The narrative that the use of TMA/TME was the start of some trend of dividing non-binary people into two boxes has been a masterful stroke of revisionism. it not only sneakily implies a halcyon past before the dreaded division, where non-binary people we all equal and indivisible, but also shifts the goal post on what this terminology is meant to achieve in the first place.
non-binary communities have always been categorized and divided along AGAB lines, long before even *that*(agab) was a commonly used term and often *by* non-binary people themselves. With non-binary identities and querrness in general becoming more accepted and talked about, there have been many schools of thought about this. (I am not dismissing these, but I'm not here to discuss them because it is not relevant to the point I'm making) Generally speaking, it has become less acceptable to talk about agab plainly and blatantly in regards to non-binary identities. this does not mean that all non-binary people get treated the same way or have the same experiences regardless of agab. there is in fact, a stark discrepancy in gendered traits and signifiers that are considered as part of, or emblematic of non-binary presentation. this is most obvious with non-binary representation in media, where the majority of non-binary characters fit one of two very specific molds.
one is that of a feminine baseline that achieves an aesthetic of androgyny by adding a select few masculine signifiers. most of the time, these characters will be played/voiced by transmasculine non-binary people. they are more likely to have a backstory or plot relevance and generally avoid homophobic/transphobic tropes. this accounts for the vast majority of non-binary representation.
the other is that of a masculine baseline with feminine signifiers and is (both in and out of fiction) generally considered less androgynous. these characters are most likely to be played/voiced my cis men, then cis women, sometimes transmasculine people and very rarely by transfeminine people. they are also much more likely to be side/joke characters and lean into homophobic and transmisogynistic tropes and stereotypes.
exceptions do exist, but they are rare.
so ask yourself, why is the default non-binary body a femenine one? why is the default non-binary character modeled after a transmasculine experience?
the awnser is transmisogyny. the transmisogynist dos not care wether the subject identifies with womanhood or not. they don't look for trans women, they look for "men in dresses". no transfeminine non-binary person has ever been able to avoid transmisogyny by leveraging their non-binary identity. this assumption ignores the ways transmisogyny actually functions. and all people, including those who make media, are implicitly aware of this, so they avoid casting/designing characters that look like "mem in dresses", except as a deliberate joke or mockery. intentionaluty is not required when transmisogyny is the default.
this is precisely why we have language to describe this dynamic. it didn't transform non-binary(all encompassing) into non-binary(TME) and non-binary(TMA) because that initial state never existed.
there was "non-binary" and "non-binary(tranny)" unless otherwise stated, TME is assumed as the default for non-binary people, same as cis women are assumed to be the default for women(no qualifier) and cis men for men(no qualifiers)
TMA/TME is simply terminology coined to describe a phenomenon that was already reality.
and this isn't all just theory or conjecture, I see this when I go out and spend time in queer spaces.
now, I am not non-binary. I am very firmly a binary trans woman, so I won't claim to have anywhere close to a complete understanding of that experience. I can only speak of my own experience as an egg transfem who thought she was agender, used that label and moved within non-binary friend groups and communities for 2 years.
in my experience and that of transfem NBs i've known over the years, transfeminine NBs are misgendered more often, not taken as seriously with their grievances, given less goodwill for real or percieved bad behaivior, and ultimately viewed more as guests by the non-binary communities they inhabit than actual members. they are included in events and meetups much less frequently, and often avoided when they do participate.
it's not uncommon to go to a meetup and not see a single transfem there. when you point this out or even just inquire about it, people get defensive and uncomfortable really quickly. platitudes like "we're all NB, why do you need transfem NBs specifically to be represented?" or "I don't really think about people's agab, I just go based on vibes" are common. it doesn't strike anyone as odd that the vibes always seem to be "off" with the NBs who look a bit too masculine, who's voice is a bit too deep, those with receding hairlines or hairy arms. those who look just a bit too much like they're "men in dresses".
I am glad that I eventually found my place within womanhood, not because there is anything wrong with being non-binary, but because I cannot imagine myself surviving in that kind of space, my otherness always evident, always affecting how I am seen-how I am treated, but never permitted to be spoken aloud, lest I upset the "real" non-binary people around me.
because they will not suffer a man in a dress. especially one who's too loud.
so when I hear cries about "putting non binary people into boxes" I can't help but think of the boxes that have always been there, just unlabeled.
