'm still feeling scared and remember them when I see white transmascs who already transition (1/?)

and look masculine already (like with a strong jawline, facial hair, etc.). Maybe it's not only my internalized transandrophobia, but also fear of my ex... and of truscum, most of whom are masc and white af. But I don't understand! These random transmasc people are my mutuals, I don't wanna fear them... or do you think I'm jealous of them? Because they look masc and I don't? I mean, I don't necessarily want to be seen as a man, but masculinity =/= manhood.

Also, I feel like transfems and AMAB trans people are more valid and real than I am/any AFAB trans people. But also... I'm not white. Being cautious with white people because of racism is okay, right? But otherwise, I'm a mess of bigotry and fear (the fear is from trauma from my ex, probably). And I don't even know how to begin to unpack this. Much less stop being like this. Anyway, thank you for listening, and I'm sorry if this is super messed up. Please take your time replying (if you do), take care.

I’m sorry you’re struggling with all of this; it sounds like a heavy weight to bear, and I hope you’re taking care of yourself as you do. Prioritize your health, give yourself breaks and positive distractions, and try to forgive yourself for honest mistakes.

Emotions and emotional responses are normal, inevitable, and can’t really be controlled. They’re just responses to stimuli. What matters is how you choose to act on those feelings, and when you make a mistake and act on them poorly, what matters then is how you choose to handle that situation.

That’s where to look when you’re evaluating these things: you have intrusive thoughts, but you also recognize that those feelings aren’t factually true. So you’re having an emotional response, and rather than accepting it as fact and acting on it, you’re stopping yourself and asking how real those things are. That’s good!

How do you want to feel about those things? Maybe you can give yourself some reminders when you notice a different response; over time, things will probably shift in that direction. It’s okay if it’s not immediate, it doesn’t mean anything about you. It matters less why those feelings are happening, and more that you know what direction to head in from there.

And as a side note: I’m white, and I can’t really speak to the question about whiteness/fear. I will say that it might be a good decision for you, in general, to seek out more trans people who are like you: white AFAB trans people don’t represent the community, and our experiences are absolutely not universal. Someone recently recommended @brownandtrans !

[sodomit]

I am not gonna do the quote by quote thing, because I'm on mobile and that's exhausting, but I'll still point out what you have wrong with your response (the numbers don't necessarily match the order in which you put your comments, although I try to, they're mostly for my convenience to mark the start of a new topic):

1. You don't understand trans men's position under patriarchy. We are not offered a "leg up" in a misogynist society, we are not invited to participate in normative men's social hierarchy.

2. Intersectionality is not oppression + oppression or oppression + privilege, intersectionality is about new positions that arise for people on the overlap of some identities, and that sometimes results in a typically privileged identity becoming an amplifier for someone's oppression. I will probably elaborate on that in a separate post.

3. I am explicitly calling for not treating terms like "misogyny", "transmisogyny", "transandrophobia" as not exclusive to a specific gender identity or gendered experience. Implying that I said trans women are "women and men" because of being victimized by misogyny and misandry is either inattentive on your part or bad faith.

4. No kind of a trans person has affiliation with the patriarchy or benefits from it. I am really not sure how you're getting "trans women are associated with the patriarchy" from "no trans person has gendered privilege".

5. Your comment about "reduce" and "discuss" is just unnecessary nitpicking and somewhat drags down the quality of your comment overall. I think it's pretty clear that I meant reducing the behaviors, not the amount of attention given to these behaviors.

6. The terms "powerjacketing" and "malgendering" were not defined by me, and I guess it's on me that I didn't find and link more detailed posts. I feel like there's a longer conversation to be had here, and I'll also make a separate post for this later.

7. Your comment about my usage of words "trans people who were assigned male" is again either bad faith reading or inattentive - I was giving an example of things people need to say less, not stating my own opinion. I included that part there, because I've seen such sentiments in discourse previously and wanted to denounce them before someone who believes in such a thing shows up on my blog.

You're also not correct on "transfeminine" being a more applicable term for this situation. Some people are transneutral or have a configuration of identities and transition paths that cannot be conveniently explained in this terminology.

8. I did not mean that "transmasculine" stands for "trans and masculine" and so forth. I believe a transmasculine person typically is a person who has an identity with man/boy adjacent components, that is transgressing the enforced gender position. The same principle works for transfeminine and transneutral. What does "transgressing the enforced gender position" mean? Many things, depending on the person. I am not a judge here, and I find nitpicking and calling identities "problematic" to be a very useless and destructive practice.

9. On the day that I made that post, I saw a screenshot that referred to nontransitioning nonbinary people as "she/they cissexuals". Which wouldn't be the first time I've seen it used like that.

10. The idea that a kink or a headcanon can be a form of appropriation is just fucking bizarre, excuse me. A specific way to engage with contemporary media or to sexually fantasize can't be appropriated because there's no cultural group that it belongs to.

11. I don't think using gender identities like externally assigned outgroup labels is a good idea. I think we need a different kind of language for these things, because like that we end up in a situation where we force gender labels on unwilling individuals just on the basis of the position they occupy in the society.

It's better to say that there's no exact equation between identity and experience with oppression, because identity is claimed internally and oppression is assigned externally (often, although not only, on the basis of expressions of the identity).

I'd say that a trans woman who is trying to enter the social category of manhood for whatever reason (e.g. exploring a nonbinary identity) may be affected by transandrophobia if her transition or self expression circumstances will cause people to see her as unfitting for this category. But also I won't say she must use this word for it, because arguing with people over how they label their own oppression is a waste of time, and if she has reasons to label it otherwise, these reasons are worth listening to.

12. "This oppression targets an externally defined group" and "this oppression doesn't target someone who looks like a member of a certain group" are contradicting statements unless you're implying that the entire category of trans womanhood is externally defined. In general, the normative society doesn't use the same categorization principes as we do, it groups people we'd perceive as pretty different (e.g. a cis woman who's a butch lesbian and a trans man) in the same group on the basis of external aspects they don't like. That doesn't mean butch lesbians are men or transmasculine inherently, and that doesn't mean trans men are inherently lesbians. It just means that oppression doesn't strictly follow identities.

I also don't think the idea that "not primarily targeted by this oppression" equals "exempt from this oppression" equals "benefitting from this oppression", and vice versa. First of all, we're not creating affected/exempt duality for everything, nobody's saying someone is "exorsexism exempt", why is this one different? Or do you think we should do this with every thing? And second, benefitting from a type of oppression is extremely conditional and may occur to people within this specific oppressed group too. The difference is that people who are commonly at risk of transmisogyny (which includes all gender categories of trans people, plus intersex people) are not benefitting from it systemically.

13. With relation to "sex based" language, I am again reacting to things I saw in discourse and denouncing things I found unfitting. I saw "sex based" conversation in the form "trans men and afab nonbinary people have sex based oppression", so that's what I'm criticizing. I'm not just saying things I came up with myself. I'm referencing things other people said and explaining why I don't like them.

14. And finally, with the nonbinary position, I believe that 1) there exist normative ideals for binary male and female, but they're not attainable for any kind of a trans person, because being trans is inherently a non normative experience, and trans people who are actively trying to integrate in the society are limited to fringe positions in manhood and womanhood, 2) there currently does not exist a normative ideal for being nonbinary, but there exists an inherently deviant role for someone who doesn't perform womanhood or manhood in a way that passes the bar the society set, and this is where most trans people, regardless of the gender identity, are placed socially.

Overall, I feel like you're heavily pushing for the equation between "is a trans person with a specific identity and transition path" and "is affected by this type of oppression", which implies more awareness and analysis on the side of the society than there is in practice and erases many people's experiences.

I also don't want to make a distinction between transandrophobia and anti-transmasculinity. I chose to use the word that's easiest to render in other languages (my first one not being English), but they essentially mean the same thing.

TRANSUNITY

Transunity is a political theory that was actively talked about on Tumblr a couple of years ago, but has since fallen out of the public spotlight. And this is unfortunate, because it could have really improved a lot of the discourse around gender.

There exists a blog under that name ( @transunity ), but it has been inactive for a year. I am not affiliated with that blog anyhow, I never had any personal contacts with its mods, but I want to get their general ideas to circulate again, so I'm trying to bring this back up in a semi organized fashion. My take on transunity is just my take, if you're one of the original coiners, and you disagree, I encourage you to talk about it, because we still have much more in common with each other than different.

GENERAL VIEWS

I believe that one of the fundamental ideas more trans people need to understand is that we're all more or less in the same place in the eyes of the society (when other factors, such as ethnicity or disability, are considered). To be trans is to fail the gender role system, from the point of view of cis people we can no longer be proper men or women. All kinds of trans people regardless of identity are affected by misogyny and misandry (not a type of marginalization by itself, but turns into a vector of oppression when overlapping with a different marginalization), which forms the foundation of transmisogyny, transandrophobia, and exorsexism*. These types of bigotry are not exclusive and unique to specific gender identities either and may be applied to any trans person for as long as it's convenient to the oppressor.

Trans people do not have gendered power over each other, and intra community bigotry is better conceptualized as a form of lateral aggression.

Gender assignment and sex are never strictly binary (especially with inclusion of intersex people, who belong in gender conversations even if they don't identify as trans) and need to be understood as much more fluid and not strictly correlating with one's actual position in life.

WHAT WE NEED TO REDUCE

The following things should be discussed more critically:

- "Powerjacketing" - implying someone has gendered privilege as a means of delegitimizing their words, while in reality they do not have this privilege;

- Malgendering - forcing trans people to choose between being gendered correctly and speaking up about their mistreatment (e.g. questioning trans women's womanhood on the basis of them aggressively defending themselves or trans men's manhood on the basis of them asking for help) or implying there's something wrong with them in a way that reinforces gender stereotypes;

- Assuming that some trans people are exempt from some forms of oppression on the basis of gender assignment/sex (e.g. by calling all trans people who were assigned female "tme"** or claiming trans people who were assigned male are inherently incapable of understanding fear of sexual assault);

- Assuming that oppression of trans people is rooted in gender assignment/sex (such as, calling reproductive oppression "sex based oppression"***);

- Gatekeeping certain identities, such as "transmasc", "transbian", "femboy" as exclusive to any gender assignment/sex;

- Creating a duality out of "transsexual" and "cissexual", where not medically transitioning trans people are assumed to have some kind of a gendered privilege, or to not be trans in any meaningful material way. Various transmed ideas about dysphoria and transition go there too;

- Accusing trans people who take inspiration from each other of appropriation (trans headcanons, kinks, drag culture, etc).

SYMBOL

The following image is the official transunity symbol developed by the original transunity bloggers. Sorry about the glitch effect, I wasn't able to find one without it.

* Transmisogyny, transandrophobia, and exorsexism are not exclusive to specific identities, although they do primarily target traits associated with these identities. They can be conceptualized as bigotry and oppression towards people who are recognized as incorrectly entering respectively womanhood, manhood, and a status beyond gender binary (for the latter no normative form exists****). However, it's not wrong to use them to mean "oppression of trans women" and so forth, for as long as you're not claiming it's exclusive.

** Labels like "tma" and "tme" still may be used, but solely in a self assigned manner. I believe that an individual trans person is capable of evaluating whether they're affected by transmisogyny and in what way, and they should be trusted on this. However, no gender assignment and no current gender identity makes anyone inherently tme.

*** "Sex based oppression" instead of "reproductive oppression" reinforces the idea that people who share a specific body part (e.g. an uterus in context of conversations about abortion) are inherently of the same sex. This type of essentialism is desperately needed by terfs in this discussion, as they're trying to sell the ideas of "sex based oppression" and "sex based privilege" to people they want to recruit in their ideology. Invoking the idea of "sex" as something trans men and some nonbinary people are oppressed through is not the correct way to respond to people who say we don't experience any gendered violence besides "just transphobia", it has shitty implications and helps shitty people.

**** Lack of existence of normative nonbinary gender does not mean that these genders are not recognized by the society as a deviant, marginalized identity, and that binary people cannot be pushed into this zone.