I think there is one more aspect of this that is worth talking about. I appreciate these tags, thank you, but notice the part I underlined. "The theory argument has no actual relationship to the behavior of the group". The things is, from the viewpoint of the exclusionist, the theory has *everything* to do with the behavior of the group.
This is actually the reason I brought it up. If this is about trans women dealing with bigotry, why are we talking about the validity of trans masculine identities? Because exclusionists believe that the identity itself is an attack.
Among the reactions to my initial post was the assertion that it was ignorant and anti-feminist. Which is weird because what could possibly be considered anti feminist? I only presented three ideas: Trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity as men, people who are not part of the oppression class make for poor targets if your goal is stopping oppression, and some people lash out at the wrong people when they are hurt because they are a convenient target.
The second and third points are so widely accepted anyway that it beggars belief that someone would try to deny them. It isn't so much activism as basic logic and psychology respectively. And in fact both are important ideas in feminism, so they can't be anti feminism.
Which means my apparent anti feminism has to be in the idea that trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity. To this person, transmasculine identities are inherently a threat.
Oh and I am sure they don't believe that on a conscious level, I'm sur they have plenty of trans masculine friends they are not afraid of or bothered by, but that's just the thing. prejudice is always a blind spot. My mother in law swears up and down she isn't racist and isn't afraid of black people and she truly believes it, but that doesn't change the fact that she crosses the street when she sees a "suspicious" black man.
So what makes a trans masculine person "suspicious" in the mind of an exclusionist? Well, based on the fact that a central point of the ongoing discourse is maleness as a vector of oppression and the emphasis on TME/TMA, it would appear that asserting their identity is a major trigger. Being too assertively male in a queer space, particularly a queer space that is traditionally female.
Now that is an explanation of what is going on, not proof of it. But the pattern starts to become alarmingly clear when you look at every other exclusionist movement ever. They always focus on matters of identity as the reason the group should be excluded or minimized, basically always by focusing on isolated aspects of the identity in question and drawing parallels to the oppression class via mis or over applied theory.
With the original rad fems excluding bi women, it was the perceived "heterosexual" part of the identity that made bi women a threat. How could gay women ever be safe among half heteros? Heteros are the enemy!
With rad fems and trans women it was all about how trans women were different from women, had different experiences, were "socialized male", and how can women ever be safe among people who are socially male?
With aros and aces the theory justification was all about how gay people experience oppression because of who they are attracted to. Being attracted to no one (a gross oversimplification in and of itself) is not that at all, therefore they are practically heteros! Would you feel safe with cishets in your queer community?
It's the same fucking thing every time. People grossly misappling theory insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with them is lesphobic or anti feminist or anti gay or whatever because ~theory~. This time people got their panties in a twist about maleness again. Trans men are men! How dare they say they are oppressed for their identity! That's so anti feminist, I read book on feminist theory during my queer formative years that said maleness isn't a vector for oppression, that obviously trumps any observed reality of oppression or change of context!
It's not even a pattern reserved for queer exclusionists. Over reliance on theory instead of observed reality? Hostile reaction to a threat to their world view? Attacking the validity of the identity? Sounds familiar!
"It's adam and eve, not adam and steve! Hur hur hur got'em"
Homophobes are transphobes are biphobes are aphobes are transadrophobes. Exclusionists are exclusionists. There's no real difference.
