The conundrum of the "gendered soul" theory
A big, and recurring, problem that transfeminist theory experiences is that it keeps letting itself be changed based on what's a more effective argument against TERFs and other transphobes. When TERF arguments started shifting to "no one can be born in the wrong body," transfeminist theory shifted to "this is the right body, but just like some people need glasses, some people need gender affirming care." Whether that was a good decision or not is irrelevant, but it's an example of how trans theory keeps changing in response to transphobes, which means we are letting transphobes dictate trans theory. And that, suffice it to say, is a bad thing. Letting trans theory be centered around appeasing transphobes is a good way to lose the core of what theory is.
And a case where you can see that happening, in a way that is definitely for bad and not for good, is with the "gender as social construct" framework -> "gendered soul" framework pipeline.
So, when trans people started pointing out that gender is a social construct, to counter the TERF "biological sex is immutable" framework, TERFs countered with, "but if you were AMAB, you were socialized male. This is inescapable and proves that even if gender is a social construct, you still have male socialization and are male."
And rather than counter this literally any other way, theorists caved, let TERFs control the narrative, and shifted to "I have a female-gendered soul that was always female and is therefore immune to socialization. It doesn't matter what I experienced in the past because my female-gendered soul was female."
I don't inherently blame transfeminist theorists for this; it was important to shut down TERFs by any means necessary. But as usual, it's created problems, and as usual, most of those have hurt transmascs more than anyone else in the trans community. Because when theory that was solely made to protect transfemmes from TERFs becomes standard in the queer community, it leads, inevitably, to transmascs being erased at best and demonized at worst.
The problem with the "gendered soul" framework is that it is easily misused (In fact, I'd say misuses of the gendered soul theory are the default now) by people with oppositional sexist beliefs. That is, people who believe if women experience A, men must experience opposite-of-A (and opposite-of-A usually is some kind of privilege, if not outright engaging in misogyny). Further, they believe that since trans men are men, acknowledging that transmasculinity is in any way different than cismasculinity is misgendering equivalent to outright calling trans men women. Thus, if women experience A, and men experience opposite-of-A, trans men experience opposite-of-A too, and the mere suggestion that trans men might have once experienced A instead of opposite-of-A is transphobic and transmisogynistic. And not only that, but any trans man saying they have experienced A is a liar who is misgendering himself to seem more innocent or claim to know more about womanhood than actual trans women.
So, because trans women have a female-gendered soul that was always female, was immune to socialization, and had no past experiences that aligned with boyhood or manhood, that means trans men have a male-gendered soul that was always male, was immune to socialization, and had no past experiences that aligned with girlhood or womanhood. Therefore, since trans women have a female-gendered soul that did not ever have male privilege, benefit from misogyny, or learn misogynistic beliefs or behaviors, trans men have a male-gendered soul that did have male privilege, benefitted from misogyny, and learned misogynistic beliefs and behaviors.
And thus, because trans men have a male-gendered soul that always had male privilege, benefitted from misogyny, and learned misogynistic beliefs and behaviors, they can't have ever experienced misogyny, because cis men do not experience misogyny, and trans men are identical to cis men, and saying otherwise is misgendering trans men. If trans men claim to have experienced misogyny, they are denying that they have a male gendered soul, which is self-misgendering, and trying to weaponize the entirely made-up phenomenon of AGAB (and attached gendered socialization, which is a misogynistic theory without merit) to hurt trans women. Because if a trans man had an experience of being victimized by misogyny, that must mean, due to oppositional sexism working on reversal-based inference, that some trans woman out there has an equal and opposite experience of having victimized someone with misogyny. That's equivalent to calling them men who harm Real Women, which is inherently a TERF belief.
The gendered soul framework relies on the absolute truth of the gendered soul, and the absolute immunity of the gendered soul to the body's experiences. A male-gendered soul in a body that experienced trauma from forced birth due to abortion bans has still not been affected by misogyny, because the male-gendered soul is male, and men don't experience misogyny. On the other hand, a female-gendered soul in a body that experienced no such forced birth has certainly been affected by misogyny, because their female-gendered soul is female, and women do experience misogyny, and absolutely know more about it than any man ever could. To deny this is transmisogyny and bioessentialism.
This logic borders on a tautology. Trans men don't experience misogyny because they're men and men don't experience misogyny because they're men, not women, who do experience misogyny because they're women and women experience misogyny. It doesn't matter what experiences a trans man's body has had that would be called misogyny in a cis woman; his male-gendered soul transcends the body. Male-gendered souls do not experience misogyny, even if their body has.
That's why it doesn't matter what experiences you have had, you still won't be able to convince a transandrophobe that transmasculine people can and do experience misogyny. You have a male-gendered soul, and that will always override your body's experience with misogyny. It is at best entirely irrelevant, and at worst it is more like stolen valor. Claiming to have experienced misogyny as a trans man is not only a lie and a claim to victimization that could not have happened, it is also a de facto accusation that trans women perpetrated misogyny.
In responding to an entirely illogical and inflexible TERF ideology, theorists have created an even worse, more illogical and inflexible, ideology that treats lived experience as false and a transmisogynistic attack.
Again, I understand the good intentions the theory was created with, and if it had stayed at that, I'd agree with it. Trans women, even when closeted or as eggs, didn't experience male privilege, because invisibility isn't a privilege, and that's what being closeted is. Trans women never benefitted from misogyny, because it is both misogyny and transphobia that made it so hard for them to realize their true selves and come out. The problem is that this theory was then weaponized against trans men to erase their lived experiences and write them out of the definition of an axis of oppression they very much have experienced. And they're supposed to be grateful to this theory for "affirming your gender/gendering you correctly" and "stopping you from playing the victim and weaponizing your AGAB, thus saving you from becoming a transmisogynist."
The "gendered soul" theory needs to die, but unfortunately, it's too appealing for transandrophobes- it both lets them define transmascs out of experiencing oppression from misogyny, AND is a tool they can rebut TERFs with. So they have zero interest in doing so. Still, I wish they'd give it up already and move on to a theory that isn't rooted in oppositional sexism.
