#simultaneously transfem and transmasc

[universallyenthusiastvoid]

Kirito and Asuna are the ultimate t4t bi4bi poly couple. To me

They 100% deserve that title too

[funkmasterfuma]

Reposting a funny meme I edited a while back.

[obscenicon]

there are many homestuck characters that when they are read as transmasc makes them less interesting, is entirely unbelievable, and kind of ruins the character for me as a whole (june, dave, jake, karkat). but there are also several characters where i feel that both transfem and transmasc readings r equally interesting in different ways and both can enhance the character (jane, jade, rose, dirk)

[gnc-culture-is]

while were talking about transmascs relating to the transfem experience I kinda have this weird connection to both labels bc I'm medically transitioning to be more masculine but like transitioning to present myself as more fem and so I relate to transmasculinity in the sense of its actual definition that I'm afab transitioning to be more masc but not necessarily a trans man but I also relate to transfemininity in the sense of being trans and transitioning to being more fem. but I feel like I can't use the transfem label bc it means amab who transitions to being more fem but not necessarily a trans woman and that's a whole different experience so I don't wanna take away from or talk over actual transfems. so idk I've just been sitting on these feelings for a while but I feel like it's semirelevant

i feel like this is relevant and deserves to be seen unto itself. i really truly do not think you're alone in transitioning in one direction physically and in another direction presentationwise.

[genderwip]

u have heard of transfem rin and transmasc len but what about transmasc rin and transfem len dot dot dot

[hyp3rfixation-h3ll]

listen if i manage somehow to cement my legacy in this fandom as the "transfem burgertron guy" that'd be enough. like the bare minimum

[infizero]

i was so confident in transfem cloud before but now realizing he had long hair and a conspiciously high-pitched/androgynous voice as a kid.... i call a truce with the transmasc cloud believers. i get it

[rottenkadaver]

pastel meringue cookie is so trans coded I can't explain it

[approximateknowledge]

happens more than once too

I know what you are Major Tanya Von Degurechaff

[tigercomplex]

you people and your "transmasc music is (cutesy thing)" and your "transmasc fashion is (cutesy tiktok thing)" and "transmascs love (cutesy thing)". like everybody can't see exactly what's going on

[hailmaryfullofgrace55675]

for a few years now (like since at least 2021) i’ve been occasionally seeing isolated individuals try on “AFAB trans woman”, “AFAB transfem”, “AMAB trans man”, “AMAB transmasc” and dreading the possibility of this becoming an inclus/exclus thing where there’s a huge vicious debate and a ton of people develop calcified stances that it’s “valid” because they are straight ticket voters on uses of language being “valid”. i’ve recently come across multiple fairly high-note promotions of each of 1) yeah, sure, anyone can be a trans woman (normal understanding of the language of AGAB, replaces meaning of “trans woman” with “someone who is a woman and also trans” or, worse “someone who identifies with the vibe of trans womanhood”) and 2) your AGAB is whatever you decide it is, maybe even a neolabel (completely opposite the concept of gender assignment at birth). i’m crossing my fingers that these uses somehow go no further, or that if they do the ensuing fight blows over quickly.

as an individual topic, it’s frustrating because it points to the complete failure on a lot of people’s parts to absorb or understand the basic premises of this idea of transgender.

we live in a world where, when humans are born, the adults around them decide what role they are going to have in a system of male/female boy/girl man/woman. usually they pick based on a quick look at the child’s external genitalia. if the quick look doesn’t match their idea of what a baby boy or baby girl is supposed to look like, they might or might not do further physical investigation, and either way they will pick a role for the child. if the child doesn’t look one of the ways expected, they might enforce this decision through surgery to conform the child’s body to their ideal for the role they chose. whether the decision was immediate or after deliberation, whether surgery was performed or not performed, this process of role picking is coercive. a first act of coercion in a childhood of coercion in a lifetime of coercion.

children are raised to the roles they were assigned. sometimes this involves the deliberate imposition of a lot of restrictions and expectations about how the child will look and behave, sometimes fewer, sometimes almost none but that they will agree that they are what the adults said they were. even if it is only the last, the child will sooner or later feel the weight of much greater expectations, because they will become aware that wider society says girls should look girly and do girl things and boys should look boyish and do boy things. sometimes it becomes apparent that a child’s body is growing to not match the adults’ idea of what a male body or a female body is supposed to look like or do. if this happens, the adults might allow or force the child to switch roles, might ease or double down on their expectations, and might or might not give the child a choice in whether they biomedically intervene in the child’s physical development.

sometimes, a person grows to refuse the role they were assigned and adopt a new one. sometimes they only refuse the role they were assigned. sometimes they only adopt a new one. sometimes they only refuse the expectations and restrictions. sometimes they refuse being a boy-male-man or girl-female-woman. sometimes they first do this as a child, sometimes as an adolescent, sometimes as an adult. sometimes they conform to the expectations and restrictions for the role they adopt on purpose, other times less so, other times not at all. sometimes they seek to change their body. rejecting one’s assigned role is an opportunity to escape the pain of the old coercion and find new joys in new, chosen ways of being.

to adopt a new role is simultaneously to adopt that role and to adopt the social position of a role-adopter and the social position of one-who-has-moved-from-that-role-to-this-role. these social positions come with expectations and restrictions in addition to the ones associated with the role adopted. having rejected the assigned role, more possibilities are available to a person. there is a great deal of free choice available for those who are willing to make it. sometimes there are special roles that are never assigned at birth and can only be taken on by someone conscious enough to choose.

gender assignment at birth isn’t an identity, it’s an act of coercion. trans womanhood isn’t a feeling, it’s a particular confluence of adoption and abandonment in a social system premised on gender assignment.

the prospect of discourse fights over “AFAB trans girls” and etc. is unpleasant because they’ll suck super bad and exhaust tons of people for nothing, but more present and disturbing is this even being an issue. understanding the nature of gender assignment is such a keystone in trans theory that i genuinely do not know what models of transness people are functioning on without it.

[transandrobroism]

an observation from several posts/conversations that could really help in avoiding a lot of misunderstandings: often when people talk about 'transmisogyny', they are using the term 'transmisogyny' to mean at least three different things simultaneously and conflating different meanings of the term in discussions. in general usage i've seen 'transmisogyny' used to mean:

transmisogyny-as-phenomena - i.e. 'transmisogyny' as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, a common feature of transfems' experiences;

transmisogyny-as-framework - in which transmisogyny is elevated to the level of a conceptual framework for understanding all transphobia. under this meaning everyone is encouraged/expected to conceptualise their experiences of transphobia through the lens of transmisogyny and run it through a filter of "how does this relate back to transmisogyny as the primary driving force for all transphobia"

on top of this both uses of the term are also conflated with the TMA/TME framework that divides people into two neat categories of those affected or primarily targeted by transmisogyny (transmisogyny affected, or TMA) and those exempt from transmisogyny and only accidentally impacted by it (transmisogyny exempt, or TME).

conflating all these meanings with each other is how you end up with soggy takes like "rejecting the label of TME is denying transfems the right to define and discuss their own oppression" which is a real thing that someone (transmasc) said to me. treating these concepts as all interchangeable meanings of the term transmisogyny contributes to a lot of the discourse and (frankly) animosity about discussions of transandrophobia, because when someone says something like "idk i just don't think transmisogyny is adequate as a robust framework for understanding how all transphobia works" or "dividing the world into TMA/TME is a flawed way of viewing transphobia and replicates the gender binary we're all trying to dismantle", that's a critique of transmisogyny-as-framework, but is read as a rejection of transmisogyny-as-phenomena, and thus is viewed as invalidating transfems' experiences.

add to that the fact that i've seen some people insist that transmisogyny is not just an umbrella term for the ways transfems experience transphobia but just means the intersection of transphobia and misogyny - but at the same time people insist that AFAB (trans) people are all exempt from transmisogyny by default and that our experiences should be discussed as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. which renders the de facto meaning of the term 'transmisogyny' an umbrella term for transfem experiences from which anyone not transfem is exempt.

the conflation of terms and definitions means any critique of transmisogyny or TMA/TME is taken as a denial of transfems' experiences. it also means that when transmascs propose a term like 'transandrophobia' - meaning the intersection of the identity positions of 'trans' and 'man', or more broadly a term for commonly-shared experiences of transmascs - that's read as an argument that all men are systemically oppressed for being men (it's not) and/or that transmascs are proposing transandrophobia-as-framework (again, not the case). but because 'transmisogyny' can refer interchangeably to both transphobic phenomena and experiences and a proposed conceptual framework for transphobia in general, the term 'transandrophobia' is misconstrued as a conceptual framework. we say "we've come up with a term to describe our experiences as transmascs" and people hear "you need to conceptualise all your experiences with transphobia in terms of the oppression of transmascs and centre our experiences in your discussions about your own marginalisation".

the reality is that most people discussing transandrophobia are not denying that transfems experience transphobia or denying that transmisogynistic phenomena happen. objections to the TMA/TME distinction are objections to a conceptual framework that treats all transphobia as just transmisogyny in a trenchcoat, and not a denial that transfems experience transmisogyny or are 'not oppressed' or whatever else.

for the record, i have no beef with transmisogyny either as a term for the intersection of transphobia and misogyny or as a term for shared transfem experiences. my critiques of transfeminst thinking are theoretical, namely:

transmisogyny-as-framework presupposes that the major driving force of all transphobia is a desire to target/punish trans women and that everyone else is caught in the crossfire. i don't think that's adequate as a conceptual framework because transphobia is better understood as a result of a gender-essentialist society punishing all non-normative performance of gender. it also relies on a lot of faulty assumptions about the transphobia that transmascs experience. transphobia experienced by transmascs is treated as a category-typical experience of transphobia (i.e. trans men get the 'just transphobia' version, whilst transfems get the 'transphobia plus' version)... but also transmasc oppression must be framed in terms of 'misdirected (trans)misogyny'. you can't treat trans men as having the most typical, 'basic' experience of transphobia whilst also insisting all transphobia is actually a form of transmisogyny misdirected at other trans people. those two positions are mutually contradictory. if all transphobia is actually about transmisogyny then transfems are getting the default transphobia experience and transmascs/trans nonbinary people/etc are all getting variations of that, not the other way around.

if you want to use transmisogyny as a framework for understanding all of transphobia, you cannot label anyone as exempt from transmisogyny. if transmisogyny is the proposed framework for understanding all transphobic discrimination of any trans person of any gender, then you are saying we all exist in a system of transmisogyny. therefore none of us are exempt from it. and if you're proposing transmisogyny-as-framework for all trans experiences, then all trans people get to weigh in on it, because you're applying it to all of us. i get to disagree with the framework being coercively applied to my experiences and i should be able to do that without being called transmisogynistic, because critiquing a framework you're asking every trans person to submit to is not synonymous with hating on trans women or denying their lived experiences or saying they're not oppressed. you can't insist that transmascs are TME by default whilst also insisting we only ever discuss our experiences as 'misdirected transmisogyny'. and you definitely can't label all transmascs as exempt from transmisogyny whilst simultaneously insisting we use transmisogyny as the conceptual framework within which we understand our oppression. that's trying to have your cake and eat it.

the TMA/TME framework is just reinventing binary gender but with extra steps. especially since in practice determining whether someone is TMA or TME seems to involve an awful lot of focus on people's assigned gender and what genitals they were born with.

a lot of this theorising follows a very radfem pattern of dividing everyone into two gendered categories, labelling one of those categories to Privileged Oppressor Class, and then heavily policing who gets to belong to the Oppressed Victims Class based on their genitals and socialisation. at which point you're just doing TERFism from the other direction. any framework that proposes we can understand gendered experiences in terms of a strict binary is automatically throwing intersex and nonbinary people under the bus. a comprehensive theory of trans experiences must have space for nonbinary identities and intersex experiences otherwise it is incomplete.

i'm making this post in good faith and i'm not denying the impact of transmisogyny on transfems. but i do think theorising around transmisogyny and TMA/TME as a framework have a number of flaws and i'm not going to use those frameworks to talk about my own experiences because they are theoretically inadequate. a robust theory of transphobia and trans experiences must have room for all trans experiences within it, as well as overlapping experiences of gendered oppression such as intersexism, misogyny, butchphobia etc. TMA/TME ain't it.

[ugly-anarchist]

While yes intersex people can use intersex as their gender identity, that isn't what intersex is. Intersex is a natural biological variation that cannot be transitioned into or out of. It is a description of the natural state of our bodies. It is the same as me being autistic, white, and short. These are descriptions of things about me that I cannot change but are still important facets of my life as a human being. (Obviously some are more important than others)

(While the body can be changed, there are separate words for someone who willingly changes the natural state of their body, like altersex. Intersex people can also be altersex.)

On the other hand, gender identity and transness are personal identifiers that can be chosen. (And by chosen I mean that while you can't choose your gender you can choose the label you use for it) And it is also fluid and can change over time. Gender looks different for everyone and isn't based on any material thing that can be observed in the physical world. Gender is based more-so in what makes you happiest, and the most satisfied with your life. Gender is just as real as everything else I've mentioned, but it's just not a physical thing.

This is why transness is self determined and intersexuality is not.

Trans and cis are adjectives that describe a person's experience with their gender. A trans man/woman is just a man/woman who has a different experience with their gender than cis people do.

But if a person exists who is rejected by both cis and trans people, then what are they? What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to identify? Cis and trans as labels were not designed with intersex people in mind and often do not fit our experiences, but we're forced to use this binary because perisex trans people insist that you must be one if you're not the other.

But, trans people also insist that being intersex is inherently trans. Any deviation from the sex binary is seen as trans. Intersex history is seen as trans history, intersex animals are called biologically trans, and intersex experiences and terms are often taken by trans people and applied to themselves.

We're inherently trans but the trans experience is inherently a perisex one. Our experiences are identical to trans experiences but only trans people are allowed to say that. Our bodies are deemed the ideal trans bodies but the natural state of our bodies is used as proof that we don't fit in with trans people. Trans people wish they could gain access to the violence done to our bodies. Our bodies are held up as proof that gender and sex is a spectrum but if we talk about our complicated experiences with sex and gender then we're called terf psyops and cis invaders.

Where exactly are intersex people supposed to fit into the trans/cis binary? Our experiences cannot be defined in the same way that perisex trans people define themselves.

When an intersex person identifies as transfem when they were afab or as transmasc while they were amab or calls themselves cistrans or transmascfem or transfemmasc, this isn't an attempt to invade spaces we don't belong or destroy the trans community. We're trying to describe our very complicated experiences with gender with the limited tools that we have, the tools that have been forced on us but simultaneously denied to us.

Can we just let intersex trans people have their weird gender labels in peace? This isn't about you, it's not an attack on you or your community, it's just us trying to exist comfortably.

[velvetvexations]

Okay, so like.

Someone can say they're not saying transmascs have it easier, but you are actually still saying that even if the way you're actually phrasing it is "transfems have it harder."

The thought-terminating cliché that AFAB people are allowed more room to navigate the way they express themselves in a gendered way is bobolynery. People who spread this to make themselves feel like even more a righteous victim are annoying and piss me off. That goes without saying. But the argument that AMAB kids will have less chances to explore options is equally ridiculous, because even if it may be true that in some areas and contexts women are allowed to wear pants, that is not and has never been a major component of egg cracking to begin with.

You can't simultaneously argue that this is not a gendered act yet also somehow something that helps an AFAB person identify with masculinity. Like, countless millions of women wear pants every day without being transmasc. If it's truly NBD, how does that work? How, might one imagine, are transmasc eggs cracked by wearing pants if they're surrounded by women doing the same thing every moment of their lives?

If anything, by this logic, it should be harder for transmasc eggs to crack! If the line keeping AMAB people from being women is so thick, wanting to paint your nails is an instant signal you might prefer identifying as a woman, whereas a short haircut is not that in any place where you propose the line keeping women from masculine presentation is thin.

But the idea that trans women would even need something like that is absurd. It is also, I suspect, tied into those chugging the radfem juice who call sissy kink (trans)misogynyistic for treating being a woman as degrading. Like, an absolutely massive number of people with a sissy kink are in fact actual trans women, because they grew up understanding that they wanted to be women but non-consensual degrading situations being their primary outlet for that.

I'm not saying it isn't great things are different now. Of course it's a beautiful, wonderful sign of progress that "haha cartoon where boy forced to wear lipstick" is no longer the only thing trans girls have to turn to. The point, however, is that an AMAB child understanding their desire to be seen as a girl has always been extremely common. I do not have the data to suggest it's overwhelmingly the majority, but it is certainly not rare compared to the amount of transmascs who have that same understanding of themselves. Even many transitioning for the first time as adults report having always known.

Maybe there are simply more transmascs than transfems because there just are? Have you considered that? That maybe there are just more transmascs than transfems and it's not because transmascs get the red carpet rolled out for them?

[doberbutts]

I saw your post and wanted to raise a good point that in addition to being forced to compete in women’s divisions, transmascs are forced to avoid transition or STOP transition in order to compete!

Nikki Hiltz is a great example, a nonbinary transmasc who says they desperately want to go on T and get top surgery, but that it would completely bar them from competing in the sport they love

Also TME vs TMA in my opinion (as a trans person) is basically reinventing the binary, and from my experience in the internet is a weapon used against trans people of all kinds (both transfem , transmasc, and trans nonbinary) mostly for not properly “preforming” their gender (particularly in the case of transfems, yes I have seen transfems be accused of being TME)

Yes, that's what I meant before when I mentioned that there are rules banning trans mascs from going on testosterone while simultaneously forcing them to compete with women. That, ah, doesn't really feel like privilege to me? Being forced to misgender yourself and completely halt medical transition is, um, well.

Oh yeah I have a handful of trans fem friends, mutuals, and longtime followers on here who've all stated that they get called TME if they don't fall in line with gendered expectations, especially by so-called TMEs themselves. One of my long time intersex, transfem mutuals was harassed into giving someone their legal documents to prove they're TMA and then the harassment CONTINUED ANYWAY, and the person doing the harassing was TME. It happens all the time and it's dogshit.

[communistkenobi]

Another issue that seems to fuel effemimania is our cultural tendency to sexualize femininity and femaleness in all its forms. While countless feminist writers and theorists have analyzed the ways in which the sexualization of femaleness and femininity permeates virtually every aspect of our culture and has a negative impact on most women's lives, they have typically ignored the way this tendency creates an environment in which "male femininity" is almost always considered in purely sexual terms. For example, most popular images and impressions of trans women revolve around sexuality: from "she-male" and "chicks with dicks" pornography to media portrayals of us as sexual deceivers, prostitutes, and sex workers. And of course, there are the recurring themes of trans women who transition in order either to gain the sexual attention of men or to fulfill some kind of bizarre sex fantasy (both of which appear regularly in the media, and also in Bailey and Blanchard's model of MTF transgenderism). In this context, it's easy to understand why Bailey and Blanchard were able to get away with proposing a homosexual/autogynephilic model for MTF spectrum trans people without ever being challenged by their professional peers to apply their theories to FTM spectrum trans people. To do so would require these predominantly straight- and male-identified gatekeepers to view masculinity and maleness in purely erotic terms--in other words, to reduce maleness to the status of mere sexual object (something that they would be loath to do in the unlikely event that this line of reasoning ever crossed their minds). This unwillingness to sexualize masculinity to the extent that femininity is sexualized explains why the gatekeepers endlessly dwelled on every perceived nuance and variation that occurred in the sexual practices and fantasies of the MTF spectrum population while simultaneously adamantly claiming that there was no such thing as female transvestism, no erotic component to FTM crossdressing, and no such thing as a gay-identified trans man.

— Whipping Girl, pp 134-135 (2nd Ed)

Serano also talks about how transmascs were routinely viewed as more “psychologically stable” compared to transfems by medical professionals because it was seen as “basically rational” for a woman to want to be a man, but hysterical, pathological, and disturbing for a man to want to be a woman. Furthermore, trans women were routinely at the whims of the sexual desires of the professionals who oversaw their medical transition, with many doctors outright stating in medical documentation that they used their own levels of sexual attraction to their transfem patients as the basis for whether they would refer them for surgery or not. And on the flip side, if trans women were too feminine, too attractive to the cishet male doctors, they would be accused of faking or exaggerating for attention, while trans men were praised for their performance of masculinity and escaped the sexual eye of the overwhelmingly straight doctors - because it would be gay to do so, and of course these doctors aren’t gay! How dare you even suggest that!

The conclusion ultimately is that there is no good way to be a woman - trans women are stuck in a double bind where they must perform an incredibly rigid standard of femininity in order to be given access to hormones, and are then punished if they “go overboard” or their performance of femininity doesn’t suite the sexual tastes of the doctors who gatekeep their ability to transition. This is again where transmisogyny has a massive amount of explanatory power as a concept, and why trans men do not face this same double-bind - our masculinity can be denied as fraudulent, and often is, but the act of pursuing masculinity in the first place is seen as a genuine, taken-for-granted common sense pursuit, a “mercy” that is not afforded to our transfem siblings.

This is not to pit transmascs against transfems, but to acknowledge the basic reality that our masculinity provides us with some bargaining power in medical and psychiatric contexts, not because trans men don’t face discrimination or transphobia, but because we have the ability to be rewarded by patriarchy for our identity as men - which is itself a violently misogynistic privilege. This fact should enrage you, not towards trans women for pointing this very obvious and basic fact out to you, but towards the people and institutions conducting this violence in broad daylight