#transph96ia

[chr9nicgrievance]

Addressing the repulsive an9n that just sent an ask t9 Cr9nus

TW: transph96ia, mis9gyny, transmis9gyny, gender p9licing, harassment

Let me make this perfectly clear, since y9u've managed t9 c9mpress a text699k's w9rth 9f ign9rance int9 9ne ask:

Y9u are n9t "critiquing" him. Y9u are enf9rcing the exact systems 9f gender c9ntr9l that harm every trans pers9n, whether y9u realize it 9r n9t, and I'm 6eing gener9us 6y entertaining the p9ssi6ility that y9u aren't fully aware 9f h9w ridicul9us y9u s9und.

> "Y9u'd pr96a6ly have 6een m9re lika6le if y9u'd stayed a girl."

This is n9t a neutral statement. This is mis9gyny and transph96ia wearing the same cheap c9at. Y9u are saying:

1. W9men exist f9r lika6ility.

2. Transmasc pe9ple 9nly have value if they remain feminine f9r y9ur c9mf9rt.

3. A man is 9nly t9lera6le if he perf9rms masculinity in y9ur appr9ved way.

That's three layers 9f 9ppressi9n in 9ne sentence. If y9u were trying t9 speedrun "every terri6le gender take ever," then c9ngratulati9ns, y9u're nearly d9ne with the tut9rial.

> "Y9u 6ring a 6ad name t9 the trans male c9mmunity."

N9, actually, y9u d9. Y9u are trying t9 p9lice h9w s9me9ne transiti9ns, h9w s9me9ne em69dies masculinity, and whether they are "d9ing their gender right" acc9rding t9 y9ur pers9nal aesthetic preferences.

That is the same l9gic cis pe9ple use when they say trans pe9ple are 9nly accepta6le if they "pass." Y9u are repr9ducing the vi9lence y9u claim t9 resist.

> "6eing transmasc wr9ng."

There is n9 such thing. There is 9nly:

- 6eing transmasc y9ur way,

- and 6eing transmasc s9me9ne else's way.

The idea 9f 6eing "trans the right way" is a fascist structure 9f c9nf9rmity. Y9u're n9t defending the c9mmunity. Rather, y9u're trying t9 gatekeep it int9 s9mething small, unif9rm, digesti6le, and c9ntr9lled.

If that s9unds familiar, it's 6ecause it is the exact tactic hist9rically used t9 6reak 9ppressed gr9ups apart fr9m the inside: divide them 6y "accepta6le" vs "unaccepta6le." Y9u're repeating state vi9lence with queer v9ca6ulary.

And finally, y9u d9n't "hate him with9ut care." Y9u care very deeply. Y9u care en9ugh t9 send a paragraph 9f rage a69ut h9w his existence vi9lates y9ur internal gender ru6ric.

This is insecurity dressed as activism, plain and simple.

Addressing the repulsive anon that just sent an ask to Cronus

TW: transphobia, misogyny, transmisogyny, gender policing, harassment

Let me make this perfectly clear, since you've managed to compress a textbook's worth of ignorance into one ask:

You are not "critiquing" him. You are enforcing the exact systems of gender control that harm every trans person, whether you realize it or not, and I'm being generous by entertaining the possibility that you aren't fully aware of how ridiculous you sound.

> "You'd probably have been more likable if you'd stayed a girl."

This is not a neutral statement. This is misogyny and transphobia wearing the same cheap coat. You are saying:

1. Women exist for likability.

2. Transmasc people only have value if they remain feminine for your comfort.

3. A man is only tolerable if he performs masculinity in your approved way.

That's three layers of oppression in one sentence. If you were trying to speedrun "every terrible gender take ever," then congratulations, you're nearly done with the tutorial.

> "You bring a bad name to the trans male community."

No, actually, you do. You are trying to police how someone transitions, how someone embodies masculinity, and whether they are "doing their gender right" according to your personal aesthetic preferences.

That is the same logic cis people use when they say trans people are only acceptable if they "pass." You are reproducing the violence you claim to resist.

> "Being transmasc wrong."

There is no such thing. There is only:

- being transmasc your way,

- and being transmasc someone else's way.

The idea of being "trans the right way" is a fascist structure of conformity. You're not defending the community. Rather, you're trying to gatekeep it into something small, uniform, digestible, and controlled.

If that sounds familiar, it's because it is the exact tactic historically used to break oppressed groups apart from the inside: divide them by "acceptable" vs "unacceptable." You're repeating state violence with queer vocabulary.

And finally, you don't "hate him without care." You care very deeply. You care enough to send a paragraph of rage about how his existence violates your internal gender rubric.

This is insecurity dressed as activism, plain and simple.