#i think a lot more has been said abt transmisogyny but the idea of trans people as being acceptable victims of

[genderkoolaid]

i think trans-affirming cisfeminism's problem is that it views trans people as a way of analyzing cis gender relations, so trans women are going from the status of cis men to cis women, & trans men vice-versa. there is no appreciation for "trans" as its own status, because that would require viewing transphobia as something the patriarchy does on purpose instead of like. something it trips into on its quest to oppress cis women exclusively. and this is also why by and large feminism (including trans feminists) has fucked sucked at talking about NB/GQ people's experiences without binarizing them

[the-pea-and-the-sun]

okay uhh as a silence of the lambs fan i have some stuff to say abt silence of the lambs and red dragon (the book that silence of the lambs is a sequel to). this is specifically abt the books and not the movies because although the movie also has a "btw this author is not transphobic" disclaimer a lot of it was cut for the movie and when you look at the stuff in the book its more obvious why that disclaimer doesnt wash harris' hands of any transphobia that the story perpetuates. i read my library's copies of the books a couple times but dont have them with me so this is jus from my memory of how they went so. sorry if i get stuff wrong i jus kinda wanted to get these thoughts out. if you happen to have the book handy feel free to correct me on any details i get wrong

obviously buffalo bill is a grotesque transphobic caricature. you can tell that it occurred to thomas harris while writing that he came up with the idea of "evil serial killer skins women because he wants to become one!!" first and then after doing some basic research on transsexualism thought "ah some ppl might come away from this thinking (that i think) that all transsexuals are perverted monsters" and decided to remedy this by adding a psychiatrist character who works at a trans clinic and is a staunch protector of the rights and privacy of his patients. this gets in the way of jack crawford's investigation, who after being a complicated character in red dragon is now almost a one dimensional hero character. the psychiatrist and crawford eventually compromise on the basis that buffalo bill isn't a real transsexual (because if he was, than that would make transsexuals look bad). the reasoning (according to both harris and the psychiatrist character) that buffalo bill isn't a real transsexual is because he was denied treatment. if i remember correctly the reason buffalo bill was denied treatment was because he had a criminal record (?) but whatever the reason we're obviously meant to side with the point of compromise that crawford and the psychiatrist come to, that real transsexuals are "harmless and passive" people we should have compassion for and shouldnt be afraid of, and fake transsexuals are perverted monsters, and we can trust psychiatrist to differentiate real transsexuals from fake transsexuals.

this is the most sympathetic possible stance on transgender people that someone could take from silence of the lambs. but in reality, obviously a lot of people are not going to go out of their way to find out that thomas harris said that buffalo bill wasn't a "real transsexual", and are just going to come away from the story thinking that the psychiatrist was just a bureaucratic nuisance to our hero jack crawford whos trying to stop the crazed evil transsexual. since buffalo bill is the only person resembling a trans person that we see, thats the version people are going to remember. if clarice starling was transgender too, for example, itd be a lot easier to defend the idea that harris' writing isn't perpetuating transphobia because the audience would be sympathetic toward clarice starling, and since so much of a story with clarice starling as a cis woman is focused on her struggling against misogyny within the fbi, making her a trans woman would've made this a story about her struggling against transmisogyny, and that wouldve been the primary view of trans women that the audience would've walked away with: as hardworkers, as heroines and protagonists, and as victims of systemic misogyny. the "positive" view of transsexuals as "harmless and passive" would've gone along with the conflict that clarice starling already deals with, that shes weak and passive and incapable of doing her job at best, and dangerous and harmful at worst.

i dont want a silence of the lambs remake where clarice starling is transgender, i'm just saying that when you compare it to red dragon (the book where will graham is the detective), it actually becomes very telling that she isnt. in red dragon, the killer is written with a lot more sympathy than buffalo bill is written with in silence of the lambs, and instead of (not) being a transsexual, the killer in red dragon has a facial deformity. we hear about his childhood, how his mother abandoned him because of his deformity, how he was an continues to be mistreated by others. there's even a point in the story where the audience is rooting for him to reform, as he's actively fighting against the part of himself that wants to hurt people. he becomes ashamed of this part of himself and tries to repress it, but is ultimately unsuccessful.

this is all to say that my idea that silence of the lambs wouldn't have been such an egregious example of media perpetuating transphobic attitudes if clarice starling was transgender (and if buffalo bill was portrayed more sympathetically like the killer in red dragon) doesnt come from nowhere. because by the end of red dragon, will graham now has an acquired facial deformity. in red dragon, we're made to believe that a major reason if not the only reason the killer became who he is is because of society's mistreatment of people who have facial deformities. the depiction isn't perfect, but i think that there's almost no chance a person would come away from red dragon thinking that people with facial deformities are dangerous monsters. we've seen them as victims of bullying, as victims of child abuse, as people capable of falling in love, and, by the end, as our hero and protagonist who we've been rooting for for the entire duration of the story.

from red dragon to silence of the lambs we can see thomas harris have less sympathy to minorities who are made into villains by society, and more sympathy for the cops that arrest them. silence of the lambs just comes with the added lukewarm feminist take of "hey look! those cops can be women, too!". in red dragon, the police end up having zero net positive impact on the case whatsoever. we're looking at the story through the eyes of will graham, but he's explicity not fbi, and his precense in the story is him explcitiy being mistreated by the fbi to further jack crawford's means. will graham is there because crawford has managed to convince him that if he doesn't cooporate with the police, he'll be letting people die, but by the end of the story, the only thing will graham's presence in the fbi has contributed is the death of a reporter, and the endangering of will graham and his family. the difference in portrayal of the police in red dragon compared to silence of the lambs is stark. in silence of the lambs, the police do save people, but those who are uncooperative with the police almost prevent them from doing so. in silence of the lambs our pov detective is a policewoman, in red dragon our detective is a victim of the police, struggling with mental and physical health issues as a result of his time with them.

there's also something to be said about how the books only get worse in quality and more hateful of minorities and more in favor of cops from there, but i think thats kinda all i wanna say for now

[mouseratz]

we really need to talk more abt the idea of oppositional sexism (the two "sexes" being Opposite in every way) cuz I think it's very foundational to the idea that talking about transmasc vs transfemme issues are like......in conflict with each other like they're fighting each other, one cancels out the other (which is NOT denying trans people being transphobic & transmisogynistic specifically to each other. That DOES happen. My argument is that this concept is part of it- that many transmascs see transfemmes talking about their issues and take it as a Personal Insult because it translates to them as "my problems don't exist/don't matter" because the two concepts are seen as inherently incompatible, that there's Only Space For One, whatever a woman experiences must be the total opposite of what a man experiences and entirely separate, applied to trans issues.)

I also think further separation of the issue (ie, transmisandry/transandrophobia coined for Special Boy's Only Oppression) isn't particularly helpful. it's complicated because even when you're trans we've all still been raised in a patriarchy, right, so we're still used to seeing gender in this restrictive, binary lens (and often have that lens forced upon us by cis people/broader society), and as a result, we still force that on each other, too, even while claiming to want to break free of it.

it seems like to me a lot of transmascs read "transmisogyny describes something different and specific" as "since I don't experience that specific thing, I am Objectively Less Oppressed and what hardships I do experience been Entirely Denied and now I'm angry and going to take it out on trans women" (which, yes, for the people reading at home, is transmisogynistic. it's like a cycle).

"Why don't I get what they get? are you implying I'm less important?" is also a big reaction. which I think people are so touchy about because of the way transphobia makes us all very used to and defensive around being denied and overlooked or attacked. but the answer to that isn't "lash out at other trans people for talking about what they're going through even when it's different than your experience". a lot of it is emotional and not wholly rational but when you say that everyone also feels very bad hearing that because of sexism characterizing all emotional arguments as bad & invalid (hysterical women, etc etc. which most trans people will be seen as at one point or another.), but I don't think you can sort out how you feel and think if you don't recognize that emotion is, yes, part of it.

(that being said, emotion is very often a part of many of our decisions and opinions and arguments, even when we claim it isn't, because thats just kind of how people In General operate. the concept of the unbiased flawless logical argument is nearly impossible to achieve irl. so. it's just that sexism like makes it so that all arguments from men are default perceived as logical and all arguments from women are default perceived as emotional. the oppositional bit again yeah....)

idk where I'm going. basically. can we just talk about shit without getting vicious with misplaced anger and hating anyone who has a different life experience than u. because that's what I see with this whole thing. and with transmisandry/transandrophobia specifically I've just seen way too many people who talk loudly about it and then turn around and shit on trans women to take the concept at fully face value.