For the record, OP’s wrong about what the essay’s about. I think it’s an honest mistake, though, so I’m gonna do my best to explain that to anyone that sees this.
First, here’s the link to a video featuring the essay in question; it comprises the first 20 minutes or so of the panel, and while there are subtitles they appear to be auto-generated and have a few errors so keep that in mind. I’d highly recommend watching it for yourself, keeping an open mind while you do, then coming back to this post.
The topic is rather complicated to fully unpack on a tumblr post (this lecture itself is just an excerpt of one chapter of a full book about transfemininity in capitalist society), but the gist of it is that the author is arguing that economic status is more informative on privilege in queer American history than any other factor: the “transfeminine career” title is purposely provocative, but the idea behind it is that the feasibility of gender transition in the 20th century was often weighted by how much it would affect a trans woman’s career prospects, in a similar way that one would consider leaving your current hated job for one that you’d actually enjoy doing. White trans women in the 1980s would often avoid publicly transitioning gender until they’d completed college or secured steady employment, under the hopes that this would provide them financial security that she wouldn’t be afforded if she was openly trans; meanwhile, trans women of color that were already struggling economically would often transition anyway, figuring that they had no career prospects to lose.
Amin goes on to argue that these economic factors would also go on to impact other facets of trans identity: contrary to popular belief, a heterosexual trans woman would often have had a much harder time finding sexual/romantic partners than a trans lesbian, and he also notes that discussions over “passing privilege” often downplay how many trans women that “pass” are ones that started medically transitioning when they were younger, which when combined with the historical data above, meant that many of them were women of color. Ultimately, Amin’s argument is that “privilege” is a multifaceted construct, and that the root of it all lies squarely in the economic environments surrounding queer culture — not race, nor gender, nor sexual preference, but the monetary and social pressures that enforce all of the above.
Now, do I agree with everything Amin says? Not necessarily, but I have to admit that he definitely knows more about the subject than I do. A cursory look into his bibliography suggests that this is very much his field of expertise, having written numerous papers and at least two books on the subject, which is more than I have. Furthermore, OP’s claims about the author don’t really apply to the essay given, at least if you take the claims at face value. At no point does Amin claim that “trans lesbians aren't real women and are all actually just fetishistic white transvestite men”; at most, Amin claims that white trans lesbians had a slightly-easier time finding sexual and romantic partners than heterosexual trans women, because a trans lesbian dating a cis lesbian could pass for a heterosexual couple easier than a trans woman dating a cisgender man. (I actually personally know a few folks who have utilized these dynamics to their advantage in the past.) Referring to some trans women as “street queens” is something that Amin says though — in the context of discussing trans women and prostitution in the 1980s, where the terminology applies.
Granted, I imagine I’m probably misinterpreting some of what Amin is saying, but I also feel like the same could be true for OP, especially with the additional context about the speaker. Is this another example of a transmasc person attempting to sow discontent within the trans community? Or is this an essay by a transmasc person about how the divisions within the trans community are more ephemeral than we often realize, which has been misinterpreted as an attack by someone who feels understandably vulnerable?
To be clear, I think OP’s wrong to say that this essay’s an example of internalized transmisogyny in the queer community. I also think that it’s okay for OP to be wrong about that. It’s okay to make mistakes, and to get angry at perceived injustices — hell, the reason I’m writing this long-ass comment is because I read OP’s post, initially believed it at face value, and then found myself wondering “hey, is that actually true?”. I researched it, I found the claim to be lacking, and I wrote a response because I thought the original essay is genuinely worth a listen. I’m now writing this addendum because I don’t want folks to read my comment and think “oh ho ho! OP wanted us to hate this transmasc essayist for dividing the trans community, but it was really OP who was secretly evil and trying to divide us!”, because that’s not what happened here. OP was angry, and shared that anger with us in an effort to heal the pain — it’s the same thing that all of us do every day on this website, and it’s not a crime to do that even if the anger was misplaced.
The important thing is learning to grow past our initial anger, and for folks to remember to do the research before sharing inflammatory posts. Remember, if you have a strong initial reaction to seeing a headline, always take a moment to consider why it was written like that, and then confirm if it’s legitimate. I’m confident I’m gonna bungle that for myself a lot in the future, but I’m learning to do better and to check before I share. Will you do the same?
