tidings and mewsings of a cat-tboy (a catty boy, if you will) • Vulvar Hypospadias advocate • Exploring intersections of disability justice, intersex, and trans identities, some mewlings of being a system • neutroix hermafagdyke • one/none e/ey hy/hym kit/fae
Call me Whiskers or whatever idrc. This blog focuses on raising awareness, sharing personal experiences, and connecting with others in the intersex and ATM theory community. I love doing in depth research into topics, esp writing intersex educational essays. I am always learning. I tend to be very verbose as I'm hyperlexic, but I'm also dyslexic and dyscalculic so it's a struggle. While I am 21+, my account is not—occasional sex ed + kink discussion posts are tagged, and the latter are limited to interaction from bodily adults.
If you like what I do, or appreciate if I've helped you, you can always tip (link) me
I have read over 50 studies regarding anteriorly deflected urinary streams and vulvar/vestibulovaginal hypospadias. If you or someone you know has any questions, lmk (:
Most everything goes onto queue, tho sometimes some things skip the wait. As I have several communication disorders, it will usually take me several business days (weeks) to respond to posts because I can only manage my phone in short bursts, work full time, and am bedbound when I get home.
I use oneself, none, e/ey, hy/hym and kit/fae pronouns
Schrodigender's catoffboy. Call me a catboy or don't call me a boy at all. [PT: Call me a catboy or don't call me a boy at all, in bold /end PT]. I use it as an omninoun (link). I may occasionally use masc language for myself but I do not identify as a man. [PT: I do not identify as a man, in bold /end PT]. I'm not a man or a woman. Not your bro, not your sis. I am a SW and have done FSSW
I prefer not to be gendered or sexed by others at all, but I permit it sporadically from mutuals. I do not perform gender on the daily. Linaricgender and IntersexErrgender. Antanaver, obscurique, maintric, aliusmasc and ahuman. Neutroix tfemneumasc. TNC and ANC hermaphrodyke, hard femme, transfem guything. (s)t4t sapphillean tranny until I die. Transmisogynized
DNI/beware of cat:
[PT: DNI/beware of cat in larger bold text. /End PT]
I write essays for fun.
Death, violent, rape threats / jokes, and suibait will not be tolerated. Neither will any form of bigotry—this means racism, ableism, sanism, classism, fatphobia, and queerphobia (including homophobia, inter+exorsexism, + forms of transphobia [transmisogyny, anti-transmasculinity, transmed / exclusionist beliefs, and transX/transID claims like “transitioning to intersex / Black / harmful / etc”]). I'm critical of TransID rhetoric and support alternative terminology. Individuals who use the belligerent language of bigots—"misandrodork," "theyfab," or "transandrobro"—will be blocked on sight. This is not a space welcoming to rad/LSD/basedqueer ideals or forms of fe/male separatism or superiority—namely MGTOW, masculinists, radfem, febfem, and perisex self-identified bæddels. Following or heavily reblogging from Plaidos (a known transphobe) or Strawberry-Crocodile (a known intersexist) forfeits the presumption of good faith due to the consistent lack of it on their accounts. Support for the Israeli government and its actions conflicts with the Land Back principles and other anti colonial values held in this space
Well what about [XYZ]?
[PT: Well what about [XYZ]? In larger, bold font. /End PT]
Individuals with BIID where their dysphoria is centered around the physical body rather than "not being disabled" are perfectly fine and welcomed here. I do not mind those with alters who understand that their body does not hold the responsibilities of enduring oppressions their marginalized alter would face (and thus will not be fully capable of understanding oppression regarding that minority), who do not describe their discomfort as being "transrace", and uplift voices of the minorities rather than speaking over ("I have a black/trans/IS/disabled alter so I get to decide what's bigoted" 👎)
More about me:
[PT: More about me in a larger, bold font. /End pt]
I was UAAB and grew up as a trans girl, but now I'm growing into something else. I'm CTN and sociopolitically TMA, but don't use it as binaries (especially ones based on birth assignment "privilege") do not reflect my intersex experience, nor is oppression based solely on internal identity, but rather influenced by your material conditions and how you are perceived. I was raised a feminist and became a transfeminist before I ever came out. I believe in Transformative Justice and Community Accountability. Antigonist
I've been transitioning for over a decade as someone who is ambigonadal with a partial androgen resistance. I was part of the transgender craze seducing your daughters before Abigail Shrier even started taking notes. I've been called a bæddel since before Tumblr discovered it. I have survived and prevailed through a forced detransition. I've had more than a handful of people consider me a queer elder. I will remove you as a follower if I catch you being an ass in my notifs to someone I've responded to
I'm autistic, part of a small medically adaptive, disassociative, biconscious atrium collective, and am disabled on many levels. I use mobility aids daily and struggle to get anywhere without them due to my numerous musculoskeletal and soft tissue deformities, along with FND. I also have some disfigurements but don't consider myself Disfigured. I also have exfoliative keratolysis. Radinclu
I cannot tell you if you are intersex or not. I don't mind spam likes/reblogs, but be aware that coming back onto here to a bunch of notifs may startle me. I'm really weird abt compliments and tend to get overwhelmed. If we're mutuals and you unfollow, please soft block (blocking then immediately unblocking) me
Some posts:
Examining Sax's .018% claim (link)
No One Can Produce Both Sperm and Eggs? Think Again. (link)
Unpacking the Ethics of “Tboy Strap” (link)
Vulvar Hypospadias (link)
Problems with CAGAB’s Epistemology (link)
Corrective Gender-Based Violence and Coercively Controlled Gender (link)
Some Tags:
#purrspectives for posts I've written or heavily added to. May occasionally contain others' posts if I completely agree w them and have no better way to convey
#transparency for criticism and #testimonials for praise
Tdick and girlcock are usually positioned as the trans mirror terms but it would actually be boypussy and girlcock. Unfortunately pericis gay men have popularized it instead and the only other similar term is a slur and not the same, as the gender is placed after and not before
I don't want harassment. But I need to speak out. I am a trans woman.
Before we learn about trans feminism, we need to learn about feminism. Does it include us? Not often. Is it all trash? No.
We need to learn about the history of sexism and the struggles people with uteruses have to be seen as more than property. We need to be able to empathize and realize that we are co prisoners, not enemies.
I think this hatred of trans men and denial of their pain is rooted in a lack of understanding of feminism. We spend so much of our energy suffering, and trying to find help and community (which is good), that we stop being able to understand other people's problems (which is bad).
It's also rooted in the top down system. The biggest feminists tend to be the most privileged, so they see ultimate privilege man as the default. You can add black or trans or disabled to him and he becomes more oppressed.
Kimberle Crenshaw thinks of things the opposite way. In her 1989 intersectionality essay, she describes a room where everyone is trying to get out by the ceiling. She says that white feminism wants to put a ladder down from the ceiling to the bottom. Only the people near the ceiling (more privileged people) benefit. They might not keep building the ladder. They might fight over it. What she is doing is building a staircase from the bottom to the top. Everyone gets out. (Her essay is much better than my bad memory attempt to explain it. Go read it.)
Cis and man and rich and able and white and etc. can't be the default. They are already the way we see the world. We need to look from the bottom up. If we help the most vulnerable people, we help everyone.
Example. We make law that says no discrimination against women. That doesn't help Black people.
Versus we make law that says no discrimination against any marginalized person. That helps everyone.
The people who hate trans men see it as them stepping up on the ladder, and trans women stepping down. This doesn't reflect what happens. And it isn't helpful to fight over who has it worse because we're just fighting over the ladder.
We need to build the staircase. We need to build the stairs according to what everyone needs. Laws against trans discrimination. Laws against racism. Laws against body discrimination. Laws for bodily autonomy. Laws decriminalizing sex work. Converting hotels into shelters so homeless people can stay safe and not have everything stolen from and have showers. Universal basic income and healthcare so people are never hostages. Etc.
And as the trans community, it's our responsibility to make sure we take nonbinary and intersex people with us. We can't lose them in the shuffle. Let our rainbow raise us out of the room and into the sky.
I find it fascinating that it is often the same people who claim trans mascs want to steal the labor of trans women who will then complain about the difference in logged information on the transmisogyny vs transandrophobia wikis and that there aren't clothing drives for transfems. As if these things aren't generally based on intracommunity labor
Truly I think that because we're such a "Small population" and "Most people claiming to be intersex are 'just' 'cis women with pcos' anyways" perisex trans people simply do not feel obligated to include intersex people in their activism or models at all. They do not feel the need to listen to us or account for our experiences, they do not care of we have different relationships to cagab and sig than they do, they barely even care about our oppression as intersex people (many fundamentally believe we're just 'lesser' targets of transphobia who can 'escape the real brunt of it' by revealing ourselves to be 'cis people with a disorder' as if we don't face systemic violence, legal and medical abuse, often social or even medical transphobia or transmisogyny regardless of if we identify as trans, etc) except when it can be used as a talking point. And I personally think we should be louder. As an intersex trans person, I exist. We exist. We cannot let the perisex people in our community ignore and talk over us. We cannot defer to them or let them define our experiences for us.
If you bring up the possibility of being intersex (whether you could be or are) when someone points out your intersexism, know you just proved them right
1.) racialized is not used as an identity the way tma/tme are, white devil. don’t try to tell me about racism, white devil
2.) this post says white transfems, white devil. thank you for proving my point, white devil
3.) not trying to get it taken down, white devil. arguably, white devil, i’m doing them a favor by getting violent messages deleted. white bastard devil
'you forget trans women of color exist' says the same yt hoes who only mention trans women of color as rhetorical devices and thought exercises to emphasize themselves and otherwise block any [trans] people of color that don't cosign their fuckery/they can't send racist anons and shit to cause they know it'll be instantly deleted/roll off the backs of people they send it to like water on a duck. notice how you don't see nearly as much smoke and yapping about the straight cishet yt men in power passing as much legislature as possible to make living as lgbt illegal on their blogs? it's so cheap. it's an empty cope.
they can cry it’s about ‘biological sex’ all they want but that absolutely falls apart when your actual law says it’s literally about cis people feeling “discomfort or distress” at the thought of sharing a space with a trans person even if that trans person shares the same ‘biological sex’ as they do
the uk government continues to value cis comfort over trans lives and im so fucking sick of it
The shit that bugs me the most about people ragging in trans men and being transandrophobes is that when estrogenizing HRT or transfemmes getting banned from sports happening there's always a subset of those weirdos on here who point the blame on trans men.
They're men obviously! So they are at fault.
You can tell them over and over that trans men have been banned from sports the moment they medically transition. You can tell them that there's no point in banning it alongside estrogen because it already is. They won't listen.
Why?
Because then they would have to acknowledge that trans men have been under these bans the whole time
Today in australia they started senate hearings on the bill the government hopes will make enough disabled people die or disappear to make us all less irritatingly expensive for them. We had two weeks to submit feedback on over 400 pages of complicated legal terms. They don't care what we have to say and they don’t care that this will kill people and disenfranchise disabled people across the country.
There are 760,000 Australians on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the system that - if they feel like it and your personalised plan says you get to have it - provides funding for everything from personal hygiene care to support workers to therapies to assistive technology. It's already very hard for disabled people to get on the NDIS, regardless of your disability. It's near impossible to access most support and equipment without being on the NDIS. And the government has announced that they want that number to drop to 600,000 in four years. 160,000 of us cut off the Scheme - and countless more denied access. This will cause deaths. People will die and people will suffer because there is no safety net. The NDIS is the only option for most of us. Even private health insurance doesn't cover most of these things. Nobody will swoop in to save us.
The bill wants to give the (non disabled!) NDIS minister basically unlimited power to cut our funding. They're already planning what they'd do with that power. What rights they'll strip from us. What dignity and freedom they'll remove to make their budget look better.
The bill wants to force people to try every treatment out there before they're allowed to be on the NDIS. Including if the treatment is literally impossible to access. There’s a lot of us living in regional areas or out bush who can't just pop to the capital cities for specialists. This will especially hurt disabled First Nations people in regional and remote communities, who already experience limited access to healthcare.
If you're australian and worried, the ABC did a good breakdown of the proposed changes.
I know australia stuff doesn't really pop up on the radar on this site, but I want everyone to know what's going on. What we're fighting for here. Your australian disabled friends might be NDIS participants fearing for their life, rights, and freedom. They might not be a participant and afraid these changes mean they never will have access. We deserve better. The government built a system with no backup plan, and now they want hundreds of thousands of disabled people to pay the price for their bad planning.
Sorry we're too expensive to have rights, I guess.
Perisex trans person, before you ask this intersex person on HRT what their t levels are when they complain about a lack of change, tell me, do you know what SHBG or albumin are or do?
No? Then consider that whatever you have to say isn't going to be helpful.
The answer is, of course, yes. This has been the settled feminist position since at least the 90s, something I was aware of as part of the minimum acceptable bar for feminism as a 13 year old.
It's not even a complicated idea - the patriarchy demands certain things from men as part of the structure that sustains itself. Men have social expectations of manliness and violating those norms can result in severe social consequences. This is part of the definition of toxic masculinity.
(It's also one of the reasons trans women are hated in the particular way we are - much of society sees us as an extreme case of "failed men".)
There is a reason we say feminism is for everyone, including men. Because men are oppressed as well by the patriarchy and would
The only reason we even slightly entertain this question on this website is because it's become a transphobic dog whistle to justify transphobia against trans men and trans mascs, in particular in the form of denying the existence of transphobia specific to trans men and trans mascs, aka transandrophobia. "I'm not transphobic, I just don't think men are oppressed." is incredibly transparent, but still has been repeated often enough with minimal push back that others are just accepting it as true.
Which of course ironically proves that transandrophobia is real. What else can we call it except targeted, and therefore specific, when people gleefully abandon well established feminist principles in order to further an agenda of discrimination against a specific minority?
By the way can you provide a source for “This has been the settled feminist position since at least the 90s”? I’m not disagreeing I just think citing reliable sources is important
In the same way I can't provide a good source for 2+2=4 this is such incredibly basic stuff I learned when I was like 10 and it is so fundamental to so much of feminist theory. I'm gonna be real, I don't tend to read books or papers on cis straight men's issues. I'm more concerned with queer feminist theory. It's vaguely referenced often but no one ever cites something because its obvious. No one rehashes the basics without a reason.
It's honestly really annoying because a surface level skimming will lead you to believe that there is significant disagreement about this, but when you actually get down and read the sources all the disagreement is about the nuance of stuff like if the term "toxic masculinity" causes problems as it implies a toxic/healthy binary. No one but rad fems are seriously entertaining the idea that the restrictive gender roles men are expected to fit into are a good thing for men.
There are studies on how restrictive gender roles hurt men, stuff like how it impacts mental health and promotes violence among men, and various therapy institutions talk about it in their "feminism is for everyone!" section. I guess that's a place to start? People are gonna have to do the leg work on this one themselves though, I don't have a meta analysis of cis het men's issues on hand.
the reason you don’t have a source to offer is because you’re making this up to give a bad argument a veneer of credibility.
if this was a well established feminist principle (crossing all of the many ideological lines within feminism except Wycked Radical Feminism), it would be easy, not hard, to provide evidence of it within feminist literature. the invocation of toxic masculinity is telling here, as that’s not a concept that developed out of feminist literature but from male self-help identity politics (which were trying to re-naturalize the concept of manhood), and only really surges into a specifically feminist discourse in the mid-2010s. and the skepticism of the concept by some feminist authors is in open contest with your initial claim, namely that "men are oppressed for being men" (by who?).
there *has* been a lot of ink spilled in feminist literature over the past several centuries about how the categories and sociopolitical expectations of manhood and masculinity constrict men's individual and social development in harmful ways. that is basically unobjectionable. what *is* objectionable is that this means "men are oppressed for being men" (note the "for") and the sly, unjustified corollary that “No one but rad fems are seriously entertaining the idea that the restrictive gender roles men are expected to fit into are a good thing for men.”
it is entirely possible that men might simultaneously be harmed or constrained in their free and full social development by a sexist society, but still remain invested in upholding it as sexist. and the reason they are invested in upholding patriarchal social relations is not just psychosocial pressure and the threat of punishment for deviance - though that isn't insignificant - but because they benefit, both materially and in some ways psychologically, from a sexist social order. which is to say, many men act in such a way that suggests the trade-offs of being constricted are worth it, and *do* think that constrictive gender roles are a good thing for them.
in a certain sense, they are correct about that. because in a sexist society, men benefit (both actively and passively) from being taken more epistemologically seriously, they benefit from inequitable divisions of domestic labor and positions of authority in the workforce, they benefit politically and legally, they benefit financially, they benefit from sexual exploitation and entitlement. as de Beauvoir observes in The Second Sex, men also "profit in many other more subtle ways from woman’s alterity" in that "one of the benefits that oppression secures for the oppressor is that the humblest among them feels superior"; compare Du Bois's concept of "the psychological wage of whiteness." men, broadly, benefit from the oppression of women, broadly. full stop. patriarchy is not an informational problem (we need to raise men's consciousness), but a political problem (we need to disassemble the set of social relations that empowers men at the expense of women).
an analogy: there are numerous ways - up to and including murder, as we've recently been observing in the US - that white supremacy as a political system is enforced upon white people (see the Fields sisters' writings about racecraft) by a white-dominated society, and treason to whiteness is punished. these are all self-evidently harmful. but it would not follow from there, or at least not in any clear uncomplicated "basic anti-racist" way, that "white people are oppressed for being white."
what I think needs to be rejected strongly is this tendency to describe patriarchy as though it is a conscious agent that benefits nobody and yet for some reason continues in perpetuity. patriarchy is just the collection of everyday practical activity and gendered social relations between men and women and others, that produces the domination of women (and others) by men. there are conversations to be had about social reproduction and voluntary servitude and axes of oppression (de Beauvoir and Firestone both note how women and children, oppressed under patriarchy, still participate in its reproduction), and how those phenomena disturb a more mechanistic feminist account (one of the problems with radical feminist theory is its frequent identification of sexgender-conflict as the origin and model of all others).
but this is not that; this is an attempt at absolving sexist social behavior. when working class women critique the chauvinistic attitude of their male peers, they are not engaged in "economisandry"; when black cis feminists critique misogyny or entitlement from men within their communities or liberation movements, they are not doing "misandronoir". so when trans women criticize the ways in which they are subjected to sexist behavior by the men they (ostensibly) share values, social spaces, and community with - in other words, they take trans men seriously as men, as a type of political subject - it is not bigotry. I don't deny the existence of the unique set of experiences and oppressions that trans men deal with qua trans men, and the ways that transphobia manifests in ways distinct to them. but that doesn't make "transandrophobia" or the community surrounding it a conceptually coherent politics, it's just another expression of the anti-feminist male grievance politics that pops up in basically every minority group.
i can source ops claim from a CONTEMPORARY piece of feminist literature
"Feminism Is For Everybody"(2015)
-bell hooks
its true that men are not oppressed for being men this is agreed upon in feminist circles but men are oppressed for deviating from patriarchal masculinity or you could argue as well they are oppressed as a result of the rigidness of patriarchal masculinity essentially men are oppressed for failing as men or as an effect of being men
the patriarchy absolutely benefits (primarily by not exclusively rich white cishet men) broadly but when men live and exist outside of patriarchal norms (which are inextricably white supremacist in nature) they are punished for it black men are simultaneously treated as more masculine while being denied manhood as an aspect of how they are oppressed by nature of being black men men who have failed the white supremacist patriarchal nature of masculinity
patriarchal norms are inextricably heteronormative gay men are treated as effeminate and a lot of homophobia is in turn deeply misogynistic and sexist because they are men who failed the heteronormative patriarchal standards of masculinity
as well the ways in which men are constrained by patriarchal masculinity prevents them from deviating as an effect of patriarchal masculinity men often lose custody battles because men are not supposed to be passionate and loving caregivers men are rarely believed when reporting abuse because men are not supposed to be victims men often have constrained and repressed emotional behavior because men are not supposed to be naturally emotional
and the fact that men are benefited by the patriarchy and indeed uphold perpetuate and enforce the patriarchy does not mean they are incapable of being oppressed by it just as (particularly white) women can and do often benefit from the (cisnormative heteronormative white supremacist) patriarchy especially when they perpetuate those patriarchal beliefs against others ie white women using assumed female fragility the patriarchy imposes on women in order to harm men of color (especially black men) as they are consistently believed over men of color when they claim men of color ave wronged them in nearly any way black men have repeatedly for many many many years been lynched based on the accusations of women not just because they were black but because they were black men and their accuser was a white woman
and despite the fact that women can benefit from the patriarchy and can perpetuate it they are still oppressed by it similarly men are not incapable of experiencing the very same dynamic
similarly white people face negative effects as a result of white supremacy but one wouldnt say they are oppressed for being white especially as despite white being a real social class with real privileges and benefits it is a social construct and is thus both flexible in definition and ultimately not an aspect of nature or even genealogy "white people" exist as much "black people" do this is not to say that they arent real social groups this isnt to say the black people arent oppressed on the nature of their blackness but rather to point out that they are not (despite how they are portrayed) rigid groups whose creation is supported by science
"white people" can and does describe and include very many ethnicities including at times!!! black people who are white passing
and in that regard white people are similarly oppressed by failing to be white enough and as an effect of whiteness someone who is considered white in one context can very easily have that be stripped away at a moments notice in another you can "pass" as white in some contexts but to those who know you arent you will often not be treated as white or even in some contexts you will be treated as white maliciously by people within your own community for your relation to whiteness as well white people are heavily sheltered from the world they are pressured into fear of the other and often stripped of their own cultural identity because they are expected to exist within the homogenized expectations of "white culture"
societally and systemically neither men nor white people face oppression targeted at them BECAUSE they are white and or men but because they are white and or men by nature of the societal and systemic forms of oppression that exist they are stripped of certain rights and it is imposed upon them the very same sexist and racist standards that women suffer under
and ultimately when we discuss things this way it is difficult not to feel as if we are splitting hairs whether or not men are oppressed for being men or because (as an effect of) they are men they are being men and they are oppressed as a result of it
and it does feel disingenuous to imply that the former interpretation is what op meant over the latter just as its disingenuous i feel to suggest that all transandrophobia discusses is simply aggrieved masculinity even you recognize that tansphobia manifests in unique ways for trans men and yet you would choose to hand wave it away as essentially mra behavior
as well it feels disingenuous to suggest that op was referring to toxic masculinity in its origins rather than perhaps referring to the large swathes of feminist literature surrounding examining this concept as well as concepts related to it like aggrieved masculinity which are theories that often and frequently in fact address the fact that while much of these concepts are rooted in men wishing the patriarchy benefited them more in ways that would further subjugate others there is a very real aspect to which aggrieved masculinity does in some small part come from the fact that despite being the workhorses of the patriarchy they are still harmed by it and toxic masculinity is not just harmful in the ways it harms others but also in the ways it harms men
ironically the link to the article you posted about feminists rejecting toxic masculinity as a term is doing the very thing op said instead arguing about the implied dynamic of toxic/healthy masculinity
toxic masculinity as a term in concept in ways absolutely does act as a way to shift accountability away from men who are the very vehicles of this behavior at times and the idea of healthy masculinity juxtaposed with it implies that masculinity is a mans default but none of this actually effectively argues that men are not harmed by patriarchal masculinity simply that it is a poor framework within which to discuss this issue and that in framing it as a mens issue instead of as an effect of the patriarchy it pulls resources from discussing feminist issues as a whole united front
an argument that very EXPRESSLY states the belief that feminism is something with which mens studies should be engaged and actively involved in as the same issue and not separate
finally op cannot source the original claim cannot pinpoint it exactly when it was first discussed but i can very much give A source
this from the book called (unsurprisingly)
as a post note i want to point out the irony in you pickin from de beauvoir and du bois as examples for your argument that feminism doesnt support ops claims despite them being rather old works despite op explicitly stating in the first sentence that it has been accepted part of feminist theory since the 90s and even bell hooks addresses that it is something that took time for feminists to accept
(a passage that directly precedes the previous screenshot fro her book btw)
I wanted to add that there are sources of this being talked about since the 90s, it was just talked about by: you guessed it, black feminists, and argued against by white feminists. So since feminism isn't actually a unified movement, it depends on what you mean by "feminists have accepted this", because hate to break it to you, but white feminists have taken a LONG ass time to even see the struggles of black women.
The main idea is that white women can survive in a segregated movement from white men without actually challenging the system of patriarchy itself; whereas for women of color, particularly black women, this forces them to choose between racial solidarity and their rights as women. It almost feels like a threat coming from white women, like "pick a side or you're of no use to me" and the "side" is devaluing the struggles of the men in their community (which, most black women don't actually do.) The focus was always on black women's struggles and the struggle between the misogynistic men in their community (as it rightfully should be), but this also came with an understanding that black men face their own forms of violence against them as black men.
[From The Routledge Global History of Feminism]
It's as op said, it's less about it having been said outright in plain english and more that if you know anything about the actual application of intersectionality and the lives of marginalized men, you'll see that it's pretty obvious marginalized men face different gendered violence in order to weaponize whatever possible to keep them marginalized. Because honestly, "men are oppressed for being men" is a stupid way to word it, "marginalized men face gendered violence (and malgendering)" is something many people can agree on.
[From Black Misandry and the Killing of Black Boys and Men]
We have to remember that until relatively recently (past the 90s), data statistics for the mass killing and mass incarceration of black men were not well known outside of the black community, where of course black women were (and are) seeing this first hand. This study focuses on the societal stereotypical image of black men that propagandizes and justifies violence against them. We see this in other marginalized groups with stereotypes against marginalized men, e.g the propaganda image of "terrorist" muslim men justifying dehumanizing and attacking any man who can be perceived as arab, the aids epidemic's target towards gay men and anti-sodomy laws that assume that gay men are sexually voracious predators who deserve to die, the "transgender craze seducing our daughters" and "poisoning their bodies with steroids" justifying taking bodily autonomy away from trans men, and additionally creating a societal image that we are predatory creeps who deserve to be beaten back into our "rightful place". These issues matter to understand and dismantle because gender essentialist stereotypes affect everyone. This does not mean that they matter more than the stereotypes and violence that women face, just that they exist and are targeted at us for our gender identity.
I really want to push back on the notion that it is not because we're men but only that it's because we're seen as failed men. Because what that does is it concedes to the idea that only real manhood is white, cis, abled, perisex manhood and all else are mockeries that need to live up to that standard, which is just cisnormative colonizer bullshit. Manhood has different shapes throughout time and cultures, it is not inherently shaped by western imperialist manhood. We need to stop making these comparisons to white people's relationship to white supremacy, whiteness does not exist outside of the oppressive structure that created it. LIGHT SKIN does, but your skin tone is meaningless outside of the communities fostered through shared marginalization. Gender expression is something that transcends gendered oppression. To assert that a white person's relationship to white supremacy and a man's relationship to patriarchy are equatable is to say that trans men cannot exist without gendered oppression. This is transphobic.
And oppressors DO acknowledge our manhood, any marginalized man's manhood when it can be used to hurt us. We can acknowledge that society DEEMS what it sees as "deviant manhood" as inauthentic or lesser than hegemonic manhood, but when we cannot accept that as reality. The people targeted are still being targeted with gendered violence as men. We need to see all (non-oppressive) forms of manhood as authentic in their own right, dismantle gender essentialist stereotypes and simply see men as humans, capable of harm, capable of upholding systems of oppression, who may or may not benefit as determined by their material circumstances. The same goes for white women. The rhetoric that all men are uniquely responsible for the oppressive systems in society and never face gendered violence is, and always has been white women attempting to escape culpability for their role in upholding these systems. This is how intersectionality is meant to analyze oppression and That is what black feminists have been saying for decades.
