#this is not to say there is such thing as transmisandry or whatever

[ghost-orion]

i am just. so mad. about the transmisogyny/transandrogyny talk

like. okay. "transmisandry doesn't exist because 1) transmisogyny is the intersection between transphobia and misogyny and 2) misandry doesn't exist so 3) transphobia can't intersect with misandry"

okay. so.

transmisandry is not the intersection between transphobia and misandry. transmisandry is the term used by transmasc people of all genders to discuss our oppression. yes, transmisogyny is the most common way transphobia rears its ugly head, but there are issues that affect a lot of transmasc people and not a lot of transfemme people.

definition of transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny which affects trans women and transfemme people.

transmisandry is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny which affects trans men and transmasc people. (i can't find a term which would correlate to trans nonbinary people, sorry. discrimination against nb people is definitely real though.)

if you don't like the word, come up with a better one. "transmisogyny exempt" and "transmisogyny affected" does not work in this case. yeah i'm exempt from the intersection of transphobia and misogyny as it affects transfemme people. but that's not an appropriate word to use when i'm talking about me being questioned for doing anything that isn't masculine enough for other people. it's not appropriate when i talk about my past s.assault. it's not appropriate when i talk about how i have difficulty trusting cis mspec men when they tell me that they toootally see me as a man. when it's embarrassing to be rejected from ""the brotherhood"" when trying so hard to fit in with them. when i simply am not allowed to do things men do, because in the eyes of others, maleness is inherent and more powerful, so i'm basically "lying to try to make myself look male better." when i'm denied gynecology appointments. when i'm forced to be in the female ward and ridiculed for it at the same time. when i am completely invisible or just ignored, because i'm not a scary enough target for people who target trans women. like those are things that are transphobic, yeah, but it is specifically because i'm transmasculine, aka "trying to be a man," because as someone seen as a woman, i'm infantilized and laughed at for thinking i can achieve something in a sexist world, especially something so big as maleness itself.

okay. when i am infantilized to the point of not deserving something so inherent as maleness, then i really don't think it's just "both sexism and transphobia" man. when a guy at work looks at me, his eyes see, yes, an insane girl, but also a weak boy on the bench in gym class who was not picked into the boys' team because he was too weak to be a real boy.

there's also something to be said about trans men and transmasculine people being all thrown in the same bag with nonbinary people who don't present masculine nor transfeminine, cis lesbians, regular ol' stereotypical feminists and also just women who aren't girly/womanly enough, as like, these weirdo snowflakes thinking that "girly whining will get them anywhere". yes, it is clearly misogyny, but also the crossing over into "masculine territory" is like, a specific kind of misogyny. is there any talk of that? genuine question btw if you have recs, i would love to hear about them.

#vent #transmisandry #transmasc #jamie.txt #if this gets Any traction i'm absolutely fucking deleting #also i'm tired and i just. this is many feelings vomited on screen skdfjgh #i'm not trying to start discourse. this is a personal diary. if you have thoughtful constructive things to say #go ahead #but i don't need threats or insults or whatever #also i'm not speaking over trans women. i'm not saying that transmisogyny is incorrect or whatever. #i acknowledge that most of the harassment goes to trans women and transfemme people. especially trans woc and transfemme poc Yes #but this is simply a different topic which i talk about in this one moment #discourse

[guideaus]

saw someone on here comment its bad to view men as scary and im like 🤔

#personal #i feel like itd be bad if ur saying it abt a black man or smth but thats a racist thing. not... misandry lol #actually yeah like i think u have to add a diff identity for it to be bad but it'd be a diff discussion #if ur a man and are uneasy around a gay man ur homophobic. if ur cis and dont like a trans man ur transphobic #someone also added on talking abt trans men but i dont really think transmisandry (??) is a thing tbh... while transmisogyny definitely is #idk ik u can associate being uncomfortable w hate (the whole ___phobia thing) but what. people cant be afraid of men anymore much less hate #is it Problematique to be concerned abt getting catcalled or stalked or whatever now. is that where we're at

[drdemonprince]

i just FIND IT INTERESTING that the people who say transmisandry is a unique and real and important to discuss form of oppression dont ever talk about, say, misandrynoir or society's hatred of disabled men or fat men or any other intersections being "misandry" and the experiences of other oppressed groups.

It makes exactly 0% sense to treat "misandry" as a real locus of oppression that can intersect with other oppressions only in the context of talking about trans men, and never doing it with anything else.

Black men sure as fuck experience racism in a very particular way. but to date ive never heard someone attempt to call that the intersection between misandry and anti-Blackness, because misandry doesn't fucking exist.

either you believe misandry is a thing or your dont. if you dont think misandry is real, transmisandry as a concept is completely nonsensical. if you dont understand this please read about what intersectionality actually is and how it works and stop co-opting the scholarship of a Black woman legal scholar in order to complain about how there are more trans femme serial killers in movies than trans masc ones or whatever the hell you think youre being left out of.

most of the transmisandry posters are white trans men with a self-victimization complex who cant imagine they have both some very genuine experiences of oppression (transphobia or transmisia, whatever you wanna call it) and also significant privileges. its just so fucking transparent it makes me want to join my chinchilla in chewing the walls

[genderkoolaid]

can't reblog this post because op has be blocked but

>"i just FIND IT INTERESTING that the people who say transmisandry is a unique and real and important to discuss form of oppression dont ever talk about, say, misandrynoir or society's hatred of disabled men or fat men or any other intersections being "misandry" and the experiences of other oppressed groups."

>"in order to complain about how there are more trans femme serial killers in movies than trans masc ones or whatever the hell you think youre being left out of."

oh yeah, you clearly are very knowledgeable about the discussion around transmisandry. definitely not just making shit up based on things you've heard & making ad hoc claims about "white victimization." what a scholar of truth and logic we have here

#m.

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

I'll probably add to these thoughts later but I feel like the way that transandrophobia or transmisandry or whatever you choose to call it mainly operates is by making itself confusing in order to make it extremely hard to actually pin down and call out. We're treated as women when it's convenient to leverage misogyny against us and treated as privileged men if we call it out, but we're also treated as hysterical women when it becomes convenient to ignore our concerns. We're treated as evil disgusting faggots and trannies to be exterminated, as predatory men who want to make the "good" men have sex with us, but we don't even get the benefit of being seen as fully male. This is the intersection at which we lie, and the intersection that we've decided to call transandrophobia.

When it's convenient, we're treated as hyper-emotional whiny women with no agency, but when it's also convenient, we're predatory males who just have something wrong with them. And when the transandrophobe finds that the time is right, they treat us like some strange creature that is neither male nor female, either to be fucked or to be exterminated; often both. We're just objects to be fucked until we show any interest in a man; then, we're predators, almost like we're from another planet, preying on the poor helpless males. And when we show interest in a woman? Well, I can't speak on this myself since I am gay, but from what I have seen from listening to other transmascs? We've become predatory men trying to prey on poor cis women, but we still know nothing about the world and should shut up and let the real men speak for us.

And when we ask for one thing, to simply be able to speak, we are both aggressive privileged males preying on helpless women and hysterical women crying about nothing at the same time. Every word we say can and will be held against us because the truth of what the world thinks of us is that whether they admit it or not they think that we are less than human. And they will use whatever tactic they have, every tool of oppression, to remind us that we are not. Every day that we exist in this world as transmasculine people we are told that we are something nonhuman, something that needs to be killed. But we are also told every day that we exist in this world that none of this is real. That we're crazy, that we're lying, that we're just hysterical privileged women who need to shut up and let others do the talking for us.

That is what I mean when I say transandrophobia.

#star speaks #transandrophobia #anti transmasculinity #transmisandry #please reblog this #long post

[autolenaphilia]

Transandrophobia isn’t real because misandry isn’t real. This is the basic truth of the matter.

The very structure of the word implies some kind of intersection of transphobia and misandry, which is impossible, because again misandry doesn’t exist. The phrase “transandrophobia” exists as a transmasc counterpart to transmisogyny, and it doesn’t work, because while misogyny is real, misandry/androphobia is not. The things that are described as “transandrophobia” which are actual instances of oppression are better explained as plain transphobia.

The antifeminism of transandrophobia theory

“Transandrophobia” theory often launders antifeminist concepts of misandry. Of course this is openly often denied. The defense is that transandrophobia doesn’t imply that misandry exists, but only describes transphobia directed at transmascs.

And it’s often disingenuous. I’ve come across numerous transandrophobia blogs that clearly believe in misandry. The very coiner of the word, says it’s caused by “the effects of irrational fears of masculinity and manhood“ (taking “androphobia” quite literally) which implies both the existence of misandry and also misogynistically dismissing women’s fears of men’s violence as irrational.

Of course they change the language around, using euphemisms for misandry. In fact transandrophobia is a clear evolution of the term “transmisandry.” Genderkoolaid and ey’s idea of “anti-masculism” that I criticized here is maybe the most obvious example of that on tumblr today.. The belief in some kind of systemic force that “negatively impacts men and masculine people on the basis of their manhood and/or masculinity.“ to quote genderkoolaid is as succinct a definition of misandry theory as any. And ey even outright admits that “antimasculism” is just another word for misandry. Other transandrophobia bloggers like the transunity blog outright use the word “misandry.”So for simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use “misandry” for whatever euphemisms transandrophobia people use, like “antimasculism”, “androphobia” or claims that “society hates men” or “there is a widespread irrational fear of men and masculinity.”

The use of feminist language like “patriarchy” common among transandrophobia people is either severely confused or outright dishonest. It’s a symptom of the terrible understanding of feminism on this site, as I lamented before. Patriarchy as a term that inherently implies male privilege, men are privileged for being men, not disadvantaged. Claiming the patriarchy oppresses men on the basis of their gender is a contradiction in terms. And belief in misandry is inherently misogynistic and anti-feminist.

How terms for systemic oppression actually work

Let’s however assume that the word “transandrophobia” just means “transphobia aimed at transmascs.” Then I don’t see why this word needs to exist. It contradicts most academic work on systemic oppression. New terms are generally not made just to describe “specific experiences of an oppression”. Instead they are created to describe meaningful intersections of different forms of oppression. Often these are intersections with misogyny, because that particular oppression affects about half the population. So misogynynoir describes an intersection of anti-blackness/racism and misogyny that black women experience, and lesbophobia describes an intersection of homophobia and misogyny that lesbians experience. And transmisogyny describes an intersection of misogyny and transphobia that trans women and transfems experience.

The lesbophobia example is especially pertinent to this discussion. The homophobia that gay men experience is often distinct from that lesbians experience, and homophobia against gay men is no minor prejudice, gay men have literally been murdered for being gay. Yet there is no “homoandrophobia” (to borrow an argument from this post by catgirlforeskin) and that’s because misandry/androphobia isn’t real. Men experience systemic oppression differently from women experiencing the same oppression, but that’s because of the absence of misogyny, not the existence of any misandry.

So a word like transandrophobia does imply an intersection between “androphobia/misandry”and transphobia. Otherwise it doesn’t have much reason to exist.

Misandry must affect all men in order to exist

I have seen claims that while “cis misandry” doesn’t exist, trans men and transmasc people are in fact oppressed for being men or masculine. And that’s how transandrophobia works

.

But that’s just transphobia. Misandry can only be real if it affects all men. Misogyny is a viable term because all women are oppressed for being women, even if they can also be privileged because of things like being cis, wealthy or white which balances out their oppression for being women (intersectionality is complex). I wouldn’t claim misogyny was real if it only affected a subset of women.

You can’t claim that men are oppressed for being men or being masculine, that it is some stigmatized gender or gender expression, when being a man and specifically a masculine man is what is expected of about half the population, and in fact men gain privilege for the successful performance of masculinity.

It’s true that trans men and other transmascs are systemically oppressed, and do indeed experience severe pushback if they express their manhood or try to transition in a transmasculine direction. But that’s because they are trans. Transfems experience a similar oppression for expressing their womanhood or trying to transition in transfeminine direction. That’s why the word transphobia exists.

Let’s make an example of a common bit of rhetoric among transandrophobia people, and see how it is all explained entirely by transphobia. Transandrophobia people talk about some general “hatred of testosterone” as part of transandrophobia, often dishonestly conflating transfems expressing their dysphoria with transphobic rhetoric about how testosterone ruins transmasc bodies.

But any idea about society hating testosterone fail to account for why the testosterone flowing through bodies deemed naturally male is seen as okay. In fact being “high-t” is seen as a positive in a man. It’s not even a prejudice against medical testosterone, being “low-t” is a fad disorder that cis men can easily get testosterone prescriptions for. And trying to lower your “natural testosterone” levels is something that’s actively hindered and gatekept, something I’ve experienced. I waited three years to get on t-blockers due to medical gatekeeping. In my country Sweden getting your balls removed legally and thus permanently lower your t-levels is something you have to petition the government for, something I’m trying to do.

Any kind of theorizing about a misandristic hatred of testosterone can’t explain this. It’s only so-called “cross-sex hormones” that are seen as bad, not testosterone in itself. And this is entirely explained by transphobia, not misandry.

It’s of course true that men are oppressed, but it’s never on the basis of being men. People who try to argue for misandry often use (often appropriatively) the struggles of oppressed men and try to argue they are oppressed because they are men. And transandrophobia theory is no different.

“Deserving a word”

The attitude among the transmascs who support transandrophobia theory seems to be “transfems have transmisogyny to describe their oppression, we deserve a word too.” Except again, transfems don’t have the term transmisogyny because we are very special girls who need a special word for our oppression, it exists because it describes the intersection of misogyny and transphobia we experience. It exists for the same reason as lesbophobia does, to describe an intersection between misogyny and another oppression. Gay men are not disadvantaged compared to lesbians because they “only” have the more general term “homophobia” while lesbians have the more specific word “lesbophobia.” And I don’t think transmascs would be disadvantaged if nobody accepted transandrophobia as a tern for their experiences.

You don’t need a specific word to talk about your experiences with transphobia, just as gay men don’t need a world like lesbophobia to talk about their experiences with homophobia. You can just talk about them, and use the word “transphobia” as a label for it.

And sometimes acknowledging that our experiences of oppression can be similar is useful for solidarity and community building. All trans people are negatively affected by transphobia, and that is the real “transunity.” theory.

Don’t end up like nothorses who once unironically listed “Misgendering over the phone,“ as an example of transandrophobia/transphobia only affecting transmascs.

Words exist in a context

Transandrophobia clearly exists as some transmasc counterpart to the transfem transmisogyny. It was even more obvious when the word was “transmisandry.” Words always exist in a context, and is often built by binaries. How someone who believes it defines transandrophobia does say a lot about how they define transmisogyny.

I’ve already described how if transandrophobia merely means “transmascs specific experiences with transphobia” it doesn’t have much reason to exist. But it also by implication diminishes and reduces transmisogyny. If transandrophobia only means “the transphobia experienced by transmasculine people”, transmisogyny is reduced by implication to only meaning “transphobia experienced by transfeminine people.” It’s another symptom of how tumblr discourse is uninterested in acknowledging misogyny, and in this case that misogyny is intersecting with transphobia in transmisogyny.

And well, if transmisogyny means “an intersection between transphobia and misogyny experienced by transfems” it does imply that transandrophobia also should describe an intersection, for why else does it exist. And we are back to it describing an imaginary intersection between transphobia and misandry, a misogynistic and antifeminist idea.

Who gets to define their own oppression?

Of course I am a trans woman, and I will of course get accused of hating transmascs, and robbing them of their ability to define their own oppression.

I would be more sympathetic to this argument, if transandrophobia theorists didn’t keep on constantly defining transmisogyny as the result of misandry. It is common in these circles for transmascs to reject any tme/tma distinction too. Literally going “I got mistaken for a trans woman once, that means I’m affected by transmisogyny.” There is absolutely zero respecting transfems rights to define their own oppression in transandrophobia circles, so why should I respect theirs?

Seriously, the “transmisogyny is actually misandry” claim just keeps happening. Genderkoolaid did it, the transunity blog too, and this dude who I literally found by browsing the “transmisogyny” tag spewing his misandry nonsense.

The problem with “transmisogyny is misandry, actually” is that misandry isn’t real, men are privileged for being men. Transfems experience oppression because we reject being men and performing masculinity. Men are in fact our oppressor class. When transmisogynists talk derisively about “men who wear dresses and say they are women”, they aren’t saying that being a man is bad (in fact they are often men themselves), it’s that “being amab and rejecting masculinity and manhood and claiming to be a woman is bad.” Its an intersection of transphobia and misogyny.

“Transandrophobia” is seldom just talking about the difficulties of being transmasc, it wants to redefine how transfems think about their oppression as well. And it does so in misgendering and transmisogynistic ways.

The transandrophobia theorists generally ignore the existence of transmisogyny, especially in queer communities. In fact it often implies or outright states that transfems are privileged in the trans/queer communities for being women or feminine, which is bizarre. In reality, Transmisogyny is rife in queer spaces, with “crazy trans woman syndrome” being common.

And it’s not like transandrophobia discourse is immune to that particular syndrome. Transmisogyny-exempt privilege dynamics remain very much in play. Transfems tend to get accused of being transandrophobic. The accusations are framed as “lateral aggression” not oppression, although the tone of these posts suggests “lateral aggression” is another polite euphemism word swap game like misandry for “androphobia.”

It feels like the antifeminist, and specifically anti-transfeminist roots of the whole transandrophobia idea coming to the forefront.

#my writings #transmisogyny #misandry is not real

[trans-androgyne]

Sorry if this is an irritating ask or anything, but could you please explain to me what people find wrong about the term transandrophobia? As far as I’m aware it’s literally just a word to describe trans men’s oppression. I’m not against the idea that it might have something wrong with it (as a transmasc person), but through all this fighting I’ve never once seen someone clearly explain what the problem is.

I’ve seen people claim that transmascs keep throwing transfems under the bus, but the only thing I’ve ever seen is actually the OPPOSITE way around, and only when I go searching for it (but that might just be because I make an effort to keep my dash free of that kind of thing) again I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just… don’t quite understand all this.

Sorry abt this rambly ask, I’m just tired and frustrated and I HATE that we’ve been pitted against each other

I will do by best to genuinely present and respond to the main arguments I have heard made against using the term. Apologies in advance for the length.

The most common in my experience is that “androphobia/misandry doesn’t exist,” or “men aren’t oppressed for being men,” based on the terms transandrophobia and its origin, transmisandry. It feels like a non-sequitur to me, completely bypassing the actual meaning of the term. Some people do include androphobia or misandry in their definition of the term, but many more don’t and just use it to describe the intersection of transphobia and misogyny in the lives of transmascs or even just “transphobia against transmascs.” I personally do believe androphobia exists in a literal sense—the fear of men that has serious consequences—but not in the way they mean it. They are attempting to paint us as MRAs, but nobody who gets any eyes on them using the term has ever argued that women oppress men as a class. MRAs are antifeminist, and the transandrophobia conversation is very much a feminist one.

The simplest is just that transmascs just “don’t need a word” to talk about their oppression. Our experiences are called “just transphobia” or “just misogyny” based on whatever they think applies most in the moment. Our theorizing is painted as useless infighting or just being jealous that trans women have a word to describe their oppression. I vehemently disagree with this one, I think everyone deserves language to describe their experiences. I think it’s impossible to ignore the way that both transphobia and misogyny interact to affect us in a new way (the very definition of intersectionality), and that we deserve to recognize and describe that intersection. Even the coiner of the word “transmisogyny” appears to agree with us on this.

Other people will focus on the term’s perceived origins. They frequently call the person who changed the term “transmisandry” to “transandrophobia” a “lesbophobic transmisogynist” and rape fetishist. From everything I’ve been able to put together on the matter, it seems to be that they’re referring to him having engaged in someone else’s detrans kinks as a sex worker on a private blog. I’ve heard from others he may have harassed people, absolutely cannot verify that. To me, it feels like another case of accusing trans people with kinks others find unsavory of being a sexual predator/sex pest, which people generally recognize as transphobic. In any case, even if every single part of their outrage was true, I do not think the behavior of a person who didn’t even come up with the ideas means that transandrophobia theory is inherently transmisogynistic.

In regard to “throwing trans women under the bus,” I think a lot of those ideas come from oppositional sexism. It’s assumed that what we’re saying is true of men must be the opposite for women. Trans women, including the woman who coined “transmisogyny,” have been using trans men’s perceived “opposite” experiences to prove their points for many years. They try to make a claim for transmisogyny by saying trans men don’t experience similar issues (violence, sexualization, demonization, safety issues, misogyny, trouble passing). But the reality is, trans men do experience those issues — some to a lesser extent, some in a different form, some just less visibly due to our chronic erasure — and have other issues of their own that trans women don’t face (like abortion rights issues). An attack on the idea that trans men have it easier is seen as an attack on transmisogyny as a concept. But it isn’t!! Transmisogyny is so blatant and oppressive of a system that it doesn’t need to compare itself to transandrophobia/trans men’s issues to have ground to stand on. Trans people are all harmed by transphobia in different, complex ways and none of us have gendered privilege.

Very few people engage with the actual meat of transandrophobia theory. We have really bad optics, I’ll give them that. It’s hard to like a word with “androphobia” in it, talking about men’s issues puts people on edge due to MRAs, and there are TERFs actively trying to recruit us. (The last part is used against us when it shouldn’t be, they try to recruit transmascs of all stripes for detransitioning and are only using us in particular because so many transfems have been awful to us because of the term. They are trying to widen that divide while most of us discussing transandrophobia are trying to close it.)

We (people who use “transandrophobia”) are often characterized as a unified movement that hates trans women (like in that post that blew up in the wake of predstrogen’s banning). We are not a movement any more than “transmisogyny” or “exorsexism” are. We don’t all believe the same things, the only thing we share in common is that we feel transmascs have a specific kind of oppression and deserve a word to describe it. And, obviously, we are doing our best not to perpetuate (trans)misogyny! The number of disclaimers I have seen people put on their post to make it exceedingly obvious to the piss on the poor website that they’re not talking about trans women is absolutely astounding. I’m sure our circles do have some transmisogyny in them, everywhere does! We do our best to combat it and I know my personal spaces have a couple transfems in them that help keep us in check. If we were being genuinely transmisogynistic, I would ask people to actually point to what they’re seeing that’s harmful instead of just dismissing all of us as evil bigots.

I think what contributes to the backlash the most is simply that trans men do not fit into current understandings of feminism well. People have gotten it into their heads that men are gender oppressors and not gender oppressed — which doesn’t shake out so well when you put being trans into the equation. I grew up hearing “ew men are gross” “I hate men” “kill all men” sentiments due to being in LGBT spaces. Some people really, really do not want to let go of the idea that men are bad and icky and dangerous and women are good and pure and safe, especially when it benefits them as non-men. Many transmascs themselves have internalized the idea that they are gender oppressors, traitors to feminism, more likely to be dangerous/predatory/misogynistic, and take up too much space because they are men/mascs. I sure felt like that before finding these conversations! I sincerely think that as we grow our transfeminism and heal from our gender essentialism a little more, this rhetoric will be left in the past.

#long post #resources #ask #mine #transandrophobia #transmisogyny #transphobia #intracommunity issues tag

[nothorses]

I have an acquaintance who I believe has been gone to the tirf side and while I don't think she's going to be able to be talked to on this the thing she posted to me to try to be like "well this trans man thinks you can't be specifically against trans masc people" did make me think like,

If transmisogyny has been expanded from just being about the type of extreme violence described by serrano to a lot of other items, but some people don't believe that anything similar can be described to trans men, then it feels like they are saying that men are the default in the way that anything bad that happens to a trans man or trans masc person is just transphobia but bad things that happen to trans women are transmisogyny.

Like I feel like it's a bit like, what is just transphobia any more then, is it something which just applies to all trans people or is it the same transphobia which can affect trans masc and trans fems?

Are there limits to what can be called transmisogyny like people are putting to transandrophobia?

Honestly, I think this idea kind of rests on this very weird model of gender categorization that really just ignores what transphobia is, and how it actually works on a systemic level.

The implication here is that trans women are women, therefore what they experience is misogyny. Which means that because trans men are men, what we experience cannot be misogyny.

We see this same logic in "TME/TMA" ("transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected") language, which also conflates oppression with identity: do your actual lived experiences with oppression determine your "TME/TMA" categorization? Or are people of certain identities simply considered exempt from transmisogyny, by nature of those identities alone? In practice, it is overwhelmingly the later.

If we consider transmisogyny to be a system of oppression that is expressed in particular ways, rather than a kind of oppression that only impacts certain people, "TME/TMA" categorization immediately falls apart. Nobody is "exempt" from a system of oppression that, for example, polices conformity to idealized western standards of cis womanhood in sports; we know for a fact that women of color are regularly deeply affected by transmisogynistic rules and laws in sports. Those same women do not face many other aspects of transmisogyny-- currently they are not in danger of being places in men's prisons, for example-- but clearly, that doesn't mean they're exempt from transmisogyny, either.

The point here is that these are systems of oppression, and while they target certain qualities in people, their goal is ultimately to police certain societal rules. It doesn't matter what your identity actually is; only that you are breaking those rules.

Trans women are women, but they are not seen as women by these systems. They are seen as people who are breaking a particular set of rules; not "woman", not "man", but "other". Even "defective", "failed", or "outlaw". Transmisogyny exists to police their particular ways of breaking those rules, and it does not particularly care how they actually identity themselves, on an individual level.

Trans men are men, but we are not seen as men. We are breaking rules, too, and there are systems in place to police those rules; we've named them "transandrophobia" (or "transmisandry", or "antitransmasculinity", or whatever) so we can talk about them a little more easily.

#transandrophobia #transandromisia

[kienansidhe]

the thing is for a long long time i did subscribe to the idea that transfems have it the worst of all of us and that transmascs do have systemic power over transfems, and im still not sure i dont believe it? however.

the transandrophobia/transmisandry/whatever you wanna call it blogs that i follow specifically clarify over and over and over that they are not trying to say transmisogyny doesnt exist, or to make it a contest of whos most oppressed, or to say trans women have systemic power over trans men, or anything of the sort, they have made that disclaimer so many times and yet over the years i have seen that making that disclaimer does not help.

if transmascs speak up abt transphobia, we are bombarded with harassment and willful misinterpretation of our words. no matter how many disclaimers, no matter how much we keep the conversation to our own posts, no matter how many steps we take to avoid taking space away from transfems, we still get these accusations of transmisogyny, just for talking about our own lived experiences.

we shouldnt have to grovel and beg other queer people to allow us to talk about the oppression we experience. we shouldnt have to couch it in 500 disclaimers, and even when we do people try to silence us.

im absolutely not blaming this on transfems, btw. many of the most supportive ppl on this site who boost transmasc voices are transfems who are incredibly kind and wonderful and smart people. the transfems who are radfemmy and separatist are not any more representative of transfems in general than the transmascs who are radfemmy and separatist are representative of transmascs in general. i suspect most of the problem are cis ppl. i know many are fellow transmascs who either pass and dont experience the problems most of us face, or else have been taught that in order to be good allies to transfems they have to disavow their siblings who are still fighting to be heard, like its a zero sum game and they have to pick sides.

maybe transfems do have it unequivocally worse, full stop. im not rlly that smart or good at interpreting data and different people tell me different things and if i think too much abt it i start spiraling. but i dont like that so many people on this site take transmascs talking abt our struggles as an inherent attack on transfems. thats that part i rlly dont understand. thats why i keep asking why we cant just get along. why cant these discussions happen in parallel?

if someone tells me transfems have it worse, sure, that doesnt bother me to accept and be aware of and take into consideration in how i live my life. but when people tell me transfems have it worse, therefore transmascs should shut up? thats incomprehensible to me. thats just transphobia.

#headspace #transphobia #transandrophobia #transmisandry #this is rlly rambly sorry idk how to be concise x_x

[diedinflorida]

internalized transandrophobia warning

i wasn't able to unpack or even begin to understand why i couldn't seem to respect or understand other trans men/mascs until i started reading and learning about transdrophobia/transmisandry.

we have it better, i'd say, because that was what i was supposed to say, it was "correct". and i'd wonder why i didn't take other trans men or myself seriously. trans women were always easier to relate to, i rarely if ever had issues with misgendering my transfem friends wrong, i'd be able to hear the pain they went through and empathize and understand. i had way more issues with other trans men. maybe i didn't say it out loud, but when i or other transmascs faced bigotry or hardship, i'd think "it's not as bad as what a trans woman would face". i internalized that so badly i didn't think that trans men as a group had problems. among many other things, the medical barriers and sexual harrassment "weren't bad" because i and others like me were (trans) men. what was my problem, i wondered, why did i keep accidentally misgendering other trans guys? why couldn't i reach the same level of respect and understanding i had for trans women? why did i not take my or their issues seriously?

then i found out about transandrophobia. i saw a post mocking gender koolaid's bio and wondered what transandrophobia was. i wondered why all the reblogs and replies to that post were so hostile about trans men. i looked up "transandrophobia". the first post i saw was from a transmasc of color talking about how they'd never had a word for their oppression before, how they'd never felt a they had community like this before. i thought "that makes sense, why were people being so combative about transandrophobia?"

so i read more. i went to gender koolaid's blog and read their what is transandrophobia page and thought, "i've been through this. i can see how i was wrong about that. that sounds right. i haven't thought about it this way before, etc." and i wondered again, why were people being so awful about the word?

so i dug further. and the further i got, the more i saw of myself in the people raging against the term. the more i saw the stereotypes, the hatred, the things i'd been made to believe about myself and other trans men that had held me back from truly respecting myself or those like me, the more i realized that we truly HATE ourselves. i worked out of a knot of self hatred through accepting the word transandrophobia for what it is to me and others: unapologetically accepting that our identities and issues are not lesser, that we face unique issues, that we do not have it "better" by virtue of our suffering being silent.

i'm still working on my problems but i have way less issues with mine and others' transmasc identities. unlike the way folks act online, respecting myself and other trans men did not come at the cost of respecting trans women. if you want to fully unpack your transphobia, you have to work on all of its facets. including transandrophobia/transmisandry/whatever you want to call it.

#speakin' candidly #transandrophobia #also sidenote to my fellow white transmascs: stop assuming everyone has it the same as you #i go to block some awful post about transandrophobia and the person is just like i was. a white transmasc who wasn't willing to listen to #other transmascs about their lives. those of us who would rather sit in the bubble and go lalalala til the day we die

[cock-holliday]

the tumblr aita page keeps getting asks mentioning transandrophobia and while the vote tends to swing in a direction implying most people think transandrophobia is real the notes are... really, really hateful. it's stressful. until now i could mostly keep away from the Discourse if i wanted, retreat into a bubble of people who don't post politics. now things are bleeding out. ik this is a step towards awareness but it's made me feel really unsafe.

I’m really sorry you’re experiencing this. I, unfortunately am not really a source of escaping politics. I think you’re right that more conversation is reflective of greater awareness, but that yes, it comes at the toll of backlash. I suppose I would recommend not looking in the notes and seeking out likeminded folks to insulate better against flak.

Transmisogyny as a term has only entered discourse since 2007 so it’s a fairly new term in the scheme of things. Transandrophobia as a term was coined only in 2015(?) I believe, which is extremely recent. Transandrophobia also has the disadvantage of not yet being in a book/wider publication, although the term coiner is working on one and I am excited to read it. Said coiner also had the disadvantage of a smear campaign, making even those who identified with the word unsure if they can use it due to the association.

Whatever term you use, transandrophobia, transmisandry, anti-transmasculinity, the concept exists.

I think one of the worst pieces of dialogue to enter the transphobia conversation is the TMA/TME dichotomy. I’ve never seen any oppressed group come up with a term to say that other oppressed people are by extension incapable of experiencing this type of oppression. The use of the terms automatically makes me take you less seriously, and is frankly a laughable concept.

There are countless examples across identity groups that suggest that even privileged groups can be the target of ‘misdirected’ bigotry if something about their identity diverts from expectations. Feminine straight boys attacked for being ‘gay.’ Indian men attacked for being ‘muslims.’ Latinos of any kind attacked for being ‘Mexican.’ Rejection of othered identities, political vengeance, blind bigotry—there are so many ways people from the out group can be attacked even though they do not hold the attacked identity. Hell, even cis women can experience transmisogyny—especially GNC women—because bigotry does not ever solely rely on your actual identity, it relies primarily in how you are perceived.

I used to have really stunted ideas about transphobia. Only cis-passing trans people were in public discussion. Trans men were transitioning INTO male privilege and trans women were transitioning AWAY from it. So if your gender politics stop at Baby’s First Gender Analysis then sure, that’s the end of the conversation. But it isn’t.

Trans people don’t have gendered privilege across the board over one another. Because they are all trans. They can absolutely wield other intersections over one another. But the “most” we can do is lateral aggression to each other. Even splitting the divide along misogyny is unhelpful for the myriad of ways trans men also experience misogyny. As I’ve said before, either transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia+misogyny in which case it is possibly applicable to all trans folks, or it is specific to trans women’s experience and it is identity-based, in which case transmasculine identity needs a word for the attacks on them. For what it’s worth, trans women also experience anti-masculinity like trans men experience misogyny, and this word, if NOT identity-based, wouldn’t be an exclusive term othering trans women either, so there shouldn’t be offense taken either way.

I think there are a couple key things at play here. One of the first is a surface level understanding of privilege. There is absolutely no question that cis-passing trans men who are treated like men have in that moment male privilege. But it’s not wholly cis privilege. Cis men have male privilege because they were assigned male, that term fits, and they are seen as men. Even that is not always a given, and straying in your performance of maleness can get you backlash. But no matter how well a trans man passes he isn’t cis. If it comes up over his records, if it comes up over genitalia during sex, if it comes up over reproductive healthcare, even the most cis-passing trans man’s identity is still in question. The assumption that a trans man IS cis can even be unsafe in medical emergencies. Many trans men don’t know how to find contraceptive for their bodies or know how to recognize pregnancy or health emergencies due to their variance from cis women. The privilege is limited, it is conditional, and the condition isn’t about correctly viewing them as men, it is in incorrectly viewing them as cis.

Likewise, I know it is such a dirty topic because people’s grasp of privilege means “your life is roses and this identity is what you want” but it’s even possible and in fact likely for a trans women to have experienced male privilege too. Especially for folks who come out later in life, it is likely that despite your wishes, you were viewed and treated as a man. Maybe your opinions were listened to more, maybe an M on your license let you have a bank account when your cis female friends couldn’t, maybe your name was read on a job application and you got picked before someone with a girl name. All of these things are privileges but they are also extremely conditional. Not only does it make an incorrect assumption about you, but it misgenders you. Any closeted trans woman could tell you how painful it is to be forced to remain hidden. For many, the deep fear of losing things you’ve accumulated keeps people closeted longer. These circumstances are not at all your fault—these perceptions are wrong whether they give you some benefit or not. But it is part of the equation, and understanding privilege as the correct or incorrect assumption and special treatment in a specific instance is crucial for understanding how it is relevant to trans men.

Because if you are not cis-passing, you do not have male privilege. If you are not seen in a space as a man, and specifically a cis man, you are not gaining privilege. Out trans men can still achieve levels of privilege, but will not be viewed as cis. They are automatically in some other gender category—and in a society that loves its binaries, they are going to find their ‘other’ gender as shoved into the cis man or cis woman box—both incorrect for various reasons and both causing some level of harm.

One of the other biggest pitfalls of trans discourse is accepting ra/d/fe/m views on masculinity. I’ve written about it before but larger society views femaleness and female femininity as inferior (with the caveat that if you perform it well you may be mildly rewarded for conformity), but it also doesn’t wholly view masculinity as good. In white cishet male masculinity sure! In Black men, their masculinity is a threat. Does that mean Black men are rewarded for femininity? Absolutely not. There’s no winning. Either you fail to be what’s expected, or you are demonized, or the secret third thing where you abandon one piece of identity in favor of the identity that can bring you closer to privilege. There’s no question that Black men can wield misogyny, turning on Black women, and gain favor in white male spaces. But no matter how much they lean into that, it doesn’t make them white. Trans men can lean into misogyny and turn on trans women and cis women and gain a level of privilege, but they will never be cis.

There is often debate about who has privilege over whom when comparing cis women and trans men. The answer is assumed to be trans men on top always, because they are men. The reality is that they only generally hold a higher level of privilege when they are assumed to be cis men. As soon as their trans status is known, cis women can and do weaponize their cis status to oppress trans men. By viewing “male/female” as the ultimate axis of identity power, we completely ignore they way that other factors hold much more weight in a given conversation and how female identity can weaponize victim status for control. This scenario plays out a lot with the concept of “white woman tears” or the ability for (cis, white) women to wield victimhood as a shield from culpability, encouraging those with power to “save” you from a purported threat. This phenomenon has killed and endangered countless Black men. All this debate about whether cis women can hold power over trans men when white women unquestioningly can hold power over cis men of color. The context of privilege is immensely important.

Both trans men and Black men (and others) are not the intended recipients of male privilege.

Intersectionality was coined as an attempt to understand how various identities one holds intersect with each other and create something new that cannot be separated out. We mostly understand it in intersections of oppressed identities, but cis+white+man is a set of intersections too! A gay man would understandably have his gayness weigh “against” him socially. Now, suppose he is masculine—people don’t tend to view him societally as gay. In this instance his masculinity may protect him. But in queer spaces he is then seen as a threat, an invader. Is it still privilege? I think a lot about how in Paris is Burning, one of the interviewees talked about societal points against you, and he said “Black, gay, and a man.” In his experience, his maleness as a modifier to his other experiences was a strike against him! Not in the implication that women didn’t suffer for their own femininity, but understandably, much of his expression of femininity wouldn’t give him the same sort of flak it did if he was a cis woman. Him being a man was part of his experience of oppression, not the canceling out of it.

Masculinity is treated as the opposite of femininity and implied to always be rewarded. Any cis butch will tell you that’s a lie. As will a trans butch. Butchphobia is an oft-neglected topic in gender discussions. The overlap in experience between cis women butches and trans men is often ignored—either by the need for trans men to understandably try to distance themselves from assumptions of femaleness, or by queer community’s constant forgetting of butches’ existence. The overlap in experience between transfemme butches and transmasc butches is ignored entirely for its implication that “opposite genders” could be the same. A transfemme butch is shoved into one of two categories: either basically a trans woman, or a cis man faking it. Suddenly a category of transfemme is turned on by the larger community, including trans women, for straying outside expected conformity. We turn ourselves into gender cops the way OUR genders were policed.

The trouble for many is, the idea that a transfemme and a transmasc could have the same gender shits on the idea of treating these two categories as diametric opposites. There’s boy trans and girl trans. And because societally it’s good to be a boy and bad to be a girl, and we’re pushing back on that, transfemmes are casting off this yuckiness and choosing purity, and transmascs are joining the dark side. It’s childish analysis, and creates this division where anyone who exists in the grey is a faker or a traitor.

And ultimately what does this help? Transfemmes folding themselves into pretzels to prove they are nothing like men is so damaging, and creates the conditions to cast out transfemmes who don’t fit—after fighting to find acceptance after being cast out for not being cis! And transmascs? They were treated like shit for being women and now either are treated like shit in trans spaces for passing, or treated like shit for not passing—what are THEY supposed to do? Who does this help?

Gender essentialism is a brain rot, gender policing is a disgusting practice, exorsexism is going to destroy the grey area trans folks certainly—but it’s gonna come for the rest of you too.

The inability for people, very much including trans folks, to grapple with the complexities of gender and how it intersects with other identities is not based in logic and does not make you the ultimate victim, it makes you a stunted asshole.

The only way we can move forward is by letting people with direct experience speak to their experience, come up with words to explain that experience, and deconstruct our ideas of gender from binarist, cissexist, intersexist and limited understandings.

#ask #anon ask #long post

[joshuadunshua]

[Image ID: a cropped image of an excerpt from “The Will to Change” by bell hooks. Various spots are highlighted in different colors. Beginning from the first full sentence, the paragraph reads, “He was not interested in forgiving him or understanding the circumstances that had shaped and influenced his dad’s life, either in his childhood or in his working life as a military man.” The following paragraph reads, “In the early years of our relationship he was extremely critical of male domination of women and children. Although he did not use the word ‘patriarchy,’ he understood its meaning and he opposed it. His gentle, quiet manner often led folks to ignore him, counting him among the weak and the powerless. By the age of thirty he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres. His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have appalled him in the past.” The last paragraph is cut off, the top which is visible reads, “These changes in his thinking and behavior were triggered by his desire to be accepted and affirmed in a patriarchal workplace and rationalized by his desire to get ahead. His story is not unusual.” End image ID]

Trans mascs that “speak out” against transandrophobia/anti-transmasculinity/transmisandry/antimasculism/whatever word of the month they’ve forced us to coin, I need you to see yourself in this. This is you. This is you leaning into the patriarchal role of “protectors of the poor weak permanently victimized women,” this is you leaning into the patriarchal role of “ignore your pain, ignore your emotional distress, ignore your psychological needs, stuff it deep down inside and suck it up.” This is you enforcing patriarchal (and therefore also white supremacist) attitudes about gender. This is you learning to shift how you operate under the “logic” of a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchal system so that you can get and maintain access to what little scraps of privilege the system will give you for your conformity.

You cannot apply “logic” to oppressions—it is not a math equation you can solve for. It is not internally consistent.

(And when I say logic, I mean formal logic, I mean mathematical logic, I mean specifically Western conceptualizations of logic.)

You can’t simply state that “men don’t face oppression for being men because that then logically means [something untrue about women’s oppression] would be the case and it’s not.” Oppression is inherently illogical. To assume it operates on a truly definable and fully understandable logic is to suggest there’s a “good” reason for its existence. Which if you examine that for just a moment, you find it also then suggests that there is truth behind how oppression works. Or rather, that oppressed people did some thing or are some way that deserves oppression in response.

White supremacy doesn’t operate on any logical basis. Patriarchy doesn’t operate on any logical basis. They weren’t constructed to be logical, they were hardly “constructed” at all. They came about specifically to uphold and maintain powerful people’s access to power. To call the systems “constructed” is almost to give people too much credit.

Perhaps at one point “white supremacy” was a very specific spark in the mind of quite a number of powerful fair skinned Western Europeans, (though many would understandably point out that white supremacy existed well before it was made explicit), but to suggest that white supremacy as it exists now, as a self-perpetuating system that is able to chug away, an engine for capitalism built and sustained on the exploitation and slaveability of Black bodies, was consciously and carefully designed to operate only within specific bounds that we can define and uncover? That’s trying to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.

Trying to equate the operation of white supremacy with patriarchy, or any system of oppression with any other system of oppression (though you really do see this most often with people equating racism with sexism) similarly does not work because they are not organized logically. They are not separable entities, either. It is true that there are common elements to different oppressions (see: Suzanne Pharr, bell hooks, Paulo Freire) and it is true that the different systems are interlocked and work together to hold it all up (see: Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Andrea Smith) and it is true that they impact people at different intersections of oppressive systems uniquely and dynamically (see: Kimberlé Crenshaw, Jennifer Nash, Bonnie Thornton Dill & Ruth Enid Zambrana) and the systems themselves intersect and interact in different ways to produce unique effects which are dynamic across time and space and context (see: Cathy J. Cohen, Patricia Hill Collins, Rita Kaur Dhamoon).

At the end of the day, too, this whole conversation is also excruciatingly Western-centric, and most often Americentric. The white trans mascs (and any other white queers) decrying the concept that men could ever be oppressed for their being men, that men’s experiences of oppression could ever be shaped by their manhood (or their proximity to it), betray their ignorance to men’s experiences outside of their specific version of Western patriarchy. It betrays their understanding of patriarchy, white supremacy, and feminism as having been wholly informed by white radical feminists who appropriate the language of Black feminism while maintaining essentialist perspectives that reify and protect the same patriarchy they want to critique. As though patriarchy is just about men holding power over women and not also about men holding power over other men, not also about women’s complicity in maintaining and perpetuating it, not also about Western nations holding power over the Global South, not also about kinship organization, not about nationalism, not about colonialism, not about international and transnational politics, not about capitalist globalization.

I suppose this turned into something much bigger than it was originally meant to be, but I have fucking had it. I am fed up with white trans mascs from Western countries whose understanding of feminism is stalled at the stage where they’ve learned that white neoliberal feminism is bad because it’s not anticapitalist or intersectional enough but they haven’t actually learned what the fuck that criticism means because they think or behave as though “intersectional” is just another word for “diverse,” which they also maintain a neoliberal understanding of. I am also fucking heartbroken for all the trans mascs who are willing to lean into this patriarchal role where they close off their own emotions and dismiss their own problems and downplay the reality of being a transgender person at their particular intersection all because they’ve been convinced that men’s problems aren’t real problems, that the oppression they experience because they are transmasculine people is nothing to do with their masculinity or association with or proximity to (and subsequent distance from) manhood.

To claim that there is nothing unique about transmasculine experiences of oppression at the intersection of trans identity and gender is to willfully ignore reality in quite the same way that transphobes do when what they protest is “trans ideology.” Trans people will exist whether you personally believe our gender claims or not, right? So to fail to incorporate us into your reality is to have the temper tantrum of a toddler all because the world and its people aren’t as simple and uniform as you wanted them to be. Similarly, transmasculine people will experience oppression at this intersection regardless of what you want to call it, but to demand that we capitulate to language that flattens our experiences along the lines of either being transgender (it’s literally just transphobia) or our proximity to womanhood (it’s literally just misogyny), or even the two together but-not-really (it’s transphobia and misogyny but it’s not because of your proximity to manhood), is to suggest that there is nothing unique about our experiences of transphobia and misogyny as transmasculine people. Is to suggest that unless and until we are perceived as men by society, our experiences with oppression and penalization (and privilege by this logic, but notably not in practice) are indistinguishable from those of cisgender women and there is no value in discussing, dissecting, naming, or otherwise acknowledging anything transmasculine people experience—and then on the flip side, when society does perceive us as men, suddenly our experiences with oppression and penalization (and privilege by this logic, but notably not in practice) are indistinguishable from those of cisgender men, and so there is no value in discussing, dissecting, naming, or otherwise acknowledging anything transmasculine people experience.

We’re either basically cis women or basically cis men, whichever is more convenient and makes it easier to disregard us in the moment.

#transandrophobia #anti transmasculinity #transmisandry #it doesn’t fucking matter what you want to call it they’ll say it’s discourse anyway #contributions to theory #self ID purposes here I am a white transmasc in the US #this post is definitely US centric or Western centric but like that’s largely intentional this time around #Black feminist language is to white queers what MLK’s I have a dream speech is to white US Americans #like idk maybe actually engage with it on its original terms before you start putting it in your own fucking mouth

[aropride]

feel free 2 ignore this if you don’t wanna talk about it anymore but one of the things that drives me insane is that there was criticism about the term “transmisandry” bc “misandry doesn’t exist” which. ok. i can see where that criticism is coming from. so then ppl were like ok we’ll just say transandrophobia instead and somehow that’s STILL “bad”. and it’s like ohhh ok it wasn’t the “misandry” thing you just don’t want transmascs talking about their experiences okayyyy. whatever

NO HONEST TO GOD like it was never about the word ppl just dont like when we talk abt our experiences . And want us to shut up and speak when spoken to or whatever . i feel like the fucking joker man it's ridiculous

#ask #aforlorngazeintoyesterday #discourse #i'm actually going to start pelting people with rocks <- i'm a man so ofc im ontologically violent and evil as you can see

[taohun]

we can stop making up new words for axes of oppression that already exist my loves. trans men are not oppressed for being men they are oppressed for being trans. misandry is literally not real and calling it transmisandry or whatever the hot button word is does not make it realer. there are ways to acknowledge the oppression and pain you experience without just like recreationally saying things that are simply untrue.

[a-polite-melody]

So this whole thing is 100% a circle.

How it’s played out in front of my eyes?

When I first started seeing trans men and mascs speaking up, it was because other people, especially cis women, had gotten very brazen about the shitty ways they talk about those trans men and mascs. And how much it had seemed like it had become “acceptable” to casually misgender trans men and mascs—that often taking the form of the use of “AFAB” and using insults that are coded female or femninine…

So not just misgendering but showing off a whole load internalized misogyny!

“HOW DARE YOU! YOU’RE MEN! YOU CAN’T EXPERIENCE MISOGYNY!!!”

…okay. That’s wrong. But whatever. If people are going to be like this over using an already existing term, we’ll get more specific in talking about transmasc issues and coin a new word. Transmisandry.

“HOW DARE YOU! TRANSMISANDRY IMPLIES JUST MISANDRY IS A THING TOO!!!”

…….no. It doesn’t. But I suppose there have been a lot of bad-faith actors who have tainted the word misandry. We can coin a new word that doesn’t have that baggage attached. Transandrophobia.

“HOW DARE YOU! TRANSANDROPHOBIA IMPLIES JUST ANDROPHOBIA IS A THING TOO!!!”

You can fuck off with that strawman argument. Stop arguing against some “hidden implications” and engage with what we’re actually saying.

“BUT THE PERSON WHO COINED IT WAS PROBLEMATIC!!!”

So are the people who coined most of the words we use. Maybe we should drop spoken and written word just to please your need for purity. Who the coiner is doesn’t matter when it’s found pretty wide usage within the transmasc community, it’s a word that has been exceedingly helpful to allow people more of a voice in expressing what they’ve gone through. Unless you want to suggest some alternative we’re done with switching.

“JUST CALL IT MISOGYNY!!!”

…you can just shut up now.

That it’s literally come the entire full circle, it is so fucking obvious you just want to silence us.

#my post #transandrophobia #fucking just… needed to rant

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

It isn't asking your agab you idiot cis men are literally tme

I didn't really elaborate on why I dislike tma/tme in the original post tags, but I'll do so here because I'm sitting at an airport and have literal hours of nothing to do.

First, a disclaimer: TMA/TME are actually helpful in discussions of transmisogyny. I'll admit that, and I think that they should be used in those types of discussions, however I am against how prevalent they are in other types of conversations that aren't centered on transmisogyny, and how they are used as sort of a litmus test of how oppressed one is.

It's very unclear to me and many others who exactly counts as TMA. Do cis GNC men count as TMA? What about transneutral AMAB people? There isn't really a clear line between "directly targeted by transmisogyny" and "not directly targeted by transmisogyny", just like there isn't a clear line between "man" and "non-man".

The AGAB thing was specifically about transneutral people being expected to identify whether they're TMA or TME. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's literally asking about AGAB, no? I don't care if it's "progressive" or whatever, it's an invasive question and nobody should have to reveal their AGAB unless they so choose.

TMA/TME could very well stand for "transmisandry affected" and "transmisandry exempt", and while us transmascs don't use similar terms, they could be easily mixed up.

As I said earlier, TMA/TME is often used as a litmus test for whether or not someone is really The Most Oppressed™️, and claiming that AFAB trans people have privilege over AMAB trans people is absolutely ludicrous. We too experience an intersection between transphobia and misogyny (that we decided to call transandrophobia), that is different from what transfems experience. However, trying to claim that transfems in general have it worse than transmascs is very oppression olympics-y, and it's a claim that cannot be made without erasure of transmasculine struggles and oppression. We struggle in different ways. No one group of trans people (except maybe enbies & transneutrals) struggles more than all others.

These are basically my thoughts on TMA/TME, if there's something I don't understand or got wrong about how the terms are meant to be used feel free to correct me! Anon, if you really think that your claims are correct and that I am an idiot for disagreeing with you, I dare you to go off anon. If you're that confident, you shouldn't need to hide behind anon in order to say what you think.

#asks #queer politics #tma/tme #opinion #transandrophobia