ojovivo
styofa doing anything
Three Goblin Art

pixel skylines
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
No title available
noise dept.

Discoholic 🪩
AnasAbdin
sheepfilms
Today's Document
RMH
Keni

Andulka
One Nice Bug Per Day
tumblr dot com
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
NASA
Sade Olutola

seen from India

seen from Germany
seen from Czechia

seen from Italy
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Algeria
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
@pepppper
Only a general women's movement has the power to liberate trans women, but only a union of trans women organized within such a movement has the power to ensure that it does liberate trans women. Likewise, only a proletarian socialist movement has the power to liberate women in general, but only a general union of women organized within the proletarian movement has the power to ensure that it does liberate women.
As an oppressed people, we cannot rely on the privileged classes to discover our own interests, but as a minority we also cannot rely on our independent forces to overthrow such powerful systems. A strategic alliance of all oppressed people's is needed to build socialism, whilst autonomous unions of oppressed people are needed to protect ourselves and advocate for our interests within the coalition.
Do not mistake the failures of particular movements in the US for an indication of the general impossibility of such a strategic alliance. The reactionary hegemony is a temporary phenomenon, whilst class struggle is the permanent condition of class society. No movement will appear if we don't build it, but history is on our side.
happy pride month
theres very few things quite as sexy as the rhombic dodecahedron.
I recently read this post by Devon Price which details its experience of coming off testosterone, and found various aspects of it quite grating. I have admired Price for several years, after reading its book Unmasking Autism which totally reframed the way I understood myself, and also occasionally reading its posts which I found comforting, since in those days I wasn't on Tumblr and encountering reasonable takes on transmisogyny from (what I then considered to be) a transmasculine perspective was rare and valuable to me. So I was surprised to read this article and feel so negative about it. (The post is 6 months old now, so I expect I may be rehashing old ground by bringing it up, but I've only been on Tumblr a few weeks and I never saw it brought up in the various other online or irl trans spaces I was in at the time so I thought I'd put my thoughts down anyway.)
The post discusses how Price had been on T for around 7 years, and fully passed as a man in public, only to to realise that it felt dysphoric from both its physical appearance and social position. It is now undergoing what it describes as a "transition/detransition/retransition/whatever the fuck you want to call it," by reverting to endogenous estrogen augmented with estrogen cream, it/its pronouns, and being "whatever the fuck I am from moment to moment, and accepting that it won’t be instantly recognizable". That's great.
My eyebrows were raised, though, by Price's saying "I think my transition has some real commonalities with those of trans women and trans feminine people," such as, "feeling joyful at being freed from the expectations of masculinity, even as it means encountering sexism a lot more," and, "though I will never be targeted by transmisogyny in the ways that my trans sisters are, I will never disavow you or my proximity to you, and I will use my new position to speak over sexist trans men and smack down other ignorant TMEs even louder." Hmm.
One has to wonder what "new position" Price is referring to here? It describes in the post itself how coming off testosterone and identifying away from manhood has reduced its social status, resulting in being treated less seriously in social situations. How could a lowering in social position empower Price to speak louder against sexist trans men? Surely another trans man is better placed to do that than any kind of non-man. The only way this statement makes sense is if Price is referring to an increased proximity to trans womanhood by virtue of the change in identity and hormone profile. I think this is reinforced by "I will never be targeted by transmisogyny in the ways that my trans sisters are," having the unspoken corollary "but I am targeted by transmisogyny all the same."
One has to read the rest of the post to find where these supposed commonalities with the transfeminine experience lie. Much space is devoted to physiological changes like skin-softening or muscle-loss (both relatable to transfems, but not really The Point) or else to improvements in vaginal health and the regaining of fertility. Talking about these could, I suppose, be construed as in poor taste given the assertion that it is a similar experience to transfems, but I am inclined to give Price the benefit of the doubt here given that it is principally a post about changes coming off T, and these are important changes, albeit ones which if anything demonstrate how different Price's "retransition" is to a transfeminine transition.
The only particular change mentioned in the post that mapped onto transfemininity was that of increasingly facing misogynystic street harassment and harassment born of the intersection between misogyny and racism, although it's hard to see how these are transfeminine experiences rather than generic experiences of those-perceived-as-women.
The real meaning, I guess, of Price's "I think my transition has some real commonalities with those of trans women and trans feminine people," comes in the list of things that haven't changed. Thicker body hair, facial hair, a lower voice, and some facial masculinisation stand out as examples that might be relatable to trans women. But whatever "commonalities" these could represent are rather hampered by the assertion that these changes are "lifelong or long-lasting, and thank god for that; I would not be as content in my funny little de-man-sition if I wasn’t holding onto some of my most coveted changes." So it is similar to a transfeminine transition in that there is e.g. facial hair, but Price does not find that facial hair distressing nor particularly want to get rid of it, nor apparently does it need to get rid of it (beyond shaving) to be read as cis female in public. As a trans woman who wants to get rid of her facial hair, who feels intense dysphoria whenever she sees it, but whose facial hair is so thick that it looks like a 5-o'clock-shadow even immediately after shaving plus a layer of concealer, I cannot say I see any commonality between Price's experience and my own.
I think, if anything, Price's post demonstrates how unlike a transfeminine transition its experience has been. One part of the post which stood out was a paragraph about Price's apparently frequent hours-long masturbation sessions. And while I think it's great that people can talk about this, and have no issues at all with Price doing so, I think if a trans woman was employed as a Professor at a prestigious educational institution like Loyola University there is no way she would risk writing something like that on her public blog. (And incidentally, I did check to see if there were any trans women employed at Loyola and could not find any, but cannot ofc be sure of that as a fact.)
Other similar examples crop up throughout the post. While living as a man, Price states that, "most hookups were surprised that I didn’t have a penis when they brought me home." Again, that's amazing, it would be great if we could all live in this world where we didn't feel that we might be murdered or imprisoned for bringing a hook-up home without disclosing our genital configurations, but some of us don't live in that world.
On another occasion Price refers to feeling free to behave again how it did as a child. "My friends and I behaved exactly like this when we were growing up. I have missed it. Being a swaying, fidgety, thousand-yard-staring girlie who eloped through public space like she owned it," it says, followed by, "as a man, I felt this kind of behavior was completely inaccessible." Given the context of this coming after Price's claim that its "retransition" gave it insight into the transfeminine experience, I find this reference to girlhood (plus the understanding that those given the social role of "man" are punished for behaving this way) to be somewhat unpleasant. "Walking down the street, I sing along to my music at full volume and feel more okay being seen," it adds. That's great, when I was 4 months into my transition I would wear a hoodie with the hood up no matter the temperature and speak as quietly as possible to avoid drawing attention to the very masculine features that Price is so proud of retaining.
A particularly odd paragraph is used to explain the increase in sexism faced by Price after no-longer identifying as a man. Price states that it had been using the term "detransition" when presenting as a man, and no-one objected. But as soon as it underwent its own "detransition" it started to get backlash from transfeminists calling it a "grifter". Price characterises this as a non-man being criticised for something a man can do with impunity, and therefore sexism. But this characterisation of transfeminists' behaviour hardly makes any sense. The idea that transfeminists are more lenient to men than they are to non-men (even those who do not face transmisogyny) is totally absurd and bears no resemblance to reality. Is it not much more likely transfeminists consider statements about "detransition" from a trans person to be far less notable or worthy of critique than statements made on that topic by a "detransitioner"? Price's framing of its "fellow trans feminists" as misogynistic is also a more-than-a-little concerning in light of everything else.
But really, all of these things I've mentioned were not the main source of my discomfort with this post. That came when Price said this:
After many years of trying, it seems to me that ‘manhood’ amounts to mostly this: harnessing the power that one holds over other people, particularly women, and repressing one’s weakness so that societal power does not go away.
And yeah, there's a lot of truth in that, but how did Price not know this already? To fully succeed at being a man requires you to oppress. Many an uncracked egg was transmisogynised in her youth because of her failure to oppress. I am one of those. Even well before puberty, I was telling off other boys for making sexist jokes or comments, the result of which was bullying, social exclusion and early-onset transmisogyny. I failed to be a man before I could even get started, because you are not allowed to fully be a man if you don't partake in the oppression of women.
Price says, "I was centered, uplifted, listened to, and respected when I was on T," but I was also "on T" (endogenously) and would've publicly referred to myself as a man for two decades and I was never centered, uplifted, listened to, or respected. Being "centered" is a two-way street: people give you the opportunity to take up space that could have been taken by someone else, and you take it. But in the taking of it you are centering yourself, you are a collaborator in your own centering. Testosterone doesn't magically give you "male privilege", it gives you the option of taking that privilege. And if you take that option rather than refusing it, even if you relent after some years, it says something about your character. To be clear, it is possible to be a man and be a good person, but that involves actively refusing to be centered and uplifted above women, it involves actively making yourself smaller so that women can be uplifted instead. And it seems it took Price a surprising amount of time to come to this realisation for a self-described transfeminist.
Devon Price is not a man, but all the same it was able to be a much better man than I ever was. It was able to reap the rewards of male privilege that I was never allowed to access. Devon Price is not a woman, but it is treated as a woman in society, and specifically treated as a cis woman, something I will also never be allowed to access. Price's article purports to demonstrate commonalities with the experiences of trans women, but what it actually shows is that society allows people like Price to choose between being treated as a man or as a woman, but society allows transfeminine people neither of those options.
Price states that after having experienced the social role of 'woman' and the social role of 'man' it now feels like neither, rather it feels like "a living object or eternal fantastical creature existing beyond the human inventions of species, sex, or age". And here is revealed what is really meant by being exempt from transmisogyny: it is the freedom to exist beyond the human invention of sex. Some of us aren't allowed to exist there: we want to, but we're banned. This post is written from the place we're banned from entering, while also telling us it knows how we feel and shares in our struggle. Thanks, Devon, that really means a lot...
The real meaning, I guess, of Price's "I think my transition has some real commonalities with those of trans women and trans feminine people," comes in the list of things that haven't changed. Thicker body hair, facial hair, a lower voice, and some facial masculinisation stand out as examples that might be relatable to trans women. But whatever "commonalities" these could represent are rather hampered by the assertion that these changes are "lifelong or long-lasting, and thank god for that; I would not be as content in my funny little de-man-sition if I wasn’t holding onto some of my most coveted changes." So it is similar to a transfeminine transition in that there is e.g. facial hair, but Price does not find that facial hair distressing nor particularly want to get rid of it, nor apparently does it need to get rid of it (beyond shaving) to be read as cis female in public. As a trans woman who wants to get rid of her facial hair, who feels intense dysphoria whenever she sees it, but whose facial hair is so thick that it looks like a 5-o'clock-shadow even immediately after shaving plus a layer of concealer, I cannot say I see any commonality between Price's experience and my own.
that is the thing isnt it?
the commonalities and things it wants are the things most trans women and many transfems want to change.
its not agreement that "T and masculinity make me want to fucking kay em ess"
its alignment, such as it is, with transfemininity is "I too have facial hair, i too am read as woman (but not like you are) and enjoy being a little genderfucky gayboy girlthing"
its not "i was, or am currently, being placed into the transfeminized role of social reproduction", its not "i was the Acceptable Target, the Girl Who Even Other Girls Could Hit, or The Abjectified Thing that other people use to define themselves against"
===========================================
cause the issue is that when TME ppl desire a transfeminine experience, or alignment with transfemininity, theyre not talking about the social role or the broad forces at play, the power dynamics or abjectification
theyre talking about a desire to be More Free to be More Faggy, to Look Transfem without looking transfem, being transfem, existing in the transfem's social position
i think jade is intentionally written as transmisogynized in the epilogues and this characterization is so apparent that it got incorporated into the backlash to her portrayal
jades characterization as hypersexual in response to isolation, her feeling like theres something setting her apart from her friends despite interacting with them often and her desire to have a child despite pregnancy being a biological impossibility are all so clearly intended as coding of her as a trans woman to me that i cant see her as anything else. but so much of the backlash to jades character was just, 'it was gross of the writers to make it so jade has a penis' or 'why is jade such a needy slut all the time.' the argument id give the most benefit of the doubt to is 'jade resembles a transphobic futa stereotype' but i feel like just reading the text of the epilogues youd see theres so much more nuance to her character than that
honestly i feel like the fact that the epilogues were recieved the way they were is informed by the fact that they were released around the time the fandom was largely controlled by a bunch of vocal shitheads. both the largest subreddit and discord servers were owned by a bigoted dickhead who was encouraging racism and death threats. also the uhsc, the offline alternative to homestuck that restored the flash components, was controlled in part by gio, the same guy who got sarah z to rumor-mill his harrassment campaign against hussie at around the same time. if you go back and read the epilogues, theyre really good, really interesting and well-written explorations of homestuck's characters and the consequences the narrative had on them, but because sentiment against hussie was so bad at the time due in large part to the misinformation being spread about them due to like, four specific shitheads, i feel like everyone just took it in bad faith, and to this day i feel like i see the same takes over and over about how terrible postcanon is by people who havent been keeping up and still think hussie is an Evil Bad Person who wrote a Bad Story.
to this day i still see people acting like all the trans stuff was crowbarred in with no thought put into it because hussie wanted to Look Woke, by people whose primary source is the sarah z video (which is full of misinformation she has never corrected nor apologized for spreading,) and who arent even aware that hussie is transfem because they havent updated their opinion of them since 2020. there was a post on here a couple months ago that claimed that hussie switching to any pronouns was purely a PR stunt and compared this to scott cawthon donating thousands of dollars to the trump campaign. ive seen people i trust to understand homestuck get uncharacteristically upset by that one pic a few months back of jade, callie and kanaya standing in front of a trans flag captioned "CANONICALLY TRANS" that hussie drew, i assume purely because theyre wired to take her actions in bad faith. it sucks.
if youre at all into homestuck i think you should read What The Fuck Is The HVC Color Composer? an autobiographical document written by hussie that is partially about being a victim of stalking, harassment and misinformation. i also recommend reading the Homestuck Community Issues document if you have the time, in it homestuck's current team talk about the shitstirrers whove been harassing them and correct a lot of the misinformation theyve spread.
definitely read those links. i was there for a lot of this and was often mocked whenever i tried to correct the record over the years. people have been catastrophically wrong about the epilogues and post-canon and the backlash thereabouts for a *long* time. i'm glad the team finally set the record straight. also, the HVC Color Composer document is just a great autobiographical essay in its own right, half software technical manual half coen-esque fraudster romp, with a spiteful chunk in the middle where Andrew looks directly at the audience to say "i'm only telling this story because my stalkers tricked you into believing a lie." it's good and insightful and it makes all the right people mad.
whatever Go my girlkat
1991 - Fidel Castro speaks about the failures of Capitalism.
in general i think it's kind of worse than useless to always fall back on this assumption that people are being "tricked" into being mras or twerfs or white supremacists or usamerican jingoists etc. etc. when you can ask the question "how do they stand to materially benefit from this hate movement" and 9/10 times find a very easy answer
Dovekat !! And a tiny dove i drew but didnt know where to place in the drawing LOL but we love her anyway
Sophie Lewis looks back on Scapegoat to reassess the Andrea Dworkin's legacy, concluding that the current Dworkin revival is a "terrible ide
Scapegoat now states that women have no history but, if we did, it would be “a history of rape: the pogrom against the female body. The constant juxtaposition cuts short the breath that one would normally use to assess each claim, as it comes, before moving onto what follows. It turns my stomach in a way I suspect was not intended. A sudden comment on Chinese footbinding caps off, for instance, many paragraphs on the patriarchal oppression of women in Gaza. An abrupt swerve into Jew-on-Jew pimping follows many paragraphs on the pornographic core of National Socialism. A patronizing assessment of Palestinian women’s role in the resistance melts into yet another survey of state-sanctioned prostitution across the centuries. Dworkin has set herself the task to prove, inexorably—through a widening gyre of montage-based equivalences—that the “woman-hate” in men’s hearts really is everywhere, left and right. This hate will remain until women rise up across borders and draw new borders for themselves by seizing a homeland—an “Israel”—away from men. Her mission is carried out quite well. I just consider it fascistic, not least in its insistence on female innocence. Dworkin’s account of history is dazzlingly erudite and stunningly stupid at once: men have wrought it all. Even if your definition of “history” is strictly military, this is unpardonable stuff: armed struggles have always featured women leaders, such as, in the case of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Abla Taha, Latifa Howari, Sarah Joudeh and Leila Khaled. Dworkin doesn’t mention these or any other Palestinian women militants and reckons that feminism is not currently possible in the Arab world: “in the sensibility of contemporary Arab women, the Palestinian male is the romantic figure,” not the Palestinian woman. Tellingly, the whole question of Palestinian women’s anti-Zionist struggle is dealt with only indirectly, merged with a discussion of “the heroism of Algerian women fighters” between 1954 and ’62 whose purpose is to ram home the lesson that national liberation movements always betray their women. Besides, when women participate in struggle, it’s “because they can be used and useful” and “get a temporary pass from complete servility.” Also, “the subsuming of the individual in the nationalist struggle is an easy process for women, who have little experience with a social reification of a singular identity.” These women are fodder for revolutionary movements, Dworkin misogynistically opines, because they have no self. All the litanies of rape-related facts in previous Dworkin books like Intercourse have palpably been dress-rehearsals for the remix in chapter three. “Rape,” she raps here mid-infodump, “is murder’s heartbeat.” It’s an undeniably dope line. What’s odd is how, while the wretched of the earth are always women, “Pogrom/Rape” rests on the leftfield assertion that “Israeli men get raped.” Dworkin alleges that “the rape of a defeated foe, soldier, male” is “part of the Arab code, coexisting with the obligation of the father or brother to kill the sister for sexual impurity.” She extrapolates further, on the strength of the book Arab and Jew (1987) by former New York Times Jerusalem Bureau chief David Shipler, that Palestinian men are engaged in a “revenge vendetta through male-male rape.” It is in fact purely on this basis—that is, unevidenced testimony cited by Shipler from a former Haganah paramilitary veteran (and, later, IDF/IOF colonel) Rafi Horowitz, recalling the Arab Legion systematically gouging eyes and mutilating genitals—that Dworkin delivers her chilling verdict: “the revenge rape of male Israeli soldiers in captivity is part of the fear, part of the hate, that drives the Israeli fear of annihilation.” It’s her concluding point, and given that rape, for Dworkin, is the supreme justifier of bloody preemptive defense, there can be no mistaking what is being justified here.
as new grifters relentlessly dedicate themselves to digging up radical feminism and attempting to toss the exhumed corpse onto the kitchen table for attention, i think it's worth reading sophie lewis' scathing takedown of dworkin's zionism and how it's inextricable from the rest of her politics
ok i am curious. how long is the longest song in your library (not counting tracks that are like several songs in one file like a full album mix or symphony recording or whatever) (also if it is longer than 20 minutes say the name in the tags i am curious)
how long
< 3:00
3:00–3:59
4:00–4:59
5:00–5:59
6:00–6:59
7:00–7:59
8:00–11:59
12:00–15:59
16:00–20:59
21:00–24:59
25:00–30:00
≥ 30:00
Anyway, stop listening to miserable pieces of shit who constantly try to drag others down to bring themselves up about trans womanhood and instead listen to me:
Insofar as trans women are, fundamentally, just an ordinary class of women, what we need to strive for is material liberation first and foremost in our positionality as workers, like the whole rest of the proletariat: no woman, real or cis, needs to center her identity and every little aspect of her personal life around being a martyr for feminism so, by all means, play with the significations and accoutrements of womanhood all you want, because they belong to you, and don't let miserable people convince you that you have a feminist duty to misery; our goal is liberation and not deification of the status of victimhood.
i receive: 3.1 million views on my video
you receive: 150 dollars for being forced to overwork yourself rushing out the soundtrack for that video, and I will call you a pedophile
It is impossible to talk about Patricia as a musician without mentioning how horrible the internet has been to her, as it should be.
“Oh well, you know, she’s put out a ton of albums and they all sound pretty different which is really notable considering she has been actively harassed by kiwifarms for eight years straight and most people who have heard of her tend to side with kiwifarms”
it really is a sign of victory of Liberalism that so many people that call themselves transgender feminists are willing to not only go to bat for someone who regularly cites Dworkin, Greer, and Rich (as well as Federici without caveats), and further that other transgender feminists are desperately trying to fit themselves into the framework of Radical Feminism, a framework that has, at material level, only proven to be effective at removing transgender women from feminist spaces. This is especially disappointing from so-called "Marxists," as if Engels leaned on radical feminism in 1884, or if Cuba's incredible family code in 2022 that still proves to be the most liberatory material leaps and bounds for transgender women is built atop radical feminism and not Cuba's way of organizing and democratizing society whose foundations are based on Marx and Engels' writings.
This incredible anemia of theory is allowed to pass because people who should know better also do not engage with feminism OR marxism in a serious manner! No one can imagine a future where things get better materially! Instead, they're spinning their wheels clinging to a framework of exclusion rooted in Liberal politics birthed in the heart of the Capitalist world that was born shuddering and screaming at the sight of women like me, and crucially, them as well!
I think a consistent challenge in transfeminist analysis is the question of where trans women fit into the classical man-woman scheme of patriarchy. You have some transfeminists asserting that trans women are exactly identical to cis women, and others asserting that trans women actually represent a sort of "third sex." Conversations go back and forth about this and my current thoughts are that there are compelling arguments on either side, but that they're both deeply flawed and limited because of their typically one-sided, metaphysical analysis.
Looking at the material evidence, it is plainly apparent that trans women are women proper - we are forced into the same spheres of labor as other women within our classes. Most of us are trapped in low-wage (often highly feminized) work, or are forced out of the formal legal economy and into sex work, long-term unemployment and begging just to afford food, and so on. As with cis women, a small number of us (mostly limited to the imperial core) are professionals who can access higher education, well-paying jobs, and so on. We can see plainly that, when all other factors are equal, trans women make markedly less money through employment than do cis women, cis men, and also trans men, which is consistent with and easily explained by our real existence as a type of specially-exploited woman, the same way a Black woman will typically make less than a white woman, a periphery woman less than an imperial core woman, and so on. We are just another kind of woman with an added layer of special exploitation, and one which is not incompatible with any other such layer.
On the other hand, we can look at the way we are spoken of and commonly regarded in normal social life. It seems plainly apparent that many people, maybe even most people, do indeed regard us as a third sex even if they would not use that term. Cis women, for the most part, do not get they/themmed incessantly the same way we do when someone is aware of our trans status. We're totally unwelcome in sexed spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, etc), on a bio-physical level we are regarded as alien or as if we function completely differently from a cis woman or a cis man (despite HRT making us bio-physically extremely similar to cis women, and extremely different from cis men. The vast majority of trans women are either on HRT or desire to be on it). Even bourgeois trans women, take for instance the US politician Sarah McBride, are regarded with so much distaste and hatred by other bourgeois women. A phenomenon I've observed repeatedly in my own life is that when in public, strangers will consistently and exclusively address me as female, as a woman, with she/her, up until I have to share my ID (as part of getting a job, to access medical care, to buy alcohol, etc) - I have been unable to get the sex marker on my ID changed, and as soon as a stranger notices that, it's immediately apparent that I instantly become something "other" to them, something unknown and foreign and scary, and they don't really know what to do about it and usually refer to me very minimally or with they/them for the remaining duration of the interaction. There are countless other such phenomena we can raise to provide evidence for the fact that we seem to be regarded as a third sex, but I'll end there.
What's happening here? On a material level, trans women are simply women proper, but on an ideological level, trans women seem to be widely understood as a third sex. Much to the distaste of those attempting to carry out a metaphysical analysis, this is a contradictory state of affairs - the reality as it exists within the financial statistics and within the medical journals and in a visit with a client is distinct from the reality that exists within people's heads, in the realm of the ideal. We can attempt to pick one side or the other and say that it is the truth of transfeminine existence, but I see this as a mistake. Rather, I think it is much more coherent to regard the true nature of transfeminine existence as this contradiction, as the class of people who are truly women on every material level but who are also widely regarded as something separate from and foreign to womanhood even at the same time as those same people regarding us as such produce the conditions that create our special-exploitation as just another underclass of women.
For the most part, this is not done with conscious intent, but rather, it's the natural cross product of the general conditions of capitalism and class society, the current ideological and material formation of patriarchy, and the specific neuroses non-transmisogynized people hold about trans women in the context of these greater systems.
The same way the proletariat is defined by its contradiction with the bourgeoisie rather than as something with independent existence, our nature as trans women is defined by contradiction to both men and cis women on a material level but also on an ideological level the very concept of a "cis" woman - the idea that women are not a socially constructed category but are instead something natural, immutable, in possession of existence separate from class society and patriarchy in particular. Or, to put it another way, trans women are defined as the class of women violating the perfect Platonic forms of patriarchy as people imagine them.
This is mostly just a collection of thoughts, or you could think of it as a set of notes I've made public for the sake of seeing how well they resonate with other Marxist trans women. Someday I might write something longer and more formal about this, but this has been on my mind for the last few years and this is the general conclusion I've reached.