minty pickaxe

|he/him| non-binary|Bangali|

[transmasc-theory]

I think the situation where trans men are now banned from all public bathrooms in the UK is a perfect summation of transandrophobia.

It happened in broad daylight. It was telegraphed ahead of time; TERFs were very clear they wanted trans men removed from public life entirely. Yet during the entire lead-up, and even since then, people have erased transmascs completely from the conversation, saying they weren't in danger like transfemmes are, and in fact alleging that transmascs enjoyed a measure of protection from TERFs, who allegedly just see them as confused little girls they want to protect.

And while people were busy being useful idiots and spreading TERF propaganda for them, while people were busy actively denying the threat to transmascs, TERFs made it so transmascs can be excluded from any public bathroom in the UK.

That's transandrophobia in a nutshell. Trans men don't die in the spotlight, they die in the shadows, and are told they're privileged for their quiet, out-of-sight deaths.

[redhairandpronouns]

my brothers are brutalized and murdered in the dark, and you parade their broken corpses as martyred women, victimized by the patriarchy. you tell me we are not victims, we are not targets, as if you are not standing on our graves. and as you carve the wrong name into his tombstone, you turn and tell me erasure is a privilege.

[boythingrobot]

'trans men haven't upheld their weight in the community at the same level that lesbians and trans women have' a lot of those lesbians were trans men and mascs but you're all not ready for that conversation

[genderkoolaid]

#a mixed Black transmasc woman very likely sparked the stonewall uprising (storme delarverie)#and yet somehow we never fucking hear about her! even when people talk abt the trans and Black origins of Stonewall!#& when it comes to feminist stuff as ive said before#transmascs often find inspiration in cis women in history who resisted misogyny#yet cis women REFUSE to ever find inspiration in transmascs who resisted misogyny and transphobia#have trans men failed to uphold their weight or can you not tolerate visible transmasculinity

actually adding my tags. ik op also talked about Stormé in the notes but like. i really do find it so frustrating how he has been completely neglected as a historical figure. to the point where there's a lot of people who will, when talking about the erasure of Black trans people from Stonewall history, will immediately jump to talking about Marsha P. Johnson (who, while a vital figure in US queer history who deserves the attention she has started to receive from the community, did not start the uprising and arrived to them later) and continue to credit her with "throwing the first shotglass." but they don't even know who Stormé is, despite again, it being at the very least equally if not more likely she was actually involved with sparking the uprising.

and its even more frustrating because part of the reason its likely isn't just Stormé's own recollection, but because there are other reports that the uprising was kicked off when the cops arrested, specifically, a person seen as female who was wearing male clothing and was being violently arrested for FTM crossdressing. FTM activists were trying to raise awareness about this in 1989. like people specifically saw (even if it wasn't Stormé) a butch dyke getting arrested explicitly for wearing too many men's clothes and not enough women's clothes.

and yet, no one ever. fucking talks about this. no one who specifically is trying to talk about the erasure of trans people from queer activism mentions this. and we should all be asking, ourselves and each other, why? a lot of people don't want to have this conversation because it asks a lot of us, but that's exactly why its so vital to have responsibly.

Stonewall is as much myth as it is historical event, especially at this point in time. and how we choose to narrate it matters, even though we (should) all know that we will never know the full exact story, nor do we need to because, again, much of its importance is serving as a grounded myth of the birth of organized queer resistance in the US. And the fact is, there is every reason for us to tell a version of this myth which highlights that the inciting moment for queer people being fucking done with the constant acts of violence, was a mixed Black transmasc woman, a drag king who identified as a transgender warrior in Leslie Feinberg's book of that name, being violently arrested for his transmasculine presentation.

and not only is that not the version we tell, there's often no trace of transmasculinity at all in how we remember Stonewall or any queer historical events. & op is so. so incredibly right in prompting people to critically examine that absence. because i do believe if Stormé was a femme lesbian, people would be a lot more invested in making sure people know about the lesbian woman who started Stonewall. almost like, on an unconscious collective level, we see transmasculine figures as undesirable when it comes to being community icons, martyrs, heroes, theorists, creatives, etc.

anyways, for those curious, here's Stormé's recollection of Stonewall, from this interview:

The conversation turned to the night in June of 1969 at the Stonewall Inn where she made history. Quite a few friends, writers and historians over the years have identified her as the tough cross-dressing butch lesbian who was clubbed by the NYPD, which evoked enough indignation and anger to spur the crowd to action. She was identified as the Stonewall Lesbian in Charles Kaiser’s book The Gay Metropolis, and her scuffle with the police has been mentioned a few times in passing by The New York Times in the past couple of decades. Then in the January 2008 issue of Curve Magazine she identified herself as the Stonewall Lesbian in a detailed interview with writer Patrick Hinds, an excerpt of which is below: I asked her if she still remembered that night. She answered in the affirmative. After the cop hit her on the head, she socked him with her fist. “I hit him,” she said. “He was bleeding.” A natural protector, she has worked as a security guard at a few of the lesbian bars in the city. I spoke to her friend, Lisa Cannistraci, who has known her for around 25 years. Now one of the owners of lesbian bar Henrietta Hudson, Cannistraci said that DeLarverie worked as a security guard at the original Cubby Hole, located at 438 Hudson Street, starting in 1985. Cubby Hole eventually moved to the corner of West 4th and West 12th. Then Henrietta Hudson opened at the 438 Hudson Street location, and DeLarverie continued working there until 2005. “Until she was 85 years old?” I asked her. Cannistraci said yes.

also, just to drive home the point, the community ignoring Stormé was not a harmless act. he developed dementia later in life and did not receive the support that she fucking deserved from the community:

In March, Farrell, who lived next door to DeLarverie at the Hotel Chelsea, found DeLarverie disoriented and, uncharacteristically, asking for help. DeLarverie was shaking and dehydrated, and she was taken to and treated at the nearby St. Vincent’s Hospital. No next of kin has been located, and she no domestic partner. Friends say that she had a long term relationship with an aerialist and burlesque performer, but that was “a long time ago.” With no one in her life legally able to make health care decisions, she was given a court appointed a guardian: the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (“JASA”). She remained at the hospital as doctors ascertained her ability to care for herself. When St. Vincent’s went bankrupt and closed abruptly, she was transferred to the nursing home. SAGE, an advocacy group for elderly members of the LGBT community, has also been offering assistance. Her friends say that communication with the aforementioned groups has been inadequate and a source of frustration, and they feel powerless to improve her situation. [...] DeLarverie continued emceeing and singing after Stonewall — at gay events and at benefits. Her friend Williamson Henderson, President of the S.V.A., told me that she hosted an annual gay nightlife event, The Gay Bar People’s Ball, where all of the movers and shakers of NYC gay nightlife would congregate and receive awards. “It was an event that was well known and a big deal,” he said. In Sam Bassett’s film, DeLarverie said that she continued to sing at benefits for battered women and children, remarking “Somebody has to care. People say, ‘Why do you still do that?’ I said, ‘It’s very simple. If people didn’t care about me when I was growing up, with my mother being black, raised in the south.’ I said, ‘I wouldn’t be here.'” What does the future hold for DeLarverie? Cannistraci told me that she is currently in the process of petitioning for legal guardianship of DeLarverie and hopes to move her into a brighter, more modern nursing home with a larger staff and activities for the residents — and one where a friend of DeLarverie’s already resides. “She was a protector of the community, and [her situation] is heartbreaking,” she said. [...] DeLarverie’s situation is, unfortunately, not unique, and it highlights some of the issues faced by gay and lesbian seniors. It is unclear whether DeLarverie has no surviving family members or whether she has surviving family members but simply lost touch with them over the years. Many elders become isolated from their families, either because of family disapproval or because they moved away from their families to a big city with a large gay and lesbian population, thereby becoming out of sight and out of mind. If they do end up in a retirement home or nursing home, there is also the issue of whether other residents will have a problem with their sexual orientation. Furthermore, in many states, same-sex partners cannot be legally bound, and if there is no next of kin, one can end up being a ward of the state. If the Rosa Parks of the gay community can end up in a nursing home among strangers like other forgotten elderly men and women, it is certainly a wake up call.

idk not to get on a soapbox here on op's post, but i think Stormé is such a good example of how this "lack" of transmasc contributions to the community is actually a sign of anti-transmasculinity. i want you to think about how Stormé's race and trans*masculinity made the labor she did for the community, for decades, invisible.

[genderkoolaid]

#Stormé DeLarverie#this genuinely makes me want to chew glass every time i think about it#like frankly if you don't know about /any trans men contributing to queer rights/ you should Not be bragging about it#bc it just means you do NOT know your history#are you a queer trans person with access to transition? you Better put respect on Lou Sullivan's name#or hell do you have Actual Access to Medical Transition At All ???#Jamison Green WROTE the policy that formed the groundwork for medical transition AND anti-discrimination policies across the US#i mean hell Gavin Grimm's court case aiming to officially classify bathroom bills as discriminatory was only 5 years ago#and he was a fucking /teenager/ when that ball started rolling#if you think trans men and transmascs are not and have not ALWAYS been involved in community activism#you are simply uneducated and you should be ashamed of that

^^^ all of this + Gavin Grimm not only did that, but he didn't benefit basically at all. he graduated before the case was decided, and he only got $1 from it. Gavin was left traumatized and poor and has since struggled with housing. And I personally have never heard his name mentioned in discussions of vital modern trans activists in the US. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Fuck, I've barely heard his name ever, and I'm a queer from the DMV (region in the northeast USA) who has been pretty involved in my local queer community, so there's really no excuse.

You can still donate to his GoFundMe if you'd like. From this article:

As Donald Trump rolled back LGBTQ+ rights, including banning trans servicemembers from the military and authorizing homeless shelters to exclude trans people, Grimm won repeated court victories. But his school district appealed. One court of appeals judge compared Grimm to the historic American plaintiffs who challenged slavery, Japanese concentration camps, segregation and bans on interracial and gay marriage. A 2020 ruling offered a “resounding yes” in favor of the constitution and civil rights laws protecting trans students from discrimination. Grimm graduated before the case was resolved and never got to return to his school’s boys’ bathrooms. In 2021, the supreme court allowed Grimm’s victory to stand, and the school board was ordered to pay $1.3m in attorney’s fees. Grimm, however, only got a symbolic $1. To secure damages, Grimm would’ve had to give the opposition’s lawyers access to his medical records to scrutinize the cause and extent of his emotional distress, a process he couldn’t stomach after years of fighting. The idea he’d have to prove his anguish was unbelievable to his mom, who can’t shake the memories of her son becoming suicidal. Grimm doesn’t regret moving on without damages. But he desperately could’ve used financial help – especially as the trauma of his childhood began to catch up with him. [...]

Grimm has complex post-traumatic stress disorder and has suffered from stress-induced seizures that have affected his cognition and left him hospitalized in 2021. “The PTSD at its core is about not being safe or understood, being rejected, and the adults in my life not acting responsibly,” he explains. “In high school, I was picked over and hyper-analyzed. I was tortured, harassed and bullied.” He recalls a period when the stress was so severe he’d dissociate as he walked down the hallway, not hearing his friends call his name. Grimm also has autism and struggles with sensory processing, and the combined impacts of his disabilities have prevented him from holding down a job or completing school, he says. He’s relied on a GoFundMe and disability benefits, but has repeatedly struggled to make rent. His mother supports him but also has a tight income, he says. “I don’t have options … unless some rich gay philanthropist tosses me a crispy million.” At times, he’s felt disposable to the broader movement; he says it’s hard not to think of notable gay rights plaintiffs who have not struggled to make ends meet after their victories. “It makes me so angry that it’s so hard for him to find housing stability,” says Camille Gibson, his best friend who moved to England and video calls him on a nearly daily basis. “Some days, it’s almost like he’s short-circuiting because there’s just so much stress.” Still, the two find ways to have fun with each other from afar, often streaming anime. “When he’s not in a complete utter funk,” she says, “we are cackling at each other, because we’re both silly-billy stupid bitches.”

[genderkoolaid]

happy pride! credit transmasculine people or shut the fuck up

while we're here, might as well add on that not only was the Stonewall Uprising likely kicked off by a transmasculine person resisting state violence because of their masculine presentation, but the transmasculine people & other queer (perceived-)women of the nearby Women's House of Detention rioted in solidarity:

"The House of D [was] 500 feet from the Stonewall Inn," Ryan says. "On the first night of the riots, people incarcerated in the prison could actually see what was happening out their windows, and they started a riot all their own, setting fire to their belongings and throwing them down to the streets below while chanting 'Gay rights! Gay rights! Gay rights!'" By the '50s and '60s, Ryan estimates, "around 75% of the people incarcerated in the House of D are queer in some way." In the 1960s, the prison began marking gay prisoners with a "D" for "degenerate," and placing them into solitary confinement because they were considered a "danger to other women."

credit transmasculine people or shut the fuck up.

[transmasc-theory]

The reduction of trans men to mere concepts

There's a chicken-and-egg scenario involved in transmasculinity these days:

Which came first, the violent erasure of transmasculine people from society and history, even trans society and history- or the reduction of transmascs to ideas instead of people?

Whichever happened first, they're both in an endless cycle right now. Trans men are erased and rendered hyperinvisible. Then, trans men are too invisible to speak up for themselves when they're erased further. As a result, no one listens to trans men when they try to speak for their actual experiences.

As a result, trans men are no longer a demographic with lived experiences and stories: they are ideas. They can be anything depending on the needs of the non-transmasculine speaker.

One example of this was touched on in this essay regarding the problematic portrayal of MPreg, where MPreg is celebrated not because it validates pregnant men as men, but because pregnancy is portrayed as something that inherently causes a man to become submissive (feminist), and it's doubly feminist when the one who impregnated him is a woman because that means a man submitted to a woman.

In particular, I want to draw attention to this paragraph:

And yes, I said the idea of a man in a feminine position is inherently feminist to them, NOT the man himself. The feminine position he is in makes him an object to be viewed and discussed, not a subject with thoughts and beliefs. The pregnant man is not a feminist, he's a feminist concept. That, I think, is the core of the problem with mpreg jokes - to people who make them, a pregnant man is an idea, a symbol, a fictional situation, instead of a real human being. They ignore the existance of actual men that can get pregnant in favour of the idea of them, because the first one has agency, and the second one has no agency (because he exists in their head). To people like that, pregnant men = blorbos jokingly impregnated by defying biology, or blorbos in omegaverse AUs, not the living, breathing trans and intersex men. They imagine pregnant men for many reasons: as a sexual fantasy, to make a joke, to declaw and tame them, but never to actually consider what it's like for real life men with uteruses. Pregnancy is just another situation they can put their blorbos in, not a real thing some men go through. So there's no space in their minds for the discrimination we face in gynecological and prenatal care, or the fear of being forcibly impregnated as a way to detransition us. Pregnant men are theoretical to them, just like catboys, so they get annoyed when we remind them that we exist and shoo us away claiming they're not talking about us.

-@sluglover666

While this quote is in the context of MPreg, I think it very much applies to wider discussions around transmasculinity. Detransitioning or "forcefemming" a trans man, for example, is very popular on this site, both as a sexual fetish/fantasy and as a genuine desire. And objections to this are met with, inevitably, the same protest that the world doesn't need more men, it needs more women, and further, masculinity is inevitably rewarded.

Transmasculine input stating otherwise is not welcomed, because this isn't about transmasculine people as people; it's about transmasculine people as concepts. And in this environment, it is a fact that the most feminist thing a concept of a transmasculine person can be is become a real, feminine person instead. His life would be of more worth as a miserable cis woman, because as a trans man, he is a mere concept.

Stating that one's masculinity has not been rewarded is not a feminist action, because it assigns agency to what is supposed to be a mere idea- the person "gifted" womanhood who threw it all away.

Trans men being concepts, not people, is also why trans men are never discussed as transgender men. They might be trans if they are facing an issue that harms the entire trans community (after all, this concept being attacked could lead to harm being done to REAL people!) but otherwise they are just men. And just men are, unless being put in their place via sexual humiliation (pregnancy, forcefem, pegging, etc) not feminist ideas, so the best thing for them would be to be rewritten as properly feminist concepts. So, there is no use in discussions about the ways in which transmasculine experiences diverge from cismasculine ones, because right now, the trans community online has little use for delineation of two interchangeable concepts. At least cis men have a chance on the order of a few percent of realizing their identity as women- real people- down the line.

It's seen as meaningless, and maybe even disingenuous, to draw a line between transmasculine and cismasculine experiences, because the difference between two flavors of not-women who have failed to be Feminist Concepts is meaningless.

Further, as mere concepts, transmasculine men are perfect targets for projection. Trans men can be "basically cis women" when it makes them look bad and less transfeminist; they can be mentally ill girls and theyfabs and cunts and bitches to undermine their identity. Remember, this is a feminist action, because humiliating a man, especially to a woman, is a good feminist concept. And when needed, trans men, being identical to cis men, are dangerous; they're threats, they're the ones committing the rapes and abuse and hate crimes against trans women, they're the ones passing (or wanting to pass) laws banning HRT for trans women (even though it's T, not E, that is currently a controlled substance). Because men are men, there is no use distinguishing between them, and the voice of trans men, as a mere concept and not a real people, is not welcome.

(In fact, one could also argue that trans women are being reduced to concepts in the opposite direction; it's just that because they are seen as properly feminist concepts, they are allowed to offer their own lived experiences, solely conditionally because it is of benefit at that time. A trans woman with a lived experience that contradicts a certain feminist point of view quickly finds herself reduced such that her existence is bad for feminism. If she discloses rape or abuse by a trans woman, or allyship with the idea of trans men, she too has her personhood stripped away, and she is now an antifeminist concept.)

And since trans men are now mere feminist concepts, this makes it easier to further the violent erasure of them. Trans men can't have existed historically; those were cis women who were trying to escape misogyny. Because, you see, it is a much better feminist idea to be a cis woman fighting patriarchy than to be a man fighting patriarchy, if you even consider trans men (who are, of course, identical to cis men) as capable of fighting the patriarchy. Trans men are the less-feminist idea, so they can't be allowed to exist. Alan Hart, Lou Alcott- none of them can be allowed to maintain their identity as trans men because they have more value as cis women, and they aren't people, but concepts.

And since trans men didn't exist historically, because they were all cis women, that means trans men are newcomers to the queer community. Thus, any demands to be heard, to be allowed epistemological authority over their own experiences, is entitlement; they can't demand a space that was never theirs respect their input equally to the real people who were there from the start, after all. They need to be quiet, shut up, wait their turn (which will never come) because they are, after all, men whose voices have never been absent; that's why they dominate history. Because trans men are cis men, and history is full of cis men. Historical trans men, or prominent modern trans men in queer spaces, are antifeminist concepts.

Historical erasure is a tool to strip trans men of personhood and reduce them to mere ideas, which in turn lets them be erased from the present- tomorrow's history. It's a cycle we must break free from.

[transmasc-theory]

The reduction of trans men to mere concepts

There's a chicken-and-egg scenario involved in transmasculinity these days:

Which came first, the violent erasure of transmasculine people from society and history, even trans society and history- or the reduction of transmascs to ideas instead of people?

Whichever happened first, they're both in an endless cycle right now. Trans men are erased and rendered hyperinvisible. Then, trans men are too invisible to speak up for themselves when they're erased further. As a result, no one listens to trans men when they try to speak for their actual experiences.

As a result, trans men are no longer a demographic with lived experiences and stories: they are ideas. They can be anything depending on the needs of the non-transmasculine speaker.

One example of this was touched on in this essay regarding the problematic portrayal of MPreg, where MPreg is celebrated not because it validates pregnant men as men, but because pregnancy is portrayed as something that inherently causes a man to become submissive (feminist), and it's doubly feminist when the one who impregnated him is a woman because that means a man submitted to a woman.

In particular, I want to draw attention to this paragraph:

And yes, I said the idea of a man in a feminine position is inherently feminist to them, NOT the man himself. The feminine position he is in makes him an object to be viewed and discussed, not a subject with thoughts and beliefs. The pregnant man is not a feminist, he's a feminist concept. That, I think, is the core of the problem with mpreg jokes - to people who make them, a pregnant man is an idea, a symbol, a fictional situation, instead of a real human being. They ignore the existance of actual men that can get pregnant in favour of the idea of them, because the first one has agency, and the second one has no agency (because he exists in their head). To people like that, pregnant men = blorbos jokingly impregnated by defying biology, or blorbos in omegaverse AUs, not the living, breathing trans and intersex men. They imagine pregnant men for many reasons: as a sexual fantasy, to make a joke, to declaw and tame them, but never to actually consider what it's like for real life men with uteruses. Pregnancy is just another situation they can put their blorbos in, not a real thing some men go through. So there's no space in their minds for the discrimination we face in gynecological and prenatal care, or the fear of being forcibly impregnated as a way to detransition us. Pregnant men are theoretical to them, just like catboys, so they get annoyed when we remind them that we exist and shoo us away claiming they're not talking about us.

-@sluglover666

While this quote is in the context of MPreg, I think it very much applies to wider discussions around transmasculinity. Detransitioning or "forcefemming" a trans man, for example, is very popular on this site, both as a sexual fetish/fantasy and as a genuine desire. And objections to this are met with, inevitably, the same protest that the world doesn't need more men, it needs more women, and further, masculinity is inevitably rewarded.

Transmasculine input stating otherwise is not welcomed, because this isn't about transmasculine people as people; it's about transmasculine people as concepts. And in this environment, it is a fact that the most feminist thing a concept of a transmasculine person can be is become a real, feminine person instead. His life would be of more worth as a miserable cis woman, because as a trans man, he is a mere concept.

Stating that one's masculinity has not been rewarded is not a feminist action, because it assigns agency to what is supposed to be a mere idea- the person "gifted" womanhood who threw it all away.

Trans men being concepts, not people, is also why trans men are never discussed as transgender men. They might be trans if they are facing an issue that harms the entire trans community (after all, this concept being attacked could lead to harm being done to REAL people!) but otherwise they are just men. And just men are, unless being put in their place via sexual humiliation (pregnancy, forcefem, pegging, etc) not feminist ideas, so the best thing for them would be to be rewritten as properly feminist concepts. So, there is no use in discussions about the ways in which transmasculine experiences diverge from cismasculine ones, because right now, the trans community online has little use for delineation of two interchangeable concepts. At least cis men have a chance on the order of a few percent of realizing their identity as women- real people- down the line.

It's seen as meaningless, and maybe even disingenuous, to draw a line between transmasculine and cismasculine experiences, because the difference between two flavors of not-women who have failed to be Feminist Concepts is meaningless.

Further, as mere concepts, transmasculine men are perfect targets for projection. Trans men can be "basically cis women" when it makes them look bad and less transfeminist; they can be mentally ill girls and theyfabs and cunts and bitches to undermine their identity. Remember, this is a feminist action, because humiliating a man, especially to a woman, is a good feminist concept. And when needed, trans men, being identical to cis men, are dangerous; they're threats, they're the ones committing the rapes and abuse and hate crimes against trans women, they're the ones passing (or wanting to pass) laws banning HRT for trans women (even though it's T, not E, that is currently a controlled substance). Because men are men, there is no use distinguishing between them, and the voice of trans men, as a mere concept and not a real people, is not welcome.

(In fact, one could also argue that trans women are being reduced to concepts in the opposite direction; it's just that because they are seen as properly feminist concepts, they are allowed to offer their own lived experiences, solely conditionally because it is of benefit at that time. A trans woman with a lived experience that contradicts a certain feminist point of view quickly finds herself reduced such that her existence is bad for feminism. If she discloses rape or abuse by a trans woman, or allyship with the idea of trans men, she too has her personhood stripped away, and she is now an antifeminist concept.)

And since trans men are now mere feminist concepts, this makes it easier to further the violent erasure of them. Trans men can't have existed historically; those were cis women who were trying to escape misogyny. Because, you see, it is a much better feminist idea to be a cis woman fighting patriarchy than to be a man fighting patriarchy, if you even consider trans men (who are, of course, identical to cis men) as capable of fighting the patriarchy. Trans men are the less-feminist idea, so they can't be allowed to exist. Alan Hart, Lou Alcott- none of them can be allowed to maintain their identity as trans men because they have more value as cis women, and they aren't people, but concepts.

And since trans men didn't exist historically, because they were all cis women, that means trans men are newcomers to the queer community. Thus, any demands to be heard, to be allowed epistemological authority over their own experiences, is entitlement; they can't demand a space that was never theirs respect their input equally to the real people who were there from the start, after all. They need to be quiet, shut up, wait their turn (which will never come) because they are, after all, men whose voices have never been absent; that's why they dominate history. Because trans men are cis men, and history is full of cis men. Historical trans men, or prominent modern trans men in queer spaces, are antifeminist concepts.

Historical erasure is a tool to strip trans men of personhood and reduce them to mere ideas, which in turn lets them be erased from the present- tomorrow's history. It's a cycle we must break free from.

[quastions-i-dont-ask-on-main]

"AFAB only groups are fault of those dirty NBs and Transmascs" Everytime I've seen an AFAB-only group they've been organized by cis women but go off I guess

[phosphorusab]

I hate this saccharine, cloying, infantilizing way trans men are talked down to by their own community when speaking about the words they choose to describe their experiences and oppression

‘Oh yes, you do experience a valid intersectional form of oppression - but you’re just so fucking stupid, that you’ve chosen a terrible word to articulate your experiences. So we aren’t going to listen to anything you say! You’re just so silly and stupid, you can’t possibly be trusted to articulate your own thoughts and experiences, let alone be trusted to do your own research. In fact, don’t even think or talk at all! Leave all the thinking and talking to the smart people whose suffering actually matters.

Also, no your experiences aren’t unique at all, negating the previous statement of you experiencing a valid intersectional form of oppression’

The tone of voice is no different than when people try to manipulate trans men into detransitioning - overly sweet, infantilizing and concerned while also being incredibly backhanded and demeaning

Nothing will ever be good enough. I just roll my eyes at this shit now

[techiekittie]

God forbid women do anything omfg. When transfems try to explain delicately and nicely they’re being “infantilising”, when they’re direct and serious they’re “rude” and “aggressive”.

Nothing will ever be good enough. I just roll my eyes at this shit now.

[phosphorusab]

Being told we aren’t smart enough to speak on our own experiences and should just shut up, but with a tone of voice that’s overly sweet and familiar, is in fact infantilizing and demeaning!

You’d know that if you actually listened to anything I said

[pepermintsstuff]

@techiekittie you shouldn't say anything at all actually. You don't have any right to tell trans men what words they use to describe their own oppression. If you think it doesn't make sense that probably means you don't understand it and should listen to them more lol

[phosphorusab]

I hate this saccharine, cloying, infantilizing way trans men are talked down to by their own community when speaking about the words they choose to describe their experiences and oppression

‘Oh yes, you do experience a valid intersectional form of oppression - but you’re just so fucking stupid, that you’ve chosen a terrible word to articulate your experiences. So we aren’t going to listen to anything you say! You’re just so silly and stupid, you can’t possibly be trusted to articulate your own thoughts and experiences, let alone be trusted to do your own research. In fact, don’t even think or talk at all! Leave all the thinking and talking to the smart people whose suffering actually matters.

Also, no your experiences aren’t unique at all, negating the previous statement of you experiencing a valid intersectional form of oppression’

The tone of voice is no different than when people try to manipulate trans men into detransitioning - overly sweet, infantilizing and concerned while also being incredibly backhanded and demeaning

Nothing will ever be good enough. I just roll my eyes at this shit now

[techiekittie]

God forbid women do anything omfg. When transfems try to explain delicately and nicely they’re being “infantilising”, when they’re direct and serious they’re “rude” and “aggressive”.

Nothing will ever be good enough. I just roll my eyes at this shit now.

[phosphorusab]

Being told we aren’t smart enough to speak on our own experiences and should just shut up, but with a tone of voice that’s overly sweet and familiar, is in fact infantilizing and demeaning!

You’d know that if you actually listened to anything I said

[anotherevilenby]

I do think it's an interesting case of how transandrophobia and exorsexism operate along similar lines that trans men are not allowed to have complicated relationships to lesbianism "because they're men/because they're not women" but non-binary people in relationships with women are regularly labeled as sapphic without their input (or in the case of fictional characters, without regard for other possible interpretations). Both of these instances are fundamentally the erasure of trans people's right to self-identify, both of them are done to police sapphic spaces for the benefit of others. The difference lies in the method, the trans man lesbian is forced out of their community, while the non-binary person is forced to have their identities be made more palatable for the benefit of a community they may not even feel they belong to.

[transmasc-theory]

Most of society only sees trans men as trans, but most of the queer community only sees trans men as men.

Trans men don't get to be both trans and men. They are one or the other depending on which one can be better used to hurt them.

[drsaikiscorkboard]

This Pride Month, let us advocate for and support our trans men and transmasculine siblings—not as an afterthought, not as a footnote, but as a necessity.

Transandrophobia is real. It is documented. It is the discrimination, shaming, harassment, and alienation specifically faced by trans men and transmasculine individuals.

This is not a hierarchy. This is not an attack on trans women. This is a data point.

Trans men face systemic discrimination before, during, and after transition. The visibility paradox means that as they become less visible as queer, they do not become less oppressed—the oppression just changes shape.

Trans men are routinely shamed, told to "reflect on their misogyny," and dismissed simply for being male. This shaming impacts mental health, self-image, and access to care.

Radical feminists and trans feminists who dismiss transandrophobia need to reflect. The problem is not feminism. The problem is specific actors who have decided that transmisogyny is the only axis of trans oppression worth naming. Both things are true.

Trans women face transmisogyny.

Trans men face transandrophobia.

Acknowledging one does not erase the other.

The silencing of transmasculine voices follows documented patterns:

"You're not really oppressed, you're just men now."

"Your trauma doesn't count."

"You're betraying womanhood."

"Be quiet and listen to transfems."

These are not neutral statements. These are silencing mechanisms.

Trans men deserve to be heard and seen—not as a threat, not as traitors, but as people navigating a specific, intersectional form of oppression.

This Pride Month, I am not asking you to celebrate them.

I am asking you to stop erasing them.

Listen. Believe. Reflect.

Then do better.

— Dr. Kusuke Saiki

PS. I have sources:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49509-2_9

https://thesocietypages.org/girlwpen/2011/09/21/transgender-employment-experiences/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_9

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/02/transfeminism-radical-feminism-toryn-glover-essays

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/masculinity-is-crippling-society-could-trans-men-be-the-key-to-changing-that/

[transmen4tmapeople]

“The authors find that, following transition, a statistically significant earnings decrease is experienced by MTFs (-11%) while there are no significant changes to the earnings of FTMs.”

Geijtenbeek and Plug (2018)

“They found that there was a statistically significant decrease of -12% in earnings following MTFs transitioning from male-to-female and an insignificant increase of +7.5% for FTMs following their transition from female-to-male.”

Schilt and Wiswall (2008)

“these papers provide evidence consistent with a traditional cisgender pay gap, with ‘maleness’ enjoying an earnings premium over ‘femaleness’ in the workplace. These findings also jibe with qualitative research on FTMs experiences of transitioning while in the workplace, where they report feeling more respected and their human capital more highly valued following transition to male”

Connel (2010), Dozier (2005), Schilt (2006).

“The wider social science literature has documented greater negative feelings and prejudice against MTFs compared with FTMs, particularly by cisgender men.”

“The incomes of MTFs who begin living full-time as female at a younger age are lower than those who wait, while the incomes of FTMs who begin living full-time as male at a younger age are higher. These findings are consistent with the wider research on the differences in labour market returns experienced by cisgender men and women.”

Matthew Shannon (2022)

[razortouched]

These are all important studies! They also all have their flaws, and some are being misrepresented within the context of this post.

For example, the Schilt and Wiswal 2008 study only consists of 18 MtF workers and 25 FtM workers. This is an incredibly small sample size that cannot be used as representative of larger trends.

In the Geijtenbeek and Plug 2018 study, they find that "FTM workers earn significantly less than other men and MTF workers earn significantly more than other women." This contradicts other wage pay studies that show trans people of all genders earn less than cis people.

Also, important to note that this study only observes, "those transsexual individuals who go through hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery, and the legal process of changing one’s administrative gender." This is absolutely not representative of trans people in general. Particuarly in a country such as The Netherlands - where this study takes place - and where medical and legal transition is more accessible than in many other countries.

Your third paragraph is a quote of a paraphrase, making it hard to determine where exactly it came from.

The Matthew Shannon 2022 study I feel is the most misrepresented within the context of this post. The quote you gave is accurate, but the same paper says, "those who were assigned female at birth have significantly lower incomes and are more likely to work part-time than those assigned male at birth." So even with the advantages gained by transitioning young for FTMs, the overall trend is still that they earn less than those assigned male at birth.

These studies do show some interesting patterns! It's undeniable that being legally male and being percieved as male in the workplace has its benefits, and that includes for some FTM workers. But the context with which you presented these studies was dishonest, making it appear as is this is a trend that applies to trans people more broadly, when in reality is applies to much more particular groups. It also leaves out the fact that trans men are still disadvantaged in comparison to cis men.

[intersexcat-tboy]

I recognized the Matthew Shannon one and remembered I had a screenshot showcasing some of the data

The weighted average yearly income of trans women in this study was $53,550 and $38,130 for trans men

Researchers found that their first hypothesis in "Cultural and Personally Endorsed Stereotypes of Transgender Men and Transgender Women: Notable Correspondence or Disjunction?" (Link)— that "the cultural stereotype of transgender women was expected to be significantly more negative than that of transgender men based on previous research[…] was not supported." Instead, they note that "transgender men were found to be subject to a more strongly negative cultural stereotype than were trans women." It also notes that there are studies that found trans women face more prejudice, while another had found no difference. The second hypothesis, the theory that participants personal endorsement of stereotypes against trans women would be stronger, was also not supported by the data. However, there is an overrepresentation of cis women in the sample (75%)

[therapatical]

oh hey this mirrors some similar results found in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey

crunching the numbers (with a few variations; obviously since we don't have the raw data we can't 100% rely on these estimates, but there are still certain conclusions that are mathematically impossible. I just took the low and high ends of each category. the distribution might look totally different, but based on one of the tables towards the beginning that shows the full income breakdowns, it seems like every category skewed to the lower ends in a fairly even way, so I don't think this kind of estimating is going to be dramatically inaccurate. just don't take these numbers as gospel. which you shouldn't be doing anyways)

some other notable income-related parts:

[genderkoolaid]

May I add that cis feminists have been obsessed with transitioning and how it affects ones (typically middle class white collar) job because most trans-inclusive cisfeminism only sees trans people as a tool to prove cis people's gender relations?

Cis feminists LOVE an ancedote about a trans woman losing pay while a trans man gains it, because it slots perfectly into their pre-existing & cissexist understanding of gender oppression. Its the idea that cis women should include trans people, not as trans people, but as additional evidence that misogyny as it affects cis women and male privilege as it affects cis men is real.

Feminism that actually integrates trans position under patriarchy into its theory would recognize & discuss far more often how trans people are more affected by the gender pay gap and neglect in medical research than cis women, and would talk more about how nonbinary people, crossdressers, and other GNC-but-not-binary-trans people are affected by exorsexism & misandrogyny. But many cisfeminists, both cis and trans individuals, prefer to lean heavily on a cissexist ways of understanding transphobia that encourage trans people to think of ourselves as "cis people with extra steps" instead of talking about transphobia, exorsexism, oppositional sexism, and pushing feminism to go where it desperately needs to.

[madhya-raatri]

.....we now have our own Irreversible Damage? Indian version?

[madhya-raatri]

tw for a shitton of transphobia @ trans men/masc, infantilisation, pregnancy mention

“This exquisite book tells the stories of some of those women as they begin to transform—the hope and force of inevitability that subsume the torture of it all. You will read about women who use the latest medical advances to liberate themselves from their gorgeous female shape, who will cut away their breasts, destroy their long flowing hair, make stubbles spring on their faces, and fix agonizing penises.”

what the FUCK IS THIS?????? WHAT. THE FUCK? IS THIS??!!

source

[nonbinary-wrath-month]

To say that masculinity is a flawed construct that inflicts serious psychological damage to many in its current state is true. To say that femininity in comparison is liberatory and pure and the "superior option" for most or all of the people on the planet is nuclear cope. Just weapons-grade ideological myopia. Please put the phone down and only return to the conversation when you can deepen your analysis beyond "this thing is evil because it makes me personally feel bad, and this thing is pure because it makes me personally feel good".

[transmasc-theory]

I reject the premise that trans women are the "main" targets of transphobia. I reject the premise that trans women are victimized more, worse, or more intentionally by transphobia than trans men. I reject the premise that trans men are only accidental or secondary targets of transphobia. I reject the premise that trans men are merely splash damage casualties in attacks against trans women. I reject the premise that trans men are only accidentally harmed by transphobia.

I should not have to post about transmasc issues with a disclaimer that "of course" trans women are hurt worse by this. I should not have to apologize for posting about transmasc issues instead of transfemme issues.

There is nothing accidental about transphobia. Every facet of it is intentional. Trans men are not bystanders in the genocide against all trans people. Trans men aren't accidental targets of trans genocide.

[transmasc-theory]

If you look at nearly every study quantifying social oppression- rates of suicidal thoughts or attempts, rates of being subjected to conversion therapy, rates of rape and domestic violence, rates of avoidance of medical care due to discrimination, I could go on- trans men are among the worst off in the entire queer community.

But unfortunately, one study that failed to prove statistical significance suggested that trans men who are employed full-time might make a whopping ten cents an hour more than trans women who are employed full-time, so you see, my hands are tied and I have no choice but to declare trans men a privileged class within the LGBT community. What do you expect me to do? Acknowledge the flaws within that one study on full-time wages? Acknowledge that even without flaws, the study would still be only one measure of social oppression experienced within the queer community and thus it might be worth looking at other ways transmascs are disadvantaged? That's crazy talk! This one study in front of me is the only one that matters!

[nonbinary-wrath-month]

The performative disgust that many ostensibly trans-friendly people have for tdicks is just a lefty version of conservatives' disgust for vulvas tacked onto the idea that testosterone downgrades and mutilates the bodies of those trans people who take it willingly.

"Tdicks are hideous and revolting and unhygienic and destructive to your sex life and nobody actually wants one and nobody's actually attracted to them and are you really really really sure you want to make yourself unfuckable and undesirable to me to alter your genitals so drastically--" You are the weakest link.

[nonbinary-wrath-month]

Some of you still believe very strongly that everyone who has ever been forced into femalehood by patriarchy ought to be pretty, feminine, and fuckable according to patriarchal beauty standards, and that to choose otherwise is to spiritually degrade oneself. And I can tell you all still think that, because the primary objection people seem to have with trans people on T is that T will supposedly make one "ugly". That it will turn you from a delicate fairy into a hideous, smelly ape possessed by your libido, and you don't want that, do you? (The implication: It's wrong to want that, because then patriarchal cis men won't want to fuck you, and you're supposed to want to be their fucktoys!)

There is no place where this is more obvious than when people talk about tdicks. Tdicks are not disgusting or unhygienic or dysfunctional. They look totally unremarkable and can be cleaned just fine. But they're not what "ought" to be there according to patriarchy. Now there is a very tangible (and phallic) reminder that transition cannot be undone and that this person is not interested in being a walking hole and nothing else.

So patriarchy punishes these individuals in the way it is used to punishing people it wants to keep subordinate: by slamming the "ugly, ugly, ugly" button. This takes very little adjustment; it already believes that the vulva is disgusting and that is why it makes one inferior. So they tweak one parameter and say: tdicks are ugly. Tdicks are sickening, nauseating, foul to behold and foul to smell and foul to penetrate with and foul to have. A self-respecting female trans person would never want something so gross, so mutilated, so ugly, ugly, ugly. And that is why these trans people are bad.

Needless to say I am not amused by self-proclaimed feminists who hold their noses and announce how horrified they are to the world when somebody brings up tdicks. Part of that is because I expect feminists to be able to hold a conversation about sex and genitalia without gagging. But part of that is because this is the consequence of letting personal disgust dictate your politics. If what you are disgusted by dictates your politics, then not only are you acting not on principles but kneejerk reflexes, but you are also allowing the society around you to dictate your morality via dictating what you are disgusted by. What you are disgusted by is not innate. Somebody told you that T makes these trans people ugly and that this ugliness gives you a free pass to degrade them and their genitalia and their transition. Who told you that? And why did you believe them?