#this post is NOT about transandrophobia though if that even needed to be said. because that doesn't exist.

[pokemon-radical-red]

I hate it when I headcanon a character who’s canonically a girl as a trans man and make ships of him and a character who’s canonically a guy and I refer to it as a gay/mlm/guyxguy/whatever ship and someone gets mad. Like omg let trans people have FUNNNNN. Why are queer headcanons and genderbends cool until they’re saying that the character is trans???

“OMGGG you’re so misogynistic I can’t believe you would erase FEMALE representation!!!”

and like half of the characters in the franchise are women, and a total of… NONE of the characters are trans men. Also, my headcanon doesn’t change the source material. If my stuff upsets you, you can block me and go engage with the source or maybe every single other fanwork, since mine is the only trans man hc for this character that I’ve ever seen.

or when people are like “WTF??? this is so transphobic!!! how dare you imply that a character who looks like that could be a trans man?!?! do you think that trans men are women or something??? she uses she/her, and you’re misgendering her!”

No, I don’t think that being a trans man makes you a woman or vice versa. That’s why it’s a headcanon, and the headcanon is that this character is actually a trans man and not a woman at all! You’ll never guess what pronouns most trans men had to use at some point in their lives, and you really won’t like it when you find out about pre-(or no-)transition trans men… or trans men who are in the closet… or trans men who don’t know that they’re trans yet.

“But the character is a kid!!! Saying they’re trans is sexualizing them.”

I’ve seen this one from other queer people. Like did you miss when all of the homophobes said this about your identity, or do you think that bigotry is only bad when it’s directed at you?

“Why would you say ‘testosterone could fix her’??? Are you trying to call her a delusional woman?”

Why would your brain even go to that first? This literally has to be a bad faith reading, because there’s no way that someone could see what I said and get this unless they were specifically looking for something to be mad at me for.

(Note for anyone unaware: “Estrogen would’ve fixed him!” was a meme going around at the time I said this. I’m not sure if it’s still super big, but this was a joke to the effect of that.)

“So girls can’t be tomboys anymore? You just wanna trans everyone?”

This is like actual real life transphobic rhetoric. This isn’t even just shitting on my headcanon, but in fact, sending transphobic hate to a trans man. Thanks 👍. Maybe you should go send JK Rowling another message about how much you loved her essay instead of bothering me.

[enlichened]

this is just smth I've been thinking abt lately because I've been seeing posts talking abt how transfems and transmascs often see themselves in similar/the same characters. and that it might make less sense for transmascs to see themselves in these characters because the character themself struggles with masculinity or being forced into a box.

While I do think this can be true in some cases (especially those where it REALLY wouldn't make sense with the character's backstory that they would've been allowed to transition at all) I think a lot of the time it still does make sense, because as a transmasc most of my time having come out to someone, they expect me to immediately fall into toxic masculinity or whatever it is they feel like men should be doing, and if I reject this or any part of it, I'm ungrateful. I either let them treat me that way, or I'm not man enough or aren't trying hard enough to not be misgendered. If I'm going to say I'm a man, I should at least act like it and pretend to enjoy or accept what they give me and the box that they defined.

I know transfems experience this sort of thing too, even if in different ways! I just was musing on why transmascs often relate to characters who struggle with masculinity too.

[velvetvexations]

it’s driving me up the wall that the statement “trans women, notably those in the public eye, are frequently the target of transphobic harassment campaigns, so perhaps take a moment to check the source before you spread any callouts or accusations to make sure you’re not falling for TERF or kiwifarms misinformation” is now being misused by some to mean “if you ever see a trans woman with a big platform say something loaded/bigoted/openly hateful of her own free volition to her whole audience with her full chest, you’re not ever allowed to confront her about this or you’re personally responsible for every hate comment or harassment she receives ever” like it’s SO insidious to tell marginalised people they should shut up and take it. full offence, that musician is a grown woman who willingly puts her opinions on a public blog with her name attached, nobody was holding a gun to her head demanding she made those dumbass comments, and acting like she’s too frail to take accountability for what she does or shouldn’t be expected to learn that actions have consequences is laughable. yes people are now taking it too far but this happens every time, bc some people are just as immature AND bc bad faith parties love taking advantage of situations like this to instigate even more shit. again, insisting marginalised groups should let some big name individual be bigoted to them to protect her from harassment or else be blamed for it is so unbelievably entitled. the same thing goes for that “people just use accusations of racism against trans women to be transmisogynistic” post, these people need a reality check and realise they’re not the only victims in existence.

none of the following anger is directed at you, anons

I wanna be clear that I have no idea what's going on with Patricia Taxxon. She blocked me awhile ago and aside from seeing her post about transandrophobia and knowing someone made a parody comic about her that I didn't like primarily for the phrase "born female,"* I don't really know about the situation around her as it stands because I don't keep track of random radfems.

As this first anon said, a popular musician using their platform to be horrible to another marginalized group should get sprayed with water like a cat and the fact that she's a bigot be on the record. Weaponizing old nudes or dragging up old accusations of things, however, is bad and should not be done. It's just not a thing you should be doing to someone, no matter how much you think they deserve it.

There are a lot of White women saying things like "trans women get accused of racism to deflect accusations of transmisogyny." It's annoying that people acting in bad faith are giving fuel to the fire that any criticism of trans women is inherently transmisogyny. She's never going to connect the dots between "people are upset with the things I said" and "I said extremely harmful and hurtful things" if her victim complex is being validated. It's also going to encourage them to continue harassing and spreading shit about me, and possibly escalate to digging up past stuff to call me out on, because I guarantee you eventually one of them is going to say something like "so karmic of this to happen to Velvet after she reblogged all those posts accusing Emily Programmersocks of sacrificing children to Satan" as though that's a thing that's ever happened.

Stop harassing her, if that is indeed what's happening, because, again, I do not keep track of the latest events in TRF World.

*yes, in spite of me personally calling myself male, I still think that's a bad thing! wow!

[transfemme-shelterdog]

could I get an opinion on this? (extremely transandrophobic and intersexist bingo board)

to clarify some of the vaguely iffy ones on here-

trans women often do get more visibility, positive or negative- (this does not correspond to violence rates)

male/female socialization as in people raised male or female have different, though not necessarily bad, perspectives + experiences.

guys/dude is generally gender neutral but if someone's uncomfortable respect that

this has like. 800 notes and most from transmascs that are agreeing with this sadly. the creator of this board is self described tme

I'll go point by point, left to right/top to bottom:

There's nothing wrong with they/them pronouns, or any pronouns honestly. This just comes across as exorsexist (which is on par for these people)

Wow, two points in and already contradictory. Honey, you're the one saying that you can't have a complex gender by shitting on people who are enby

The fact that I engaged once with these people just last night and I had self described TERFs in my comments and reblogs, shitting on me, and calling me a "he/him" and "male rapist" and other fun things says everything I need to know about this issue. I've never once seen a "transmisogynist" (read: transandrophobia poster) reblog from a TERF, and I'm very active in the disk-horse

Sis, you're the one shitting on trans men. These guys are just defending themselves.

You fuckers literally accused me of being a rapist/predator with a "laundry list of fetishes" who "has teen girls tell him about their fetishes", nice try

Ok, this is a complex one. Systemically, misandry (as used to describe cishet males being oppressed) isn't really a thing. Is there going to be individual instances of cishet men getting fucked by the system? Sure. But systemically, cishet men have a lot of advantages that others aren't afforded. That being said, we both know they mean "hatred of any men for any reason" which is bullshit. These people shit on trans men all the time.

Well, they are? They call trans men TME and trans women TMA and never apply it to cis people, thus it's just another sex based binary

We are? Just in different ways.

Refer to point 1 and 2, hypocrite

What's their point? So what's the minimum amount of examples that you need to prove a point?

I don't think any trans mascs say that, and those that would, probably would apologize and make an effort not to call a trans woman dude if she's uncomfortable with it. I do agree, it's not neutral, and hate being called it myself

My sister in christ, you likely use the term "theyfab"

n/a

Well, perisex trans women can't get pregnant, and trans men/mascs can, and have dysphoria around it. Not to mention corrective rape. It's a valid form of oppression that only affects perisex afab trans mascs.

Don't know of any zionist trans mascs, also did fucking TW make this?

Yes, you do, and you are. Good girl!

I've had these women hyperfocus on my kinks and shit on me for it. Never seen a trans dude do the same.

Yeah, well at least trans dudes are willing to fuck trans girls. Can't say the same for you lot (transhet t4t my beloved)

Yeah, we are hyper-fucking-visible. Look at any studies done on "trans people", and it's always trans women. Music wise? Typically all the traction goes to trans girls. Media? Mainly trans girls. Online? Mainly trans girls.

Really gonna act like you aren't taught "how to be a girl/boy" growing up? I know how to fit in with cis men, and easily boymode because of that.

Well, you can. This is Tumblr baby girl, make a post, tag it, and send it off to the world. I do it all the time, and people listen to me.

You girls are trans radfems and TERFs, sorry. Don't like the label? Change.

Isn't this the point you're making in the last box?

Trans men experience a shit load more misogyny growing up than trans women do after coming out. This is just a fact. Even more so in non-western countries (looking at you @that-satireguy my beloved non-western trans peep)

????????

[molsno]

just because transmascs don't face the exact same type of oppression that transfems do, doesn't mean that we don't face oppression at all. you don't have to use the term transandrophobia, but don't act like we're the pinnacle of society and we garner respect wherever we go, whoever we interact with. we tried to make our own space in the trans community wider by creating a term to describe our unique experience with oppression, and the community immediately shot us down.

it's a good thing I never said that! c'mon now, do you really think you're gonna convince me to change my mind by putting words in my mouth?

if I started smashing together different aspects of my identity and pretended they formed a new and unique kind of oppression, where would it end? should I start talking about "alesbophobia" because I'm an asexual lesbian? sure it presents some challenges that manifest in specific ways but those challenges aren't unique, other asexuals and lesbians experience them separately.

what if added my transness into the mix to call it "transalesbophobia"? yeah these are all inseparable parts of me and again, I do feel like I experience them in ways specific to my being an ace lesbian trans woman, but none of these things meaningfully intersect in a way that makes the resulting product unique.

except, oh wait, whoops, I've only been giving you examples of mashups between actual marginalized identities I hold. I almost gave you too much credit there! let's go with something more analogous to transandrophobia.

suppose I were to start talking about the specific experiences I have as a white trans woman, and I decided to give those experiences a name like "blanchetransmisogyny", and I started insisting that this is something important that white trans women need to be able to talk about. even though yes, my whiteness is inseparable from the rest of my identity and that results in the transmisogyny against me taking shape in specific ways, those manifestations aren't unique. if they were unique, then that would imply that there's a widespread hatred of white people within society, a la "reverse racism". but there's no such thing! I may be marginalized for being a trans woman, but I still hold privilege over trans women of color because I'm white. insisting otherwise would absolutely reek of white supremacy, and poc would have every reason to "shoot me down" as you put it.

that's what you're doing with transandrophobia. it's not about "describing your unique experiences with oppression", it's about denying your male privilege. yes, you are oppressed for being trans, and within the context of larger society, you will very much feel that oppression. but the fact of the matter is that you still hold privilege over trans women just by way of being a man. and guess what! denying that fact is extremely misogynistic. if a cis man did the same thing you're doing but to a cis woman, there would be no denying his misogyny. so why is it ok for you to do it to a trans woman?

and if I'm being honest, having misogynistic trans guys coming into my inbox to mansplain oppression to me every week is testing my patience! I don't have to explain any of this to you, especially not when I've already written numerous posts about it that you can browse at your convenience. next time I might just decide to be the mean bitch tranny you all seem to think I am!

[gay-otlc]

https://www.tumblr.com/arson-goku/748767908456448000

What exactly is wrong with this post? I’m confused is it just a criticism of the beginning or the whole thing?

If you're asking someone to explain a criticism of a post, I would recommend asking the person who posted said criticism?? Because I had not seen the post you linked until now and I was not really the one criticizing it.

So I can't speak for the op of the post I reblogged but speaking for myself having now seen the full post, I think overall it is a good post. It is absolutely important to talk about medical transandrophobia and the way trans men&mascs who pass as male struggle to access necessary, even lifesaving medical care.

I don't like that the part at the beginning frames it as though that op thinks we're focusing "too much" on non-passing trans men, which is... very much not the case. When people do emphasize non-passing trans men, it's not to erase trans men who do pass, it's to push back on the constant erasure of trans men who don't.

The people who deny that transandrophobia exists/is a problem repeatedly insist that trans men can pass mostly effortlessly ("all they need is a haircut and a hoodie") and can easily access medical transition. So we have to talk about trans men who are in an environment where they can't pass, who physically can't pass, who don't want to pass, who can't access medical transition, who don't want to medically transition, etc in a desperate attempt to get people to recognize that these types of trans men exist, and are suffering, and that their experiences fucking matter and don't deserve to be erased.

(Also in these same discussions I have seen people also talk about how trans men who pass can still be outed, and how trans men who pass can be harassed, assaulted, denied necessary resources or medical care for looking too masculine, so I don't feel that passing trans men are being ignored in any way? Maybe the op of the post you linked is in different circles and doesn't see those same discussions, idk)

The beginning of this post just seems to communicate "I feel as though my struggles as a trans man who passes well don't get acknowledged enough" by saying "because the struggles of trans men who don't pass get acknowledged too much," which again, isn't the case. I don't think that op had bad intentions, but it came off that way.

(Also, in seeing the screenshot of the post's beginning without context, I thought it was going to continue something like "trans men who do pass have all the male privilege but don't want to admit they have male privilege so they keep talking about trans men who don't pass to insist trans men are oppressed because they are whiny mras" or some shit. Which is a take that pisses me off. Knowing the actual full content of the post, I am significantly less pissed off, I think it's a good post overall with a clumsily worded beginning)

[velvetvexations]

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

Sure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What other comparisons are people objecting to transmascs making?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*they did not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[velvetvexations]

the fact that i've seen multiple transmascs happily reblogging/supporting the "bomb that kills all transmascs" thing makes me so fucking sad. i feel like we've understood with other issues how "ironic" edgy humor can desensitize us to the bigotry within it- but now we're just happy to let people joke about wiping a group of trans people out of existence? we have no problem with this? we're gonna normalize hatred based solely on identity and not behavior (like how theyfab claims to only target transmigoynistic transmascs)? the bomb kills all transmascs honey that includes you, TMpickmEs i never want to hear people criticizing transandrophobia theory again if this is what passes for transfeminism

It's exactly that kinna person who I was talking about when I was posting about identifying when I was getting victim blame-y and too hostile towards someone being self-destructive, because they make me sad and it's easier to hate them than sympathize. I hope they get better.

Transmasc: acts transmisogynystic because they see individual transandrophobic transfems Everyone(correct): that's bad and reactionary, you can't blame an entire group for a small portion of traumatized individuals who lash out at your group who may have been hurt by individual members of your group Transfem: acts transandrophobic because they see individual transmisogynystic transmascs Everyone (double standard): that's valid, if you've been hurt by individual members of a fellow minority group that gives you free reign to act reactionary and generalize a whole group based on the worst of it's members (this is not a universal thing, but it does exist and I've seen the double standard. I encourage calling out transmisogynystic transmascs, I just don't like the double standard in certain trans spaces. Treat reactionary thought as what it is: reactionary. No matter who it's from or against)

they fundamentally do not care about other people

why is it called transradfeminism instead of radical transfeminism?

Ask Thalia Bhatt.

I love transmasc mabel (and also transmasc ophelia) headcannons cause it's very comforting to turn the characters I related to hard when I was a kid into transmascs.

Yeah! Love that for you anon.

I wanted to thank you for your level-headed support and the platform for respectful intra-community discussions you've provided. I hope you're taking as much rest and recovery from the stresses of the Disc Horse™ as you need <3 (also, idk if you bake, but I found a really good recipe for snickerdoodles that definitely chased away some of my lingering holiday stress www.ambitiouskitchen(.)com/brown-butter-snickerdoodle-cookies/ )

oooh thank you anon!

I like how jokes about killing all transmascs are fine but TRFs are still harping on about that one guy that said something about - (not that I thought the original post was in good taste but. I do feel like jokes about killing all transmascs are worse actually) Now that I type it out it's kinda horrifying that there's so many people that are theoretically supportive of trans people that think those joked are okay actually.. somehow internalized it as normal till just now

TRFs would say that post was code for something worse but idk if "we're open about wanting to murder an entire group of marginalized people" is a W

- was just stirring shit up with the gravity falls discourse to distract from her only answers to questions about 'tme/tma' language is to call people stupid and tell them they are lying about their experiences.

As usual.

The thing with “Dipper can’t be trans because then Mabel would be transphobic!!” Is that I’ve seen so many posts on this site that have had no problem intentionally interpreting a characters actions as transphobic for the purpose of transfem headcanons? That’s usually don’t get push back? Even though I’m usually against intentionally trying to portray a character who isn’t bigoted in the source material as bigoted for no reason other than headcanons or jokes I don’t understand what the difference is here?

the difference is that it's a transmasc headcanon

My hot take is that both Dipper and Mabel are transmasc, but Dipper has always known and socially transitioned very early, and Mabel will be hit with the "oh fuck I am also a man" realization in his 20s in the same way a Looney Tunes critter would be with an anvil or perhaps a piano.

such a funny image lmao and very in-character

[mogai-sunflowers]

ok this is not at you but i need to get this out because i almost posted it to my own blog. cuz im pissed lmao /lh

-

people have such an obsession with creating the “good” teams and “bad” teams in this community, not realizing that it can just cause further oppression, suffering, and less social acceptance for people.

i used to run a blog for alloaro discussion, since i formerly identified that way. i remember when people said alloarophobia couldn’t exist, because you can’t be oppressed for being allo. sure, alloaros are oppressed, but only for being aro. it’s not a special microlabel because being allo is a privilege.

maybe that’s why i don’t buy into the current debate on terms like “transandrophobia.” because it’s recycled. it’s not new, it’s not a “hot take,” it’s bigotry taken to its furthest point under a new form of discourse, because it always evolves. does “androphobia” exist? on it’s own, no. but like alloarophobia, it does exist under certain circumstances, due to being in another group.

allos aren’t oppressed as a group, but gay allos are for expressing their sexuality in a way society doesn’t approve of, for being openly sexual with people of the same gender, for being allo in a way that amatonormantivity didn’t account for. alloaros are, for being okay with sexuality without romance, for being okay with FWBs, for not wanting the nuclear family, all while still being comfortable in their non-normative sexuality, and so on, so forth.

men aren’t oppressed as a group, but trans men are for not being seen as real men, for being forced into specific roles, for not having reproductive rights, for invisibility. men of color are, for how they’re painted as aggressive and violent, for how they’re often targets of unjustified attacks and even deaths for this very stereotype. mlm are, intersex men are, gender nonconforming men are.

when are people going to realize that this isn’t anything new, and they’re just being transphobic? i keep seeing it in terms of both gender and attraction. people think these jokes about how being a guy or liking guys is gross, when people literally die for being attracted to men, or for fighting to be considered one in a society that wants them to fade into obscurity. you aren’t being revolutionary, you aren’t lifting up whoever the fuck you think you are, you’re just causing more suffering for a group that frankly, has suffered fucking enough.

if you pick apart labels that describe oppression based off of whether the components exist on their own, you’re not an ally for any of us.

tell me what two magical components make up biphobia that “justify” the word existing. or aphobia, or even homophobia. is it okay for the term “alloarophobia” to exist even though “allophobia” doesn’t? if you’re in this community, there’s a 99% chance you’d say yes. because “allophobia” becomes possible under certain circumstances, such as being aro. kinda weird right? clearly, the axis doesn’t exist, because the two components on its own typically don’t. (sarcasm)

but that’s not really what the problem is, is it. this semantics over language, over whether the term is accurate based off of the etymology… that’s not the issue. the issue is, some people just don’t want to admit how deeply transphobic they are, and how willing they’d be to let huge chunks of us suffer and die because we don’t fit their perfect categorization of what “counts” or “deserves” to exist.

to some people, this shit is just a game and not lived experience. it’s internet discourse. because to them, it matters more than the lives and genuine safety of real queer people. it’s nice to know how many people in the queer community would turn on a dime and not stand for their fellow community members based off of it.

i’m honestly willing to bet a huge portion of these people would be the same ones who helped me get recloseted as an ace person because “aphobia can’t exist,” the same ones who called us “bihets” and based us off of our “privilege” instead of recognizing biphobia as a term. the day people realize that this is recycled bigotry and not some revolutionary OwnTM that you think it is will be the day we can finally move forward as a community instead of bickering and squabbling in the gutter.

these people are not just against transmasc allyship, but queer allyship as a whole, until they get over this shit. end of discussion.

anon this is the best description of this i think i've ever seen. you're so right. thank you thank you thank you.

[multigenderswag]

not exactly an ask asking something about being multigender, just sharing my experiences

i have told this in one of my posts but being agenderfluid (that is, for me, being fluid between masculinity, femininity, neutrality, and abinarity and/or agenderness) is... such a weird experience, not gonna lie. like, i'm still in the closet, so people still see me as a "cis woman" (presenting femininely did not help) and i'm still having "cis passing privilege" (UGHHHH i'm sorry i've said that, i don't know how to describe this, it's very confusing), whatever that means, so all my queer experience is like, living vicariously from reading people's experiences with transmultiphobia; that means like, i'm thinking "i can only imagine what it's like if i came out"

and somewhere along the line i'm like "...hold up, all this time i'm kinda forcing myself to be JUST ONE GENDER ONLY PLEASE and somehow i'm kinda repulsed with the term multigender and genderfluid... doesn't that mean i'm experiencing transmultiphobia also???" LIKE, my gender is literally Everything and Nothing, All At Once, and i felt like my gender is an endless journey in space, like a hellish immortality of questioning. which can be saved by just... embracing the genderfluid label??? like, for this i'm so happy (even though quietly) when people talk about transmultiphobia, when people start talking about multigender experiences, like before that i almost always felt the NEED (yes, in caps because it's that bad) to be JUST ONE GENDER, AND ALWAYS LIKE THAT

now, i think i want to expand the conversation about transmultiphobia just a bit. like i said, i don't just have Multiple Genders, i am also having No Gender, and it does influence my genderfluidity to such degree that sometimes, i cannot relate to many genderfluid and/or multigender, static or not, experiences of gender. i really, really, REALLY want to talk about it, to find a community of people that is simultaneously multigender AND non gendered, or even fluid about it. we are a very unique and almost unheard of intersection of genderhood, and i think it's time for us to be SEEN

All asks are good asks!

I definitely understand experiencing oppression vicariously- that's how I felt when I first started learning about transandrophobia, because I was semi-out as genderqueer but not as masculine, but I still read other people's experiences and went "yep, that's what I would face if I came out." And then it helped me realize the transandrophobia that I'd internalized that was stopping me from accepting myself as transmasc, yknow? So I'm glad the conversation around transmultiphobia has helped you in that way :)

And thank you for your contribution to the conversation on transmultiphobia! For having multiple genders but also no genders, you might want to look into ambonec communities (however small, I'm not 100% sure how common the label is). I've also definitely seen some people post about being multigender with agender as one of those genders (genderkoolaid is the only one I can remember off the top of my head), so you can look for other people like that who you can relate to.

If any of my followers have a similar experience of being multigender as well as genderless, feel free to add on!

[anomalousmancunt]

If you believe in the right of transmascs to choose the language to describe their experiences with marginalization, why do you think this does not apply to transfems when it comes to TMA/TME?

Because the terms TMA/TME are, inherently, not about someone's own experiences. TME, specifically, is about telling someone no, you do not experience this harm.

I also don't think this is an issue with transfems. Plenty of transfems have spoken about the flaws with the TMA/TME binary, and in my experience it has been mostly self-identified "tmes" proposing it as A Flawless System Of Organization.

A common complaint about the terms TMA/TME is that it creates a false binary of experiences. Another is that it is used to diminish the experiences of transmascs. Transfems have explained that the terms are much more nuanced and this is not what they are meant for. What is the difference here?

The terms TMA/TME are a binary. There is no nuance to be added or ways to really avoid that - one of the terms means, literally, "you face this violence", and the other means "you don't". The latter is, very literally, diminishing the experiences of many other people, including transmascs, and lately it's being used to label people by something they are not (see: people referring to transmascs as "tmes" only, while calling cis people "cis men/women", even though they're supposedly also tme).

The difference is in coining and usage, basically, and in actual meaning. By definition TME cannot mean anything other than "you do not face transmisogyny", and it is used that way. It does not matter if people (again: not only transfems) say it's "not supposed" to be dismissive. It is.

Discussions using the terms TMA/TME have sometimes led to anti-transmasculinity and intersexism. Discussions using the terms transandrophobia/anti-transmasculinity have sometimes led to transmisogyny (I’m not sure if they’ve also sometimes led to intersexism but would not be surprised). Others from both groups have said that the existence of these issues does not take away from the central point of the term(s). What is the difference here?

It is not discussions using the terms TMA/TME but the actual definition of those terms. Via setting one group of people as affected and another as exempt, via setting a binary, the terms already negatively affect intersex people - specially ones that either identify as cis women or are forcibly labeled as such (both by people using TMA/TME and by, like, society at large; this is not limited to CAFAB intersex people but does mostly impact them). And defining a group of trans people by a violence you [general] think they don't experience is, by itself, transphobic. If there was a term that meant "trans people exempt from sex-based oppression" applied mostly to transfems, you'd [general] be right to be against it. That is the issue with "TME" applied to transmascs (/other non-transfem trans people; this is not an issue limited to transmascs).

If a transfem looked through your blog, would they have the same feelings about the ways that you talk about transfems? Is the only time you talk about transmisogyny to complain about the terms TMA/TME? Is the only time you talk about transfems to talk about the harm that some of them have caused to transmascs?

I would hope not, but I also don't believe people need to post about every issue ever, or, on the contrary, post positivity for every group ever. I do believe people, specially us trans people, have a duty of care towards each other, to not partake in lateral violence.

I do not believe this is what the TMA/TME debate is about, though, because -again- it is mostly self-described "tmes" who "only talk about transmascs in negative contexts but never in positive contexts or about the issues we face". I have not found these levels of vitriol on any groups of transfems, besides self-described baeddels and similar groups, and while this blog is somewhat new, I have complained about laterally transphobic transmascs since coming out almost 6 years ago. Including those that make spaces unsafe for transfems in particular.

We want non-transmascs to listen to us when we talk about our experiences, to believe us, and to uplift our voices. Are you doing this for transfems? Are you actively working to learn more about the experiences they have, the issues they face that you do not, and the ways you can be supportive? Are you listening to them when they talk about their experiences, or are you focused on poking holes in their arguments and language? Do you believe that they are the best voices of their own experiences?

I am all for transfems making their own language, as with any other group of marginalized people. I am not for anyone trying to put transfems on a pedestal, or try to tell me what violence I supposedly do not face - specially white trans people from the USA, which have been the most horrible about this entire flavor of discourse. I do not think these questions matter, though, when we're meant to be talking about whether specific language is harmful or not.

I’ve made a lot of posts on here about anti-transmasculinity, because it affects me and then I get pissed off and make a tumblr post, but now my audience is largely transmascs so I want to say this:

If you believe that you have the right to choose the terms to describe your own experience and that others should listen to you when you talk about your own experiences, in the case of anti-transmasculinity/transandrophobia, please apply those beliefs to people with different identities than you. Remember these beliefs when someone with an identity different than you starts talking about their experience. If it makes you uncomfortable, try to figure out why.

This applies to pretty much every facet of identity. I’m on trans tumblr though, so here’s some questions for people who support the term transandrophobia or anti-transmasculinity but oppose the terms TMA/TME (honestly I feel like my posts rarely break transmasc containment but if the reverse is true for you, switch the terms around in the questions):

None of these are meant to be “gotcha” questions. I’m making this post because I think self-reflection and the ability to apply your beliefs about how you deserve to be treated to your treatment of others are important to being in a community with people who are different than you, which is pretty much any community.

- If you believe in the right of transmascs to choose the language to describe their experiences with marginalization, why do you think this does not apply to transfems when it comes to TMA/TME?

- A common complaint about the term transandrophobia/anti-transmasculinity is that it insinuates that men are oppressed for being men. Another is that it is used to diminish the experiences of transfems. We have explained that the term is much more nuances and this is not what it is meant for. A common complaint about the terms TMA/TME is that it creates a false binary of experiences. Another is that it is used to diminish the experiences of transmascs. Transfems have explained that the terms are much more nuanced and this is not what they are meant for. What is the difference here?

- Discussions using the terms TMA/TME have sometimes led to anti-transmasculinity and intersexism. Discussions using the terms transandrophobia/anti-transmasculinity have sometimes led to transmisogyny (I’m not sure if they’ve also sometimes led to intersexism but would not be surprised). Others from both groups have said that the existence of these issues does not take away from the central point of the term(s). What is the difference here?

- A lot of us get mad when we see people who only talk about transmascs in negative contexts but never in positive contexts or about the issues we face. If a transfem looked through your blog, would they have the same feelings about the ways that you talk about transfems? Is the only time you talk about transmisogyny to complain about the terms TMA/TME? Is the only time you talk about transfems to talk about the harm that some of them have caused to transmascs?

- We want non-transmascs to listen to us when we talk about our experiences, to believe us, and to uplift our voices. Are you doing this for transfems? Are you actively working to learn more about the experiences they have, the issues they face that you do not, and the ways you can be supportive? Are you listening to them when they talk about their experiences, or are you focused on poking holes in their arguments and language? Do you believe that they are the best voices of their own experiences?

[cackled0g]

{Image ID: A reply by user ikishima. The text reads: "maybe its (sic) because you can literally search (transandrophobia) and see people lay out exactly why its (sic) transmisogynistic and no one needs to spoon feed you this information. but have fun using a term coined by someone with a fetish for raping lesbians I guess"}

For context, the post this user was replying to is this one

Well first off, I think it's a rude assumption to make that I haven't researched a term that I use near daily to explain traumas that I have personally faced. I have actually, believe it or not, researched transandrophobia. I've looked at both sides of the issue, and it has consistently been the side that is against a good faith term for a marginalized group's oppression that has been lacking in good arguements. Let's go over a few of the most common ones I've seen.

a.) The coiner, Saint, has been accused of having a corrective rape fetish. I have seen screenshots to verify that he has engaged with that, but from my understanding it was a password protected nsfw blog where he engaged with it and similar fetishes with his partner, who was a trans feminine person who had said fetishes. I don't know either of the people involved and haven't found any good sources leaning either way on that situation except for one callout document that has been accused of being bad faith and factually false. Like I've said, I don't know anyone involved in that whole situation so I can't say I have an opinion on it one way or the other until I have better evidence to go off of. Regardless of whether Saint is or is not a horrible shitty person though, I don't think he has full claim to the word "transandrophobia" and certainly not the concept behind it--the specific combination of transphobia and antimasculinism that primarily transmasculine folks face. The word is just the combination of the the words 'transphobia', the hatred of trans people, and 'androphobia', the fear or hatred of men, and I know that I at least stumbled across it before I ever knew who Saint was. It's simply the most popular term, aside from transmisandry, which I also use regularly. For trigger tagging purposes and general tagging purposes, it's the most widely used term and also has the most theory and good faith debate behind it from what I've seen

b.) The term 'transandrophobia' is inherently transmisogynistic because it copies the same formula used for the word 'transmisogyny', a word describing the intersection of transphobia and misogyny that primarily transfeminine people face. I don't find this a very compelling argument personally. First off, I'm not aware of if the term was in fact based off of the word transmisogyny, as the convention of "oppression"+" oppression "= "word for combined or intersectional oppression" isn't new or particularly controversial (see: misogynoir) when applied to other forms of oppression.

c.) The idea that transmasculine people are punished for their masculinity and not only their transness is inherently transmisogynistic because ???. I genuinely don't get this one honestly. Even if it were true that marginalized men weren't punished for their masculinity, which it isn't (see: black men bearing the brunt of police violence, the way that ast Asian men are hypersexualized by euro-american women, the way that all Asian men are desexualized by euro-american people) I don't see how that "false" belief being held is an intersection of transphobia and misogyny.

d.) Trans men don't need a word for their oppression because they don't face a unique oppression. This is demonstrably false. Many recent laws restricting HRT in the UK and United States have been actively targeting trans men. JK Rowling, the TERF surpreme, wrote an essay that extensively talked about trans men, books like 'Irreversible Damage' are explicitly about trans men 'ruining their bodies'. If that isn't blatantly transandrophobic then what is?

Of course, if anyone has any sources or additions feel free to drop them below or DM me. Engaging in good faith is highly encouraged, including from the person I'm responding to. I also may add on to this post later with more common anti-transandrophobia arguments as I think of them.

[lycandrophile]

I hate this. Murder trans men for using a word describing bigotry against them.

TW: VIOLENT TRANSANDROPHOBIA

uhhhh what the fuck??? that’s...unbelievably disgusting why would anyone think that’s even remotely okay to say

were those tagged on one of my posts?? either way, if you could send me the username of whoever said that that’d be great

i’m honestly in awe...like what kind of fucked up thought process does it take to get to the point where you’re like “yeah, suggesting we should murder these trans people for talking about the violence they face is very normal behavior and doesn’t at all prove the point that they do in fact experience violence”

like genuinely how twisted do you have to be to think saying something like this makes you better than the people you Openly Want To Kill

tbh the part that gets me the most is the whole “can’t be saved” “as a sort of mercy kill” thing because it shows they genuinely do think this makes them morally superior, like they’re the wonderful heroes saving us from ourselves and not just another asshole advocating for violence against a group of trans people

and you know they probably act like they’re super anti-t/er/f even though the whole “transmasc people need to be saved from themselves, and it’s okay to use violence to do so” thing is BLATANT t/er/f rhetoric too

(and just as a side note, notice how i managed to express extreme disgust at this person Without saying we should kill them, proving it would’ve been very possible for them to express their dislike of the word without saying we should be killed)

[jeaninelatragedia]

the post was, in fact, not made in reply to the anonymous asks, but on january fifteenth, and the reply made the day before the asks were sent. crazy, how this conversation has in fact been going on for far longer than this! and yet is still relevant in conversation with a more recent event.

that post was made about other posts, repeatedly made by "transandrophobia truthers" (self described, for the record) when the subject of transmisogyny's existence is even brought up, not as "monopolization of oppression", a non-existant term for a thing, but as a solid theory of intersectional oppression, with a clear and solid definition. those were, of course, made with the exact point of minimizing the concerns of trans women about lived experiences within and beyond the community, under a thinly-veiled "unity" lie, as to avoid having to reconcile with those critiques put forward. even if the phrase was "those transfems need to stop their infighting and just hang out together", devoid of the sexual dimension of it, it is still an attempt to circumvent actual points of discussion to appeal to "peaceful" [read: compliant] rhetoric!

but it isn't just that, not really. the sexual aspect beyond it has a clear, political perspective, too. the issues talking about and resolving, because they make those not directly in the crossfire of transmisogyny sad and uncomfortable! to chalk up the sexualization to being "goofy" and "tumblr-y" completely ignores the fact that it is phrased that way for a reason! the same standards and internally held beliefs why others will go out and send those types of asks! there's a direct correlation that can't be waved off, in why someone would see it fit to send such asks, and why someone would see fit to write such posts!

now personally, i'm not sure i'd say a "perfect response" to OPs point involves ignoring context that was actually there about how to address her feelings with phrases like "casual disdain for trans siblings", which was never a focus on the post, not even implicitly since it was written in reply to an action and a statement, not a person or a group of people, or "quit baring fang and be normal," or actively claiming op as a bad-faith actor by saying "i struggle to believe you even believe that".

love the comparison to the "LGB movement" and an unspecified group (which you're just short of calling "baeddels", really) of transfems talking about their issues, really shows how you seem to think we hold power over transmascs like how cis people do us.

the "martyrization of transfems" is something you can really only talk about if you're completely disconnected from any sort of grander point about this behavior. the problems you posit as "monoply of oppression" are not, in fact, impulsed by a quality of transfems to be "the most oppressed group" but rather simple racism and american chauvinism, political problems that have absolutely nothing to do with this point.

and... it's not, though. i've refrained using the terms "tme/tma" because of your clear bias against the terms, it's clear to me you completely miss their point and use, especially in how supposedly their "main use" is to "misgender trans men", ignoring the fact that cis men are also tme, as not the direct target of transmisogynist ideas. claiming otherwise is complete nonsense, since transmisogyny is a thing with a definition and meaning. it's like saying women aren't real because everyone suffers from misogyny.

anyway, i figure you won't reply to this, given you've said your peace clearly, but i hope i shed some light on the subject.

Why do you feel the need to defend those who are sexually harassing trans women? Why do you think essentially telling other trans women they're being hysterical will help anyone? Why do you feel the need to defend the sanctity of sexually harassing trans women?

hiya!! so. quick thing.

op of that post was right but also a doofus

on the one hand, i have now been made aware of that flurry of asks it was apparently made in response to. those asks are textbook sexual harassment, sole to scalp, and also yes 100% misogyny.

on the other, why the FUCK did that op say "the posts about how transfems and transmascs should just be sucking and fucking" instead of. YKNOW. WHAT WAS HAPPENING?

"post" instead of "ask" makes it seem like something people are just saying on their own blogs, not spamming in ask boxes, and "about how transfems and transmascs should just be sucking and fucking" gets to absolutely 0% of the issue with the asks themselves, and in fact touches on a Separate trend i saw a couple times ages ago, which yes, i still think is just a goofy way of phrasing "be normal and hang out and stop fighting"

And this is an apology, yes, but its not a retraction, so dont take it as one.

i responded absolutely Perfectly to ops words. i was lacking context, but it was context their phrasing Obfuscated the existence of, and as such i feel i acted 100% justifiably. on top of this, one or five assholes spamming shitty asks does not a difference in class interests make. tma/tme is still a useless dichotomy invented by an outsider to drive a wedge in the trans community, our internal equivalent of "lgb drop the t". there is still a trend of transfems (of which i am one, and also i am not innocent of this behavior) insisting on a monopoly of oppression, or being reductive in order to martyrize transfems as a group (ive seen plenty of my sisters say they dont care about the genocide in gaza because "im busy trying to figure out where it's safe to piss" and also many who cross their eyes in order apply the murder rates against trans women of color to instead apply to all trans women, which i feel is pretty flatly racist, or at least reductive) and while im sure SOME people who believe in the value of that dichotomy are normal about it, in fact one was in my dms to Give me the context about the asks which i appreciate deeply i love u bestie, youd have to be a concussed coyote on quaaludes to pretend its not primarily used for transphobia against trans men. its used as a way to misgender and it has no basis in reality.

yall still wanna call me a sex pest pickme who should kill myself after this, be my guest. thats my stance, babe. i wont be responding to anythin else on this matter.

[bisexualsdeservebetter]

i looked on lgbta wiki to discern what the hell that person could possibly mean by “male lesbian” and i think i lost braincells reading their lesbian page but my best guess is that they’re talking about non-binary men and/or trans men. apparently, according to lgbta wiki (which is a very reliable source, as we can tell due to the completely objective way they present their articles /s), lesbianism means attraction to all genders except for binary men, except bi lesbians and straightsbians are totally valid and totally still lesbians even though they’re literally attracted to binary men i guess?? and then all of the “everyone except for binary men” stuff goes out the window because trans men can be lesbians if they feel a connection to lesbianism or they used to identify as lesbians before they realised they were men or whatever the fuck. and then there’s this whole thing where it goes “a common form of transandrophobia includes saying that trans men are just ‘confused lesbians’ because all lesbians feel some level of detachment from their gender” and it might just be me but it really feels like there’s an implied but we’re not like that! because for some reason they feel the need to constantly point out that trans men are still 100% real men and identifying as lesbians doesn’t make them less of one?? like hot take people who believe trans men are really men don’t feel the need to constantly affirm that they think trans men are men. and the comments are even worse! nobody questions anything even though it’s all complete nonsense, and i’m pretty sure anyone who actually dares to say that it’s complete nonsense just gets deleted. they even locked the page so only admins could edit it because apparently there were problems with people getting upset about the definitions (shocker) and changing it. someone even said “Before you get angry about this accurate information presented in this article, take some time to self reflect and realize that maybe you were wrong.” because yup, people (lesbians, mostly, but you can’t just say you’re talking about lesbians because that will get you rightly called out) are totally upset about this because they’re evil exclusionists who hate change and not because the notion that lesbians be attracted to men and/or be men is super lesphobic and harmful to them. like… they’ve turned lesbianism into a fun little label that literally everyone can identify as except for cis binary men and anyone who isn’t attracted to women/non-binary people regardless of alignment (even though the whole “you can be attracted to non-binary people in the same way someone can be attracted to men/women” is bs anyways but that’s not how these people see it), which completely defeats the point of lesbianism as a functional identity. thankfully this is just a loud minority, but holy shit they hate lesbians so much it’s wild.

There's not a lot I can add to this. Inclusionists love to erase and demonize lesbians, it's their favorite hobby. I'd like to point out I also see q*eer as a label being pushed on lesbians more than gay men. I have seen it with gay men too, but it seems to be mostly lesbians. A woman can literally flat out say she is a LESBIAN in no uncertain terms and inclus will still crawl out of the woodwork to call her a "q*eer woman". Like inclus are So Fucking Dedicated to either watering down lesbianism until it's a cute little label anybody can claim if they want to, regardless of if they're even women or if they're even attracted to women, or demonize lesbians to the point where they make it seem like all lesbians are mean evil TERFs.

I will never forget a post I saw a screenshot of some time ago that was aces claiming they have more right to the D slur than lesbians do, because the slur targets women who are sexually unavailable to men, and according to inclu logic, an ace is more sexually unavailable to men than a lesbian is. Despite the million different stupid fucking variations of asexual, including 'sex positive aces'. Like they genuinely believe a homosexual woman is undeserving of reclaiming the slur that is primarily directed at homosexual women because she... Experiences attraction. Every time I think I have seen the dumbest shit imaginable from inclus, they seem to take it as a personal challenge and make up something worse.

Also, fuck the LGBTA wiki, they're so blatanly homophobic, biphobic and transphobic all the fucking time over there, I lose brain cells every time I see a screenshot of that dumpster fire.

[antiterf]

Thank you for talking about the transandrophobia thing so openly. Honestly I feel pretty scared to talk abt it on tumblr bc when I bring up that a post or behavior is transphobic specifically to trans men, im mocked for “playing the victim” or at worst, silencing trans women. And its like…so you’re devaluing my experiences and saying I can’t comment on my own thoughts…just like TERFs and society at large do…cool. I watch myself vigilantly to make sure i DON’T talk over trans women, and I’ve only really spoken up about “transandrophobia” once, but it felt bad all the same.

I honestly didn't see it as anything to be anxious about when talking. I know that it's a topic that multiple different sides have a lot of feelings towards, and I'm on Tumblr, but I don't feel any hesitation to talk about it. I'm saying this because you're thanking me for something I don't feel risk in, even obviously you've had a rough time with it, and I don't know why I'm this way.

Maybe it's because the people who are against it generally don't like the fact that this used to be an anti terf satire blog since I'm a tme trans man. One of the same people who told me I didn't have the right to run the blog was the same person I saw again that was against transandrophobia. It's just one person that I noticed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it just fell within that pattern.

It could also be because I'm an LGBTQ minor in college currently and have now been talking about these types of issues with other trans people in a discussion way and not an attacking way. It's genuine conversation to try and figure out what's more "right" or "wrong" or just neutral, too personal, not defined enough to say. So here I'm acting the same way, I'm open to learning more and questioning what I have. If I get extra hate I'm used to it by now, and even though it hurts much more when it comes from the community, I aim to understand what their point is above all else and see where it fills in holes and where it doesn't.

An example of this was an anon I got when I made a general statement that I almost immediately realized I was wrong about. I was upset that I made them upset but still took what they said.

I went on a long rant that I didn't need to go on but overall it's no problem, I literally couldn't even fully percieve the problem.

(Also please no matter what can we not compare any trans people to terfs)