I’ve begun work on my second essay. This will be a more robust critique if transfeminism. It is in many ways a follow up to my previous essay but will have nothing to do with Ms. Knight. I will say one of the biggest regrets of my first essay is that it focused too much on the discourse of the time and ultimately my actual criticism was lost inside. While I stand by everything I said it became a Tara Knight hit piece is a way I didn’t actually intend for it to be. This essay will not make the same mistake and will not focus on any topical “drama” in transfeminist spaces.
This one will be awhile because it’s taking a lot of research and will likely be considerably longer. I am excited to get it out as soon as possible.
Small teaser for this work. I will be doing away with agab language.
I have been working on an analysis of sex as legal. But under this analysis transfeminine people are not legally male they are infact a legal third sex due to the laws directly targeting them for discrimination. If amab both refers to a people who are legally the most privileged group legally and the least privileged group legally it’s a completely incoherent term, and if amab is useless afab is useless. This completely destroys the afab amab binary from a legal framework. Sex is not binary, it’s not binary in any biological sense nor is it binary in the eyes of the law. I am not however saying that one’s initially assigned sex is entirely unimportant but instead that it’s significant less important than one’s legally enforced sex.
To be clear, I’m working with an analysis of sex-gender which describes the relationship between legal sex and social gender to describe the transfeminine experience through a materialist lens. Legal sex is of course important but it’s just as important as social gender. Don’t mistake my thoughts on legal sex for a purely sex based oppression framework I’m not a radical feminist I’m a Marxist.
