Remember to love trans women with your whole heart or perish

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
KIROKAZE
untitled

Product Placement
★
todays bird

Kiana Khansmith
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
No title available
Show & Tell
hello vonnie

Love Begins
No title available
Xuebing Du
art blog(derogatory)
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
taylor price
Jules of Nature
Claire Keane
EXPECTATIONS
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Iraq
seen from Colombia
seen from Iraq

seen from Tunisia
seen from Greece
seen from Ecuador

seen from Belgium
seen from Paraguay

seen from United States

seen from Bangladesh
seen from Thailand
seen from Ecuador
seen from United States

seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Israel
@violet-nudibranchs
Remember to love trans women with your whole heart or perish
So I have a point to make, but I think it is going to take a bit of a journey to get there. Lets start with a quote from Whipping Girl (Julia Serano).
When the majority of violence and sexual assaults committed against trans people is directed at trans women, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny.
I think it is important to understand that for many trans women, Whipping Girl is formative. It is hard to overstate how important of a work it is to how trans femme people as a whole understand and view the world. With that in mind.
That quote is predicated on a false assumption. The best current data is that violence is directed across trans gender identities fairly equally. That is, trans men and non binary people suffer about as much violence as trans women. However, up until recently almost all studies of violence against trans people have been focused on trans women. Trans men and nonbinary people have been critically under represented and violence against them critically unreported. And yet many trans women continue to assume that trans women are the most targeted gender identity, largely because of an over reliance on a twenty year old manifesto that made a very strong claim based on bad data (which was the best data available at the time).
This is not a Julia Serano hit piece. I think Whipping Girl is fine. But I also think that Whipping Girl is not perfect. There are ideas and statements I personally disagree with. There are ideas and statements in there that are objectively wrong, like the above quote. And there is a least one statement I simply find indefensible.
While trans people on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum face discrimination for breaking gender norms (i.e., oppositional sexism), their expressions of maleness or masculinity themselves are not targeted for ridicule—to do so would require one to question masculinity itself.
This statement does not line up with what I have observed. I have observed trans men's masculinity being ridiculed, though not in the same way as trans women's femininity is ridiculed. She is wrong. I think this is an ignorant statement made by a trans woman motivated to overlook discrimination because she was pushing a particular narrative and therefore failed to recognize discrimination as it is experienced by another group, assuming that because it is not like the discrimination she experiences it does not exist. I believe this statement is indefensible. It was ignorant then, it is ignorant now.
Again, this is not a hit piece. I don't think she is a bad person, I don't think we need to throw out all of Whipping Girl. Lots of people make mistakes like this, it is an occupational hazard of making these kind of strong theories and statements.
But how many trans women take this statement as gospel and build their understanding of trans masculinity around Julia Serano's dismissive, factually incorrect, and at times even ignorant statements?
And this is Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. One of the most respected trans feminine texts there is. If we should be able to trust any text, it is Whipping Girl.
And that's the point. It is dangerous to view these sorts of texts as objective sources of information. And it's not just trans women and whipping girl, I am just most familiar with texts relating to trans women because I am one.
The queer community has a problem where we view authority figures in the movement as sources of objectively correct information. And when you do this eventually some authority figure you respect is going to say something that's ignorant and wrong and you will adopt that incorrect idea.
You have to be critical of your sources. Especially sources that speak to you on an emotional level.
Do you know where someone could find the best current data about violence against trans people? Because every time I try to look, I find data that says trans women are significantly more at risk of violence than trans men.
I am not trying to kick the hornets nest here, but if you’re telling people to question their sources and then making a big claim without any links to data… people are going to question where you got that.
So let's start with a critically flawed, if well meaning, source, to demonstrate why you have to be careful and the type of misinformation that is extremely easy to happen. The human rights campaign is one of the first sources people are going to come up against here. They also horribly mangle the data in ways that are, frankly, shocking. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have anyone qualified to do statistical analysis look over their claims. Maybe not even anyone with basic training.
So the hrc bases a lot of their claims on identified homicide numbers. Which, of course, introduces massive selective bias. Using a pool of 372 identified trans victims of homicide, the hrc claims that 83% of trans victims of homicide were women.
The problem being that identified victims are not the same as all victims. Especially when you are comparing a known highly visible demographic to demographics known for low visibility.
The discrepancy in those claims is subtle to those who are not trained in data analysis, but it is such a basic and major error as to call into question the ability of the HRC to do effective data analysis at all. It's classic survivorship bias, I'm sure you've seen the story of the WW2 planes with bullet holes, it's that sort of thing.
And it is true that all sources agree that trans women (especially black trans women) are far more often identified. We have more names of murdered trans women than other demographics. You might be forgiven thinking this means trans women suffer the most violence.
But competent data analysis paints a different picture.
Lets look at "Global Burden of Violence Against Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".
The first thing you will notice is that this source spends a huge amount of time going into exact methodology, what data was used, the source, what data was not used and why, and how and why it was analyzed in the way it was. This is what competent data analysis looks like. Lets pull some critical quotes from the source:
"Disproportionate violence burdens are experienced by transgender and gender-diverse people who are multiply marginalized.13 For example, transphobia, racism, and classism intersect to compound violence exposure for transgender women of color.14,15 According to the Trans Murder Monitoring project, 94% of the 321 identified transgender and gender-diverse people who were murdered in 2023 were transgender women or transgender feminine people, and the majority were Black, women of color, and engaged in sex work.16 Such disparities suggest the importance of considering intersecting identities in violence research and intervention strategies.13"
You will notice they acknowledge the data on identified victims is almost entirely trans women. What they do not do is suggest that this means trans women are the primary victims of anti trans violence, instead drawing the conclusion that intersecting identities are a key factor. This is important because of the results of the actual data of properly conducted data gathering. Here is their conclusion about violence across trans gender identities: "Our meta-analyses did not show significantly different levels of violence globally among transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary adults."
"While we would have included homicide, we identified no studies that reported its prevalence." The first part is pretty plain. There is not a statistically significant difference in violence levels between trans identities, according to the data that was collected in a scientific manner.
However, homicide data has been completely neglected to be collected in a scientific manner (likely due to the difficulty of doing so). Instead reports are anecdotal - that is, we identify trans homicide victims after the fact, which means it is entirely based on demographic visibility. The source does suggest that it seems likely that black trans women in particular are disproportional victims of homicide, but no real conclusion can be drawn without further studies.
Given that general violence against trans people seems fairly flat across identity, and that intersectional factors seem to play a critical part in violence against trans people, I would suggest that anecdotally gathered evidence is the source of the discrepancy. Between a demographic known for hyper visibility (trans women), and demographics known for being practically invisible (other trans identities), it draws a very obvious picture of why the anecdotal evidence looks the way it does.
As a side note and purely my own opinion, I think there is a tendency for white trans women to claim the violence experienced by trans women of color, especially black trans women, and report it as general violence against trans women. But the data suggests that race (and class, which are often intertwined) play such a massive role in violence against trans women that I feel it is honestly kind of racist how the trans women community so often glosses over it, if it is even discussed at all. The simple fact is that a white trans woman like myself is much, much less likely to experience violence than a black trans woman, and that is a key part of the discussion.
Getting back to data, there is one more important piece I want to highlight. Specifically, how data has been gathered, and on who.
"Of the 94 studies, nearly all (90 studies [96%]) included transgender women, whereas 49% (46 studies) included transgender men, and 37% (35 studies) included nonbinary adults"
This is a massive discrepancy in visibility. It seems almost laughable that a study would include trans women specifically but not bother with trans men, a staggering display of systematic bias against trans men, and yet it appears that half of available studies that passed the minimum bar of quality to be included in the meta analysis did just that. And nonbinary people have it even worse. It is no wonder that violence against trans demographics other than trans women is less well understood and under reported in anecdotal analysis. Even the people actively looking for violence against trans people are heavily biasing their studies towards discovering violence against trans women.
I could go on for a long, long time breaking down this one meta analysis, but I think you get the point, and in particular how important proper data analysis is. The simple fact of the matter is many "reputable" sources are clearly not conducting proper data analysis when breaking down anti trans violence by demographic and making wildly incorrect claims because of it.
I have one more source I will be brief with. "Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018". The critical quote for our purpose:
"Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1000 persons, respectively) than did cisgender women (23.7 per 1000 persons; OR = 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55) and cisgender men (19.8 per 1000 persons; OR = 5.98, 90% CI = 2.09, 9.87), but there were no differences between transgender men and women (Δ = 21.4; SE = 68.7; P = .76)."
You will note that the raw data shows higher violence against trans men, but with proper data analysis it is revealed to not be statistically significant. This is something you have to be careful of, there are tools experts use for data analysis that reveal that obvious conclusions from raw numbers are not always correct.
There are more sources out there, but I am not going to bother tracking them down. It was not hard to find these sources, these two major sources I found through simple internet searches on the first page (duck duck go, in my case). I don't know why you had problems, for me it was as simple as searching for something like "trans violence by gender identity" and looking for actual studies that talk about methodology.
This is a skill people really need to develop, but its not something I know how to teach. I personally think the queer community on tumblr is very over reliant on being spoon fed sources, and on top of that is really terrible at evaluating sources. I think it is genuinely quite likely that most trans people go straight to the HRC page, see their big bold graphics proclaiming that 83% of trans homicide victims are trans women, and don't even consider that it could be bad information.
#reading list#julia serano#also ! the 2015 US National trans survey showed that approx. 70% of native trans male and nonbinary people afab respondents have been#sexually assaulted - a staggering 10-20% more than any other racial demographic
^^ its genuinely fucking insane how high the rates are for native trans men & nonbinary people assigned female. iirc its 74% for enben assigned female, 71% for trans men, higher than the already high rates for native cis women (the 2016/2017 NISVS found 63.9% of native cis women experienced contact sexual violence) & as you mentioned, higher than any other racial group looked at on the USTS. & the lack of discussion around this when it comes to discussing misogynistic colonial violence feels really dangerous tbh (thinking abt the above remark on how racism is sidelined in the discussion of trans women being murdered).
Genuinely DESPISE how testosterone is treated as the ‘boy’ hormone and estrogen as the ‘girl’ hormone
thing i made. is this accurate
idk im just kinda pissed off rn
Am I allowed to add this too
i saw a post the other day that said something like "if you identify as the gender you were assigned at birth, you are cis and shouldn't be allowed to call yourself trans" which i'm sure sounds reasonable if you don't know any, say, bigender people
I'm sure it sounds reasonae if you don't know any, say, intersex people
How bro sound:
they might claim this isn’t antisemitic, because they said “Zionists,” so to point out the much louder part of the post: “they have learned nothing from the Nazi concentration camps.” this is how you know they are specifically talking about Jews, and, indeed, that they believe that 1. the Holocaust was a lesson to be learned, not by the perpetrators, but by the Jewish victims of genocide, and 2. that the Nazis didn’t do their job of eliminating the Jewish people thoroughly enough. the person who wrote the screencapped comment wants to finish the job.
OK this post really gets me, aside from the desperate bloodthirstiness, because there’s a trick here which people fall for all the time. I see a lot of antisemitic stuff get passed around & lots of people just don’t recognize it or say anything about it unless it specifically spells out “the Jews.” The screenshotted rant really shows it; if you think about it, the person obviously means "The Jews."
First, they’re talking about the need to kill Zionist kids. (As an aside: WTF? Kids?) But it doesn’t make much sense to talk about Zionist babies any more than Communist babies or fascist babies. They care about milk and wet diapers, not class warfare or territorial conflicts. Babies don’t have political ideologies; they aren’t born with them and don’t automatically inherit the affiliation of their parents. They CAN be born with a preexisting identity of some racial, national, or ethnic group … like Jewishness. They’re talking about Zionists as an ethnic identity, and also assuming babies have some inborn (lesser) value determined by their descent, which is racist, even by a conservative definition of racism.
Then they’re talking about the concentration camps. Aside from the weirdness of talking about the Holocaust as a lesson that needed to be learned by its victims, the Holocaust was not some kind of action against Zionists, or Zionist Jews, but simply Jews. They targeted that ethnicity. Nazi persecution targeted Jews regardless of political affiliation. It’s not like they left Jews alone if they weren’t Zionist. Zionist Jew, Bundist Jew, Jew who didn’t get involved in politics and minded his own business, to Nazis a Jew is a Jew is a Jew and if you’re in German territory, then die. Nazis did not target Zionists, but ethnic Jews. Again, they are talking as if they are talking about an ethnic identity, not a political viewpoint.
(Aside: What is the unspecified lesson Zionists should learn from the Holocaust? What does this person think the lesson of the Holocaust is?)
This person never actually said “Jew,” they said Zionist, but they seem to be talking about Jews, which they call Zionists. They're obviously viewing their enemies as some immutable national / ethnic group. This person is not angry at some political movement or worldview or personal actions, they’re angry at an ethnicity. An ethnicity persecuted by Nazis. They’re angry at Jews. This person isn’t telling us an important critique of the Israeli government or war. This person is telling us they hate Jews and think the Nazis were right.
Sadly, there are tons of other posts that are less theatrically bloodthirsty that probably never consciously register with people. I see posts like “Zionists control the media” which is exactly the same old “Jews control the media” claim but they changed one word. I have no doubt that they flew across the screen of plenty of people who considered themselves kind, just, and tolerant, and saw the word “Zionist” and thought “Well they said Zionist not Jew, this is antizionist, not antisemitic” and did not really think “What is this guy actually saying?” I mean yeah, they said Zionist, but they meant Jew. There are a lot of people who do that, and can be pretty openly antisemitic as long as they just don’t say “Jew.” People need to learn this and notice this.
It doesn't have to say "The Jews." Think about what the person is actually saying.
And if you’re the poster of the original post seeing this, please stop for a minute and think. Were you just overwhelmed by anger for a moment, do you really want to kill children?
[id first image: a comment with the username and pfp blurred out that reads: "Kill them all, all Zionists must be killed, without mercy, men, women and children, old and young, everyone, the Zionist community must remain only a hole in the map, otherwise the wars will never end, in the eyes of the sons of shit we are all inferior, they are the chosen people, but we must inform them that they lost the elections, Nazi-Zionists, they have learned nothing from the concentration camps, therefore they are stupid, the stupid are incapable, the incapable are useless, therefore they must be suppressed.]
[id second image: drawing of an anime character with a raised finger and a speech bubble that says "Yes, I 100% strongly oppose genocide ...unless you live in one of the bad countries that I don't like and then I think you and your entire family and all your neighbours should be skinned alive"]
-
Typing this out made me physically sick. Do you think the fucking concentration camps were to teach a fucking lesson??? Talking about the Holocaust as if it was a punishment they had to learn from?? And everyone should die because they're useless??? What The Fuck. Also talking like genocide is the solution to, what, all the wars in the world?? Are Jews responsible for all the wars??,
The Rules of Anti-Transmasculinity
1. Your body is not your own.
1a. Your body is a site for other’s desires.
If they want you to be beautiful, it is cruel of you to deny them that. If they want you to be feminine, it is cruel of you to deny them that. If they think you should reproduce, it is cruel of you to divest yourself of reproductive duties.
1b. Your body is owned by the state.
Reproductive laws that can affect cis women also affect you, but you cannot weigh in on them, because you are not a woman.
Anti-trans laws affect you, but you must not bring this up; you are never the “real” target, even when you are, because you are not “really” trans.
When the legislation talks about “protecting” your fertility, you should feel lucky to be safeguarded from yourself.
- - -
2. Your experiences are not your own.
Your childhood does not exist. You cannot claim girlhood if you are a man, and you cannot claim boyhood if you did not grow up within it, and no other visions of childhood may exist. Your history, however you define it, is fundamentally incompatible with who you are.
Forms of sexism which are aimed at women, by a binary logic, cannot be aimed at men or mascs. If your experiences contradict this, either you are invalidating your identity, or you are appropriating womanhood.
It is your duty to blithely dissociate yourself from any trauma patriarchy may have inflicted on you. Men cannot be affected by these things even if it happens to them personally. A “real” man must be stoic and uncaring.
- - -
3. You are a “default” body.
You are to be assumed affluent, perisex, binary, and passing, with no legal or situational barriers to medical or social transition, and no reproductive concerns to speak of — unless your nonconformity can be used to dismiss you.
You are assumed to be able-bodied, sane of mind, white, and thin — unless your mental health or appearance is good for mockery.
You are to be treated as essentially cismasculine. Being treated as if you are cis is a compliment, even when it is erasing your lived experiences, and even if it is known and true that transfems have their own unique struggles from cis women too.
- - -
4. You are an “aberrant” body.
4a. Your body is a site of fascination. You (are presumed to) have a gestative capacity, and a fun extra hole. These traits are relevant when others assess your attractiveness and their kinks. They are not relevant in the context of your health. You’re a submissive little bottom, right?
(Your body is something to conquer and claim. This may be done to emphasize your femininity, deny your androgyny, or defang your masculinity.)
4b. Your body is a site of disgust. Any steps you may take to masculinize yourself are “ruining” your “female” features, regardless of any joy you personally take from the changes, and regardless of if you engage with medical transition or not.
(You are killing the woman you are supposed to be. Stand trial.)
4c. Your body is too unattractive to be sexually violenced. It doesn’t happen. When it does, you have anatomical privilege, because you are (presumed to be) in possession of a vulva, and victims with those are of course always believed. But it doesn’t happen, because you are essentially a cis man, and of course men don't get raped.
(It is not possible to be targeted for this violence because you are transmasculine. It is always misaimed violence, intended for someone else. Apologize to her for taking up her space.)
4d. Your body is a proxy for other’s ideas about activism. Womanhood is good, and manhood is bad, and things in-between are uncomfortable and hard to classify; therefore, a detransition back to cisfemininity would be a preferable state of being, wouldn’t it?
(Your transition is at odds with good feminism.)
4e. Your body is a joke. Men don’t menstruate. Men don’t gestate. Men don’t lactate. Men can't have breasts. If the suggestion sends people into hysterics, you must take it lying down.
(Remember; comedy is subversion, and you are an “abberant” body.)
4f. Your body is a hypothetical and not a lived reality. If men could menstruate or gestate, that would fix patriarchy. It would not result in men being denied at the door of the gynecology office, surely.
(To entertain your existence is a rhetorical inconvenience.)
4g. Your body is a source of put-down. You are a cunt, a pussy, a fembrained bitchmoid — and it isn’t sexist to refer to you as such, because you are a man. Your disinclination to be reduced to bioessentialist biogotry is simply proof that your masculinity is fragile. It is not proper for you to object to it, even when it is the same rhetoric spewed by patriarchy itself, and even if it would be equally galling to say to a woman, cis or trans.
(Have you not considered that your trans body is privileged under cis patriarchy?)
4h. Passing is universal to all transmasculine bodies and all life situations. Closeted, clocky, queer, or femme trans men and mascs cannot exist, and are not subjected to the same violence as women or other queer men. Legal gender markers don’t matter. Medical access isn’t a concern. People from your past cannot possibly be vindictive enough to out you, because queer or not, you have male privilege.
(Have you considered that you simply aren’t trying hard enough to pass?)
- - -
5. If you are inadequately masculine, pre-transition, nonbinary, or bi-gendered, you cannot “really” be a man.
Remember; you are a lost little girl when you need to be talked down to.
Remember; manhood and womanhood are diametric opposites, exclusive states of being.
Remember; poverty is not an excuse.
- - -
6. If you are inadequately feminine or too masculine, you cannot “really” be queer.
Remember; you are a “default” body.
Remember; you are essentially cis.
- - -
7. If you are too assertive or too unwilling to serve as a punching bag, you cannot “really” be a feminist.
Remember; men cannot be feminists.
Remember; men cannot need feminism.
Remember; your masculinity is most readily acknowledged when it provides a rhetorical threat.
- - -
8. If you really insist on your masculinity, then it must be in service to others. You owe them labor, defense, money, and deference.
You are not owed equality or reciprocity, because men are responsible for patriarchy. You are on the hook for the patriarch’s debt, and you are presumed to share his wallet.
(A man is a protector and a provider. I thought you wanted to be a man?)
- - -
9. Your interest in your own autonomy is indistinguishable from power-grabbing.
Your self-determination and self-advocacy aligns you with patriarchal interests, or is a sign that you are too battered by patriarchy to self-determine in the first place. Someone else must decide these things for you. Someone else must speculate on your motives. You do not get to speak for yourself.
- - -
10. Your inclusion and representation is not important.
10a. When you notice your absence from culture, art, and storytelling, others ask; why do you not simply project your experiences onto cis men? Remember, you are a default body. Surely you are different from other queer people who need direct representation.
(When you try to do that, you are classically fembrained and illiterate for thinking a given character could have transmasculine subtext or themes.)
Projecting onto cis women is akin to killing them.
Why are you not satisfied with mpreg fanfic?
10b. When you make your own art and stories, you are playing with dolls. It is unimportant, juvenile, and easily dismissed much in the way that people discuss teenage girls who act as culture-makers.
(If transmasculinity is not present in the world of art, it must be because it has no artistic merit.)
- - -
11. Your erasure is proof that you have nothing to offer.
The muffling of violence done to you or your brothers is proof that no violence occurs in the first place.
The muffling of you or your brother’s contributions is proof that none of you contributed in the first place.
The removal of your brothers from the historical narrative is proof that they didn’t exist, or that they never stood in solidarity with other feminists and queers.
Silence is proof that you need not speak.
- - -
12. Denying any danger that you may be in is affirmative to your masculinity, because men cannot be harmed.
There are no statistics that say otherwise if we never read them.
There are no patterns of abuse if we never speak of them.
There are no dead if they are recorded as femicides.
There are no victims if we do not speak their names.
- - -
These contradictory impositions are not aimed at transmascs alone, but they are the recurring patterns I notice as a transmasculine feminist. We are not the only ones in danger, but we are queer all the same, and all queerness is targeted under patriarchy.
some of these sections sounded really rhythmic so I turned it into a poem
Default body
Your body is not for you
It is a vessel
A source of wish fulfillment
If they want you to be pretty
Why would you deny them of that
If they want you to be feminine,
To be fucked,
To carry a child
To lie down and be a good little gi-
Theyfab,
tranny
But of course you can't use tranny
It isn't for you
It hasn't hurt you
And of course any harm that's done to you is never because you're trans
It's because you're in the way
Or they must've thought you were someone else
So really you should just sit down and listen to people who deserve it more
You were never treated as a girl
But boyhood is only for real men
You are perisex
White
Binary
Had all the surgeries
Unless your appearance can be used to mock you
Able-bodied
Sane
Happy
Unless your mental health can be used to mock you
You are cismasculine and it's misgendering to suggest otherwise
It's a compliment
Even if it’s a lie
You have a fun extra hole
Only ever mentioned when it's to discuss sex
Never health
You are something to conquer and claim
Something to fix
You are fascination and disgust
Something to be laughed at
Something to be hidden
Of course men can't get pregnant
Of course men can't menstrate
If they could
There would be free tampons
No men need obgyns
That's a women's space
You are too ugly to assault
Too untrustworthy to speak
Too reckless to control your own body
Anything you decide is killing the woman inside you
Maybe you should just detransition instead
You can't be a feminist
Men bad, women good, silly
You are inherently regressive
Your presumed body is a put down
Pussy
Cunt
Fembrained bitchmoid
I'm not sexist
Youre a man
You are just a fragile little gi-I mean your masculinity is fragile
Passing is easy for you
Maybe you just aren't trying hard enough
You are a lost little girl
And a dangerous man
A mentally ill teenager
Or a groomer targeting little girls
Men and women are opposites
Of course you're privileged
What man isn't?
You are a default body
You are essentially cis
Men are responsible for all evil
If you want to be good you should keep apologizing
I thought this is what you wanted
Having similar experiences to a woman is killing her
Why cant you just be happy with mpreg and omegaverse
The removal of trans men from history is feminist
They were such brave girls defying the patriarchy to become a doctor, an author, a teacher
Trans men haven't contributed to history
Erasure is privilege
Silence is proof that you need not speak
There are no deaths
Those are femicides
There are no stats
Not if we can't see them
There are no victims
We won't say their names
We are not staying quiet
We are not alone
All queerness is subject to abuse
No group of trannies is more privileged than another
We are the default bodies you choose to wipe clean
The Rules of Anti-Transmasculinity
1. Your body is not your own.
1a. Your body is a site for other’s desires.
If they want you to be beautiful, it is cruel of you to deny them that. If they want you to be feminine, it is cruel of you to deny them that. If they think you should reproduce, it is cruel of you to divest yourself of reproductive duties.
1b. Your body is owned by the state.
Reproductive laws that can affect cis women also affect you, but you cannot weigh in on them, because you are not a woman.
Anti-trans laws affect you, but you must not bring this up; you are never the “real” target, even when you are, because you are not “really” trans.
When the legislation talks about “protecting” your fertility, you should feel lucky to be safeguarded from yourself.
- - -
2. Your experiences are not your own.
Your childhood does not exist. You cannot claim girlhood if you are a man, and you cannot claim boyhood if you did not grow up within it, and no other visions of childhood may exist. Your history, however you define it, is fundamentally incompatible with who you are.
Forms of sexism which are aimed at women, by a binary logic, cannot be aimed at men or mascs. If your experiences contradict this, either you are invalidating your identity, or you are appropriating womanhood.
It is your duty to blithely dissociate yourself from any trauma patriarchy may have inflicted on you. Men cannot be affected by these things even if it happens to them personally. A “real” man must be stoic and uncaring.
- - -
3. You are a “default” body.
You are to be assumed affluent, perisex, binary, and passing, with no legal or situational barriers to medical or social transition, and no reproductive concerns to speak of — unless your nonconformity can be used to dismiss you.
You are assumed to be able-bodied, sane of mind, white, and thin — unless your mental health or appearance is good for mockery.
You are to be treated as essentially cismasculine. Being treated as if you are cis is a compliment, even when it is erasing your lived experiences, and even if it is known and true that transfems have their own unique struggles from cis women too.
- - -
4. You are an “aberrant” body.
4a. Your body is a site of fascination. You (are presumed to) have a gestative capacity, and a fun extra hole. These traits are relevant when others assess your attractiveness and their kinks. They are not relevant in the context of your health. You’re a submissive little bottom, right?
(Your body is something to conquer and claim. This may be done to emphasize your femininity, deny your androgyny, or defang your masculinity.)
4b. Your body is a site of disgust. Any steps you may take to masculinize yourself are “ruining” your “female” features, regardless of any joy you personally take from the changes, and regardless of if you engage with medical transition or not.
(You are killing the woman you are supposed to be. Stand trial.)
4c. Your body is too unattractive to be sexually violenced. It doesn’t happen. When it does, you have anatomical privilege, because you are (presumed to be) in possession of a vulva, and victims with those are of course always believed. But it doesn’t happen, because you are essentially a cis man, and of course men don't get raped.
(It is not possible to be targeted for this violence because you are transmasculine. It is always misaimed violence, intended for someone else. Apologize to her for taking up her space.)
4d. Your body is a proxy for other’s ideas about activism. Womanhood is good, and manhood is bad, and things in-between are uncomfortable and hard to classify; therefore, a detransition back to cisfemininity would be a preferable state of being, wouldn’t it?
(Your transition is at odds with good feminism.)
4e. Your body is a joke. Men don’t menstruate. Men don’t gestate. Men don’t lactate. Men can't have breasts. If the suggestion sends people into hysterics, you must take it lying down.
(Remember; comedy is subversion, and you are an “abberant” body.)
4f. Your body is a hypothetical and not a lived reality. If men could menstruate or gestate, that would fix patriarchy. It would not result in men being denied at the door of the gynecology office, surely.
(To entertain your existence is a rhetorical inconvenience.)
4g. Your body is a source of put-down. You are a cunt, a pussy, a fembrained bitchmoid — and it isn’t sexist to refer to you as such, because you are a man. Your disinclination to be reduced to bioessentialist biogotry is simply proof that your masculinity is fragile. It is not proper for you to object to it, even when it is the same rhetoric spewed by patriarchy itself, and even if it would be equally galling to say to a woman, cis or trans.
(Have you not considered that your trans body is privileged under cis patriarchy?)
4h. Passing is universal to all transmasculine bodies and all life situations. Closeted, clocky, queer, or femme trans men and mascs cannot exist, and are not subjected to the same violence as women or other queer men. Legal gender markers don’t matter. Medical access isn’t a concern. People from your past cannot possibly be vindictive enough to out you, because queer or not, you have male privilege.
(Have you considered that you simply aren’t trying hard enough to pass?)
- - -
5. If you are inadequately masculine, pre-transition, nonbinary, or bi-gendered, you cannot “really” be a man.
Remember; you are a lost little girl when you need to be talked down to.
Remember; manhood and womanhood are diametric opposites, exclusive states of being.
Remember; poverty is not an excuse.
- - -
6. If you are inadequately feminine or too masculine, you cannot “really” be queer.
Remember; you are a “default” body.
Remember; you are essentially cis.
- - -
7. If you are too assertive or too unwilling to serve as a punching bag, you cannot “really” be a feminist.
Remember; men cannot be feminists.
Remember; men cannot need feminism.
Remember; your masculinity is most readily acknowledged when it provides a rhetorical threat.
- - -
8. If you really insist on your masculinity, then it must be in service to others. You owe them labor, defense, money, and deference.
You are not owed equality or reciprocity, because men are responsible for patriarchy. You are on the hook for the patriarch’s debt, and you are presumed to share his wallet.
(A man is a protector and a provider. I thought you wanted to be a man?)
- - -
9. Your interest in your own autonomy is indistinguishable from power-grabbing.
Your self-determination and self-advocacy aligns you with patriarchal interests, or is a sign that you are too battered by patriarchy to self-determine in the first place. Someone else must decide these things for you. Someone else must speculate on your motives. You do not get to speak for yourself.
- - -
10. Your inclusion and representation is not important.
10a. When you notice your absence from culture, art, and storytelling, others ask; why do you not simply project your experiences onto cis men? Remember, you are a default body. Surely you are different from other queer people who need direct representation.
(When you try to do that, you are classically fembrained and illiterate for thinking a given character could have transmasculine subtext or themes.)
Projecting onto cis women is akin to killing them.
Why are you not satisfied with mpreg fanfic?
10b. When you make your own art and stories, you are playing with dolls. It is unimportant, juvenile, and easily dismissed much in the way that people discuss teenage girls who act as culture-makers.
(If transmasculinity is not present in the world of art, it must be because it has no artistic merit.)
- - -
11. Your erasure is proof that you have nothing to offer.
The muffling of violence done to you or your brothers is proof that no violence occurs in the first place.
The muffling of you or your brother’s contributions is proof that none of you contributed in the first place.
The removal of your brothers from the historical narrative is proof that they didn’t exist, or that they never stood in solidarity with other feminists and queers.
Silence is proof that you need not speak.
- - -
12. Denying any danger that you may be in is affirmative to your masculinity, because men cannot be harmed.
There are no statistics that say otherwise if we never read them.
There are no patterns of abuse if we never speak of them.
There are no dead if they are recorded as femicides.
There are no victims if we do not speak their names.
- - -
These contradictory impositions are not aimed at transmascs alone, but they are the recurring patterns I notice as a transmasculine feminist. We are not the only ones in danger, but we are queer all the same, and all queerness is targeted under patriarchy.
If I may also add
13. You are a danger, because men are oppressors and dangerous, and to be seen as dangerous and therefore as a man is gender affirming.
Privilege from manhood is inherently yours and to not desire to be seen as a threat is to misgender yourself. You are weak, cowardly, whining and hinging on as well as weaponizing your "femaleness" for saying you dont have the privilege cis men do. If someone treats you as the enemy, that is gender affirming. If someone insults you, you should feel seen as a man, even if it ignores everything about you as a person and only treats your identity as a stand in for the crimes of manhood.
Real men are cis men so if you want to be a man, you must aim to be cis, no matter how impossible for you. Your existence as a non passing trans men never puts you in danger, because you are a man before you are trans. Nobody targets, oppresses or aims to systemically harm men, therefore any harm you are subjected to is either misdirected and therefore less painful, which is a privilege, or non existent.
By being trans you are oppressing others and you must spend the rest of your life atoning for that. You represent all men and especially all trans men. You are the idea of a man and you are simultaneously identical and diametrically opposite to cis men.
having free control over our endrocrine systems and the ability to change our genitals is currently inextricably tied to trans rights, and for good reason, but frankly i don't think it even needs to be. it should just be a matter of bodily autonomy, and that should be universal. if a cis dude wants tits and a pussy i think that would be fine. if cis women want a dick or nothing at all that should be allowed i think. people shouldn't need to be transgender to be allowed to change their bodies. free the nipple, enlarge the nipple, remove the nipple. whatever the fuck you want. i dont know if there's a term for this belief but i hold it very strongly. everybody biohack yourselves NOW
pure love
Stop going after the Bad Kink of trans women you don't like. Whatever is bad about them is unrelated to their sexual preferences and I'm really tired of seeing people act like there's a roving gang of trans women who sexually abuse their younger siblings or fuck animals on Tumblr. Cut it the hell out!!!!!
One of my irl best friends who is transfem was harassed off this website on the basis of faer kinks (or kinks that hy doesn't actually have but that people lied about hir having such as a fauxcest kink and pedophilia kink) and the guilt and shame of people being convinced she was evil over these things when they do literally struggle with intrusive pedophillic and sometimes incestuous and bestiality thoughts made her suicidal and shy nearly trying to kill hyrself twice during the harassment which lasted OVER TWO MONTHS STRAIGHT. And I still see some people posting in "#atatu" tag about him over 5 months after it deactivated which is super embarrassing, like do yall even have hobbies other than harassing transfems? And I still see people liking posts of straight up lies about what anti-tma-and-tme-users did and said. Them being harassed off the website was the entire reason I started this account in the first place, as a much needed reminder that yall gotta stop being intersexist and transmisogynistic, as in the very early days this account was called "this-is-intertransmisogynyyyyy" (hence my discourse tag being "5 ys"). If you bring up a trans woman's kinks EVER when saying how she is a bad person, you are genuinely a TERF and there is no other option.
you speak up about this issue a lot (which i appreciate so much), so i decided to bring my frustrations to you. it may be too discource-attracting, so perfectly reasonable if you don't want to post it.
i'm really upset with some people posting transfems' bad takes and then making generalisations about transfems based on it. it's transmisogynistic, plain and simple.
i generally think that many posts with screenshotted bad takes are useless and only fueling anger. not all such posts, but many of them. people often don't even debunk claims or something. i'm sorry but it looks like showing shit to other people. like "wow i saw shit look at this shit! it stinks! now you all saw shit too!" i genuinely don't see a point. especially if it's the same shit over and over again. it doesn't raise awareness, it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, it just makes more people to see shit.
also people often automatically assume that shitty anti-transmasculine, exorsexist, intersexist, etc take is made by a transfem person. while there are a lot of non-transfems who say anti-transmasculine, exorsexist, and intersexist shit.
also many people seem to forget (or never initially thought) that transfems can also be nonbinary, genderqueer, intersex, gender-nonconforming, all these things. and it's a long-standed point of transmisogyny, exorsexism, intersexism, and transmedicalism—that only transfems that exist are binary, perisex, and gender-conforming.
and like. whoever says bigoted things, i don't think it's useful to screenshot these takes and put this person on the blast. it does lead to harassment. it wouldn't make them reconsider, it only pushes them further in the bigotry. no one has been successfully bullied out of bigotry. especially if they're already marginalised and suffering and hypervigilant.
i think we need to give more grace to our fellow genderqueer and sex-variant people. even when they are wrong. even when they are bigoted. it doesn't mean to stay near them. it doesn't mean to agree with them. but it does mean to not put them at the blast. to not make a spectacle of their possible lowest moments. just block and move on. spread awareness without drugging other people down. make positivity. make theory. make resources and spaces for connecting and supporting each other.
i believe that the path to a better future lies through mercy. i want there to be more mercy in the genderqueer and sex-variant community.
Yes yes yes worsed wonderfully I agree 10000%
An issue the trans community has is still viewing nonbinary or multigendered people as still viewed as "basically a transman/trans woman".
The person's identity is viewed through the lense of whatever their AGAB is.
.
Example: Somebody who was AFAB & is bigender is more likely to be viewed as a transmasc who just happens to have some femininity added in. They are still expected to consider themselves a man, transition in a way that's 'typically masculine', & abandon their own womanhood.
The moment this person expresses their womanhood in any way their identity is immediately called into question. Because the trans community cannot imagine people who are not in the FTM/MTF binary. Your experiences *must* fit the most typical model of what people experience.
.
Nonbinary people who are agender/similar have a similar experience.. their AGAB is always called into question to see what category they "really" fall into. You can't just be nonbinary & not connected to transfeminity (trans woman lite) or transmasculinity (trans man lite), we need to figure out where you 'actually' belong..
That's why you see so many more people going "are you transfem or transmasc?". Even though it carves out a larg portion of the community, people only see two categories and must force you into their binary.
.
This isn't even touching on how the lack of grey area immediately screws over any intersex person either..
People have decided thay AGAB=where you're transitioning. What your identity "really" is, and it is nothinh less than transphobic.
.
The people in the community who enforce things like this need to start deconstructing sex & gender more than just "sometimes you're born in a girl body but you're actually a guy" & vice versa. You cannot claim to support your fellow trans people without putting in the work to support them all. This needs to end.
[pt: An issue the trans community has is still viewing nonbinary or multigendered people as still viewed as "basically a transman/trans woman".]
[pt: The people in the community who enforce things like this need to start deconstructing sex & gender more than just "sometimes you're born in a girl body but you're actually a guy" & vice versa. You cannot claim to support your fellow trans people without putting in the work to support them all. This needs to end. ]
Op you are so real for this, thank you so much for putting this into words. As a multigender person and as the one who runs this blog I see so many submissions that talk about this specifically, about how non binary and multigender people get constantly reinforced to be either transfem or transmasc based on their assignment, and it's such a dysphoria inducing experience to be imposed an identity when you've already been through that your whole life. It's dreadful to see the supposed safe space for everyone who's not binary cis to replicate the same mechanics of transphobia.
Not only is that person's identity viewed through the lense of their agab, but the *legitimacy of their experiences and feelings and experiences* is also filtered through the assumption of agab and the bias of whoever is looking.
It also ignores how there are more identities like transneutral, transoutherine, transxenine, transandrogynous, etc, and how binary trans people can be those identities too! Something so complex as the gender of a multigendered or non binary person for example is simplified by others as 'essentially [this]' instead of seen in its entirity. I mention this in regards to multitrans identities like transfemmasc or transmascneu or transfemxen and others. Anyway thank you for this post, it made me feel heard
Let's all remember to include nonbinary and intersex people when we talk about trans issues and trans discourse! The trans world is not all trans men and trans women, or even transmascs and transfems! Correct people's assumptions and language before we backslide into upholding the sex and gender binary and gender essentialism!!!
China Daily (state run newspaper) released an AI generated video a few days ago depicting Filipinos as a monkey
This is philippinophobia. And very disgusting.
This is probably more the result of multigenderphobia.
Im tired of feeling like I have to over explain my transition types to people. What I mean is, I dont feel like I can ever just say Im transmasc and leave it there. I dont feel like I can do that either with transfem or transneutral. I feel I have to always say at least somewhere in a post that Im transfemmascneu. But sometimes I just wanna be seen as transfem for a bit. Sometimes I only wanna be transneutral for a bit. But Im so scared people are gonna say Im lying, or that Im just picking whatever label will make me look best in that specific moment. Ive seen people say that before.
I wanna connect with transfems and specifically talk about being transfem. I wanna connect with transmascs and talk about being transmasc. I wanna connect with transneutrals and specifically talk about being transneutral.
...
In the process of writing this out, I think I figured out the underlying hurt and reason for feeling this way (so thank you for opening a spot for me to talk this through and figure it out).
I feel like I have to placate everyone and that Im actually not the same as them. There's a belief that I am entirely different then transfems, transmascs, and transneutrals. Like I am not them, but in a different box entirely. I feel I have to allow others to seperate myself from them otherwise Im lying. I maybe transmasc, but Im not REALLY transmasc, Im this weird other thing thats trying to sneak their way into the transmasc community and destroy it or water it down. I may say Im transfem, but no one really believes that, so I dont belong in their space cause Im just a mutant other option. Im not transfem to them, Im transfemmascneu. So I dont belong there and if I dont make sure everyone knows then I must be sneaking in to hurt the community.
This is multigenderphobia.
Mod reply
Transmascs: if you play Stardew Valley, who do you romance in game the most?
Abigail
Alex
Emily
Elliot
Haley
Harvey
Leah
Maru
Penny
Sam
Sebastian
Shane
Unfortunately tumblr polls only allow 12 options, so it’s just going to be the original 12 romantic interests without an “other” option for mods and non-romance run stuff or a “see results”.
Sorry, take it up with tumblr! I would add more options if I could, but I don’t want to double up options and bias things.