#regendering

[taliabhattwrites]

Or: I Asked My Trans Guy Friend About Misandry And All I Got Was This Giant Essay

Trans Male Privilege

Yes, we need to talk about the boys again. Desperately.

For once, I'm plugging a friend's essay on feminism, instead of my own. Please give it a read; Isaac's perspective is insightful, focused, thorough, and BADLY NEEDED in today's discursive landscape of fever-pitch transphobia amidst epistemicide!

[myceliumdistro]

— Failure States and Trans Futures

[taliabhattwrites]

"Reinventing the Gender Binary"

CWs: Rape, fetishization, impregnation by assault, dehumanization, transmisogynistic degendering, misappropriating the language of racial justice, objectification, and worst of all, "infighting". I'm going to do something stupid---post about transfeminism on Tumblr again. The following is transcribed from two Bluesky threads:

I have a story.

About how "transfeminists reinvented the gender binary". About how "every trans person is subject to transmisogyny". About how "we're all faggots, deviants, perverts, so why demand specificity?" It begins with a transmasc individual saying "chicks with dicks" isn't offensive.

See, this individual identified as a chick with a dick. Or a man with a vag, depending. They revealed a lot about themselves over the course of the argument with a trans women. They were 19, married, a parent, and never availed of any transition care. They didn't consider this term dehumanizing.

When the trans woman they were arguing with told them that they didn't have the authority to deem whether a term fetishizing her was dehumanizing or not, they got very nasty. Trans women did not have any special claim over 'chick with dick', and to say so was to practically misgender them.

So justified, they talked about how trans women *are* just a sexual identity, a kink identity, and we did not have any special authority over transphobia or transmisogyny. Unlike them, who experienced real oppression. This is where they strongly implied that they had been impregnated by assault.

That's deeply traumatic, and violent, and something no trans woman will experience. So therefore, of course, we have no epistemic authority over misogyny. Or transphobia. Or sexual assault, and fetishization. Our suffering is always going to be a subset of "real" misogyny, see. Because no wombs.

This individual is young, and they do not know they are a TERF. Trans identity, to them, is a mask, a way to "escape being gendered". Oppression to them is intrinsically linked to reproductive exploitation, which is synonymous with misogyny, and trans women don't experience that. We costume.

Every time I hear someone say that "we've reinvented the gender binary", I sigh deeply. We never needed to reinvent it. Trans women, in the midst of the most queervoid-y of spaces, have always keenly been aware that our claims of oppression and experiencing misogyny are rarely believed.

You can say this was a young individual---but where are they going to learn better? Who is going to tell them that trans women's oppression isn't a costume, isn't a stigma for a kink, is more than just a mask we put on? That we are, meaningfully, women? Even without the wombs?

The gender binary is already there. The queervoided social spaces always cease to be queervoided when a tranny walks in, because these spaces recognize true trans people yearning to be free from (re)gendering and oppression, and "male pretenders who want to be gender I wish to escape, the freaks".

I am not the one who made the gender binary important. I am not the one who tolerated TERFs in my spaces, who encouraged the uncritical adoption of naturalized sex split from gender, and promoted a model of misogyny intrinsically tied to reproductive injustice.

I am the one who is offal.

Trans women are women who cannot be reproductive exploited, and we are too tainted to be allowed to be men ever again. So we are trash. Even to queervoids, because their "beyond the binary" ends at the threshold of a tranny demanding respect.

You think you are beyond sex? You think you have eliminated the need to divine what kind of gendered violence an individual is subject to?

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you, because I have seen gendervoids enact this violence on trannies, time and time again.

I don't believe you are beyond gender.

[Red, in a different post]:

I don't believe you are beyond gender.

I don't believe you are beyond gender.

YOU MARK ME AND MINE IN THE SAME WAY THE CIS DO, IN THE SAME WAY OUR MOST DEDICATED EXTERMINATIONIST FOES DO, AND YOU HAVE THE SHEER, UNREPENTANT, UTTER GALL TO PRETEND YOU ARE IN ANY WAY MORE ENLIGHTENED THAN THE GUTTER OF THE PATRIARCHY YOU EMERGED FROM?

You are not beyond gender.

Fuck your pronouns. You treat a tranny like this, your gender is fucking "sexist". Piss on your "gender abolition". It's worth nothing.

I will, in fact, be even blunter:

Trans women are not trying to say transmisogyny is "the worst oppression". We gave up on trying to stress the severity of it a long time ago. We are, at this point, trying to communicate that we *are oppressed at all*, to people who refuse to believe it.

I have seen fifty-year old men pull out the "I was a woman longer than you, tranny" card. I've seen people of every identity and experience go "I'll always be more of a woman than you, tranny, and don't you fucking forget it." Trans women are surveilled, scrutinized, targeted, and not believed.

The most gender-enlightened of us all refuse to deign to recognize trans women as meaningfully impacted by misogyny, as anything but second-class citizens of womanhood and feminism, as meaningfully oppressed because we are woman-gendered, sure, maybe, but we are not FEMALE.

And we notice that.

Then when we notice that even fellow trans people are more willing to self-regender to talk over us than BELIEVE US ABOUT OUR OWN LIVES AND OPPRESSION, or GRANT US THE PRIVILEGE OF SPEAKING AS THEIR EQUALS IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST PATRIARCHY, we are called "divisive".

Fuck that.

Hear me, here and now: You will get nowhere but a singularity of a "gender-enlightened" movement collapsing in on itself because for all the yearning for a post-gender existence, no one is willing to grant the tranny the dignity of womanhood, to admit that she, too, suffers AS a woman.

If you want to tie the core of misogynistic oppression to reproduction and deem transness as nothing more than "gender-play", fine. I wish you luck.

Cassandra has spoken.

[taliabhattwrites]

"Epistemicide" is a term you should become very familiar with in all discussions regarding trans oppression.

It sounds fancier than it is. The term is related to the concept of epistemic injustice. In essence, trans people have historically been subject to a form of epistemicide: our stories, histories, testimonials, ways of life, all erased and buried to maintain the patriarchal myth of dichotomous, naturalized, immutable sex.

We are then further marginalized through epistemic injustice, prevented from participating in the processes of knowledge-production, our testimonies devalued, our voices suppressed and our identities defined for us, not by us. The perception of us shaped by others, instead of ourselves. The conversation about us dominated by the voices of those who'd rather stamp us out, shouting over us constantly.

If you're not accounting for this as a central mechanism animating transphobia, you're missing a lot of the picture.

[taliabhattwrites]

The Sexed Regime, or: You Probably Have the Wrong Critiques of "TME/TMA" Terminology

Let's begin by looking at an interesting dichotomy.

There's an oddly pervasive idea in queer spaces that a truly progressive trans or post-gender politic underscores the irrelevance of sex. In contrast to patriarchal society's utter fixation on "natal sex", queer existence must be transcendent, a space in which one's bodily configuration is understood to be entirely under one's purview, where presentation is simply something we inhabit and implies nothing about our sexualities or embodiments. It is an idea of emancipation rooted in agnosticism, an anti-patriarchal revolution spurred by the lack of belief in our cissexist society's deranged emphasis on knowing what's in our pants at all times.

It's a very appealing idea, I'll admit.

Here's the thing, though.

The naturalization of sex is the foundation of patriarchy, as well as the basis of the heterosexual regime it instantiates. Humanity is cleft in twain, with one sex marked for reproductive-sexual exploitation by the other. Like most other regimes, this one is also powered by belief--belief in the superiority of the 'male sex', the unfitness of the 'female sex', and most of all: absolute belief that sex is immutable, exhaustively binary, and non-overlapping.

What this also means, ultimately, is that those of us who dare to desert the sex we were conscripted into face different pressures and violence. It is obvious that many trans people are also subject to reproductive injustice, as cis women are, and consequently the transphobia they face is very acutely a regendering impulse, a patriarchal desire to drag them back to the confines of womanhood to fulfill their patriarchal purpose. There is, understandably, a certain amount of solidarity between cis women and trans people who have suffered these aspects of the heterosexual regime.

This is in fact the understanding that gives rise to even liberal-progressive uses of 'male socialization' directed at transfems. Trans women are understood to have been spared certain excesses of misogynistic violence and therefore expected to see and approach the world differently. It is simply a neutral observation, of course, no judgment behind it ... well, until it comes time to deny trans women epistemic authority over experiences of misogyny or womanhood, even their own. After all, can transfems really be said to have a full understanding of patriarchy? They weren't 'raised AFAB'!

Oftentimes, this becomes a double bind of proving that transfems did experience trauma, feminization, and abuse even pretransition, often as children, which is then usually dismissed as "trauma dumping" or "equating womanhood to being abused"--despite the minimization of our experiences being predicated on our "lesser" understanding of the trauma of being "misogyny-affected". So let's not retread that.

Instead, I'll point out that people assume a symmetry, a complementarian equivalence, almost, between the experiences of trans people. What I would like to stress is that there is no such thing as a coherent "AMAB" class or a shared "AMAB solidarity" based on shared experiences of oppression, because I have some shocking news that readers may wish to sit down for:

Trans women are oppressed by cis men.

Cis men are overwhelmingly the ones who rape us, beat us, kill us, and seek to abuse us. When we were children, we were bullied and violated for our perceived effeminacy, largely by the cis boys we were most proximate to. Most of us have been around cis men when they've voiced their most dehumanizing, misogynistic thoughts about women, and have been punished for not participating in these rituals of misogynistic rhetoric, too. The trauma of our upbringing involves being locked into spaces with those who sniffed out our differences, our non-conformance, and routinely punished us for being deviant. When we grow up, they are the ones who largely continue to prey on us.

The chief characteristic of transmisogyny is the presumed artificiality of trans womanhood, the idea that we are mimetics, and our womanhood is a farce, a costume whose only purpose is sexual. This dovetails with our disposability--our inability to be women who can bear children, further patrilineality, and secure what minuscule respectability is afforded to the domestically-confined women who continue the male line. As such, our hyperfetishization marks us for extreme violence, as sexual objects that can be freely used and discarded, guilt-free, because after all ... We asked for it.

Why would we "choose" womanhood if we did not want this?

Which, ultimately, brings me to my point: Sex is a social regime of difference imposed on us, but it is, unfortunately, a regime still in existence. My sex is the basis upon which my womanhood is denied and my disposability justified, because the transfeminized are degendered--we are not, as a rule, provided a path "back" to manhood. Our "effeminacy" ensures that we are 'failed' men, because gender is ultimately hierarchal. Losing status, being unmanned, is frankly trivial, and is what underlies the oppression of queer men--trans men included. Most of us are ultimately subject to some kind of degendering, largely due to how a patriarchal society regards those who defy the reproductive mandate, but transmisogyny is a specific manifestation of degendering that trans women experience.

"TME/TMA" may well be an imperfect categorization--all undertakings in boundary formation are imprecise, though not always violent, given that we need descriptive terms to communicate--but the real issue with it is that it's an overly-ponderous and ultimately clunky terminology for the frank reality that the binary sex imposed on us shapes the contours of the violence we experience. I have never experienced the specific kind of misogyny that sees me as nothing but a broodmare, because I'm a filthy troon, that dehumanized abject thing whose only purpose is absorbing (sexual) violence. Yet the acknowledgment that transfems experience forms of violence that others do not--or sometimes, even the acknowledgment that transfems face violent misogyny at all--is much less forthcoming.

Our struggles are indelibly connected, of course, stemming from the same source and promulgated by the same regime that seeks to define us as nothing more than male property. The shape of each is distinct, however, and because people frequently misunderstand the shape of mine, the idea that my struggles are even connected to theirs, that I experience misogynistic violence homoousian with that which they experience, is frequently dismissed, or considered outright offensive.

This is why I talk and write about transmisogyny, and why more people need to become more familiar with how the naturalization of sex and the regime of heterosexuality under patriarchy necessitates our common struggle.

And unfortunately, in order to properly express these ideas, we do need to talk about the regime of sex.

[taliabhattwrites]

I'm So FAB

Yesterday, I spotted someone saying the quiet bit out loud while relitigating the utility of terminology referring to sex-assigned-at-birth: That they used 'AFAB' as shorthand for 'anyone perceived as a woman'.

So we did it, everyone! We found the mythical AFAB transfem, and apprently I was her all along. Round of applause, let's all pack it in and go home.

For anyone paying even the slightest attention, however, it becomes pretty obvious why this is absurd: plenty of trans women are perceived as women, and the assumption or idea that we aren't stems from an unexamined belief that our 'maleness' is always evident or perceptible. We Can Always Tell in pseudoprogressive jargon.

This, here, is the fundamental issue with sex-assigned-as-birth, as queer communities and putative trans allies use it: 'AFAB' and 'AMAB' are considered to be more homogenous, meaningful categories than they actually are. 'AFAB' means 'women and diet women' to many, and 'AMAB' just means 'men and those playing dress-up'.

I've stated this in longer terms elsewhere, but I'll just be blunt: 'AFAB' is considered to be a relevant category even by many trans people because they want to talk about reproductive exploitation. They conceptualize misogyny as synonymous with the process of being regendered, of presumed gestational capacity and the way patriarchy lays claim to the reproductive autonomy of such individuals while marking them inferior.

This synonymization leads naturally to presuming 'AMAB' to be an equally-relevant category, because surely trans women, due to not experiencing this reproductive exploitation, share something fundamentally in common with cis men, whether in terms 'socialization' or societal treatment? Surely, the unsaid subtext goes, trans women are women-but-less, because the misogyny trans women experience (if people even admit that trans women experience misogyny at all) is of this lesser, less severe kind?

These assumptions are both disappointing, infuriating, and lie at the core of a lot of erasure inherent to transmisogyny. Cis men oppress, exploit, violate, beat, and otherwise thoroughly exclude trans women, making it known that trans women (and even many queer cis men) do not have a claim to the same kind of manhood that they do. Our affinity for and claims towards womanhood may not be honored with recognition, but they are punished with violence, and the idea of 'AMAB' being a meaningful grouping at all is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, the obvious remains unstated: while this supposed commonality in reproductive exploitation is the rationale underlying the presumed relevance of 'AFAB', not everyone assigned female at birth can gestate. Yet, there are not lengthy debates on the womanhood of such individuals, or whether they're subject to misogyny---no one entertains the idea that you stop experiencing misogyny when your tubes are tied, or you experience menopause.

So perhaps it's obvious that reproductive exploitation, while central to how we organize sex-castes, is not the be-all-end-all of who is subject to misogyny and womanization, and perhaps we should stop reinforcing the idea that sex-assigned-at-birth fully describes the kinds of patriarchal violence one experiences. We can be more precise, more inclusive, more feminist, and less essentialistic all at once.

You just have to stop clinging to cissexism.

[taliabhattwrites]

The Book Everybody And Nobody Read: Feinberg's "Stone Butch Blues" | Cracked Ivory

Get more from Cracked Ivory on Patreon

For this Patreon-exclusive episode of Cracked Ivory, @dolphin-diaries and I discuss the book every lesbian is told to read, but which seemingly few of us actually have! We go over Leslie Feinberg's magnum opus Stone Butch Blues, a forward-thinking and revolutionary lesbian feminist text that remains relevant to this day. Join us as we consider one of the few enduring works of the lesbian canon and the misconceptions that surround it even within the queer community. Feinberg's text reckons with epistemicide, regendering violence, and materialist transfeminism during a time when these subjects had yet to be named, in a timeless work that every lesbian and trans person should attempt to engage with. Not just through screenshots on Tumblr.

[taliabhattwrites]

Manhood is a club that it's easy to be kicked out of but hard to be allowed into.

Trying to express this idea with the least amount of jargon possible, because understanding this is key to avoiding some very common rhetorical and ideological traps when discussing feminism, misogyny, and transphobia.