[keepyourmom]

one issue i have with many anti-transmasculinity discussions on here, is the way anti-transmasculinity (or whatever term is currently in circulation) gets conflated with the oppression of other marginalized men, especially in conversations about structural power.

it is generally true that marginalized men often oppress the women in their communities. black women, for example, experience some of the highest rates of intimate partner violence, and most perpetrators are black men. practices like FGM exist in african countries, where african men mutilate the bodies of little african girls. across many marginalized groups, we can point to clear, well-documented examples of sex- and gender-based subjugation, including instances where marginalized men collude with white supremacy against marginalized women (go look up “weavechimp,” then search it on twitter to see who primarily is using it).

so, when it comes to intersectional and black feminism—which transfeminism was nurtured by—it isn’t hard to avoid any other form sex/gender-class analysis and say: “trans men oppress trans women! that’s basic intersectional feminism!”

but this ignores the actual positionality of trans men. it hallucinates when it comes to transmasculinity. it relies on extrapolating from movements where that framework does apply, and where (cis) men’s liberation does not depend on feminist politic, so men are excluded from feminist analysis by default.

the issue is not the exclusion of marginalized cis men from conversations about sex-gender liberation. the issue is the lack of material analysis of trans male oppression, because if you think about this stuff for more than a few minutes, that entire thing falls apart.

there is no cis man who can be forced to get pregnant and then denied an abortion. there is no cis man who can be legally or socially compelled to wear a hijab. statistically, trans men are more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault than any other group, but especially cis men. trans male liberation is uniquely intertwined with feminist liberation politic, because trans men are directly subjected to misogynistic systems in ways cis men are not. this is why extrapolation does not work.

like, black femicide is overwhelmingly perpetrated by black cis men. east asian cis men have created entire online networks dedicated to sexually degrading, harassing, and blackmailing women in their lives. in MENA, cis men murder women in the name of “honour.” these are concrete examples of marginalized men exercising patriarchal power over women in their communities. there is no trans analogue to this.

trans men are not killing trans women at disproportionate rates. trans men are not disproportionately raping or abusing trans women. trans men do not have traditions of trans female genital mutilation, trans female breast ironing, or trans female foot binding. trans men are not subjecting trans women to forced marriages, bride burnings, lobotomies, acid attacks, or honour killings. there is no trans female coverture, where trans men absorb the existences of their female counterparts. trans men do not dominate medical institutions and deny trans women care. there is no historical or contemporary system that could reasonably be described as a “trans male patriarchy.”

in fact, when we examine these same misogynistic practices, we find that trans men are often subjected to them, and have never facillitated them. trans men are killed in the name of honour. trans men experience FGM. trans men face extremely high rates of sexual and domestic violence.trans men are forced into marriages, compelled to wear hijabs, denied medical care, and left in pain. these are not abstractions. trans men face the direct consequences of transgressing the feminine role in society.

the people who disproportionately enact violence against trans women are not trans men. they are cis men. the people who disproportionately enact violence against trans men are also cis men (and a sizeable number of cis women).

the capacity of trans men to collaborate with patriarchy is not unique or exceptional. what is distinctive is how violence against trans men, and collusion against them, is minimized precisely because they are framed as beneficiaries rather than as targets of misogyny.

so no, anti-transmasculinity is not analogous to the oppression of marginalized cis men as a group, trans men are not simply "cis men with vaginas." transmasculinity is it's own experience, and anti-transmasculinity must be understood in it's own context. treating it as anything different obscures the ways trans men are positioned within misogyny and patriarchy, and it ultimately undermines both feminist analysis and analyses about anti-transmasculinity specifically, because it becomes clear that all these essays, these books, these academic articles about transmasculinity—are all based in daydreams, or imagined examples of "what should be true," rather than material analysis, a.k.a., "what is actually true."

[isuggestforcedeviaesis]

all of this is true, as long as you correct every instance of "cis" with "cis perisex." we as a community and grouping need to get more familiar with talking about intersexism and also trans/cis intersex men.

[395nm]

huh. reddit/gendercritical was banned in 2020, but r/truscum is still active with 2k posts per week. Topics for today include “he/him lesbians make me angry,” “trans women are porn addicts,” and “I was banned from r/trans for refusing to respect neopronouns.” Transmeds really are the terfs of trans people.

[cock-holliday]

I do think it’s a bit funny that there is such a stress for trans men to be aware of their privileges because like the vast majority of them are hyper-aware. A guy whose entire gym experience for years has been getting sexually harassed every day suddenly being left alone is gonna notice. A trans man who is constantly dismissed and belittled at his job having his voice suddenly be listened to is gonna notice.

Trans men talk about how their health problems were ignored for decades and then suddenly when they were seen as men getting tests ordered they never would have and then immediately upon showing up getting subjected to horrible transphobia when they get outed and tumblr’s brightest minds will ponder, “do you think trans men are even capable of recognizing misogyny?”

[therapatical]

it is genuinely very frustrating trying to explain to people that your lived experience is not enough to fully grasp a lot of systems of oppression, and that's a massive reason why book burnings and preventing people from being able to gain literacy is an integral part of maintaining those systems of oppression. nobody's saying you know "less" inherently about misogyny, but a lot of people (pericis women included!) know relatively little about feminist principles and how misogyny functions under patriarchy because it is quite literally an entire field of study. it would be absurd to expect every single woman to just intuitively understand grad school level topics and concepts. yes, you can intuitively understand that you are mistreated and you can put puzzle pieces together on your own. but that will never ever ever EVER be a match for the collective experiences and discussions of millions of people all contributing knowledge to the topic of WGSS. your 1 human lifetime of experiences is not the same and will never be the same as that, even though it is still valuable. it's just that it gives an incomplete picture.

none of us are telling you that trans men know more about misogyny than you by virtue of being trans men. we're pointing out that you--just like the average everyday person without this education--clearly do not understand a lot of fundamentals to feminism, and need to educate yourself before trying to speak over the experiences of people who are not you. you do not get to claim transmasc voices as if they were your own (and vice versa! you deserve your own voice, too). the desire to make presumptive estimates of our experiences and claim them as the Ultimate Truth is a byproduct of misogynistic biases that want those perceived as women to shut up, and denigrate the intellectual products created by those perceived as women. you being a woman yourself does not change this. it is not inherently hypocritical to acknowledge that transphobic and misogynistic biases cause people to treat trans men and transmascs in the same way as most women are treated, and this includes a lot of the same misogynistic treatment women receive--simultaneously to the fact that trans women are a also frequently subjected to this exact same behavior on a account of also being perceived as women by society.

bigotry is not rational or logical. it may seem ridiculous to say that trans women and trans men are both treated as and perceived as women, but it really isn't if you think about it long enough. "woman" is a class designated within patriarchy to refer to an excluded caste of people; it's more accurately "anyone who isn't a pericis man". the designation of "woman" was created as a way to separate the oppressor from the oppressed within patriarchy. to say who is who. over time, because the only option left over from "man" was "woman" (under a binary), the definitions became intermingled with one another, to the point where "not man" and "woman" became mostly synonymous in a world that did not acknowledge anything except pericis man and pericis woman existed. that's why we're having these arguments. we acknowledge that more than a binary exists, but you are resisting this because of an odd adherence to narratives created specifically to exclude people like you. the sooner you can tackle the internalized misogynistic biases within you, the sooner we can fix a lot of these problems. but as long as you continue treating others with internalized patriarchal structures, you will continue perpetuating the system that oppresses us all. we've gotta cooperate to dismantle the entire system. you can't do that if you dont confront the misogyny inside you. all people born in this world must contend with that, and you are no different.

[ifvwasix]

I made a thing because I keep seeing people refer to other people they don’t know this way

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Ok I've been mulling this over in my head for a while now but I kinda wanted to just air my feelings on this.

I actually used to follow ISFF on an old account and early on with this one.

I liked that she was so transfem positive, especially in a time where I didn't really know many other trans women in my life.

I thought she was funny.

One post was the scene from the PS1 FF7 where Aerith and Cloud are outside Don Corneo's mansion and Aerith tells Cloud he should dress up as a woman to sneak in and her text box was replaced with "I have a suggestion..." I thought was really funny. Cause yeah, Aerith was awful quick to jump to that suggestion.

I was also going through a bit of a difficult time with some trans men in my life and her remarks on trans men and how trans women are treated as a whole felt like they were validating my feelings and frustrations. It stoked my frustrations with cis people, with being a trans person, with being a trans woman in particular.

It made me more confrontational with other people, I was starting arguments, cutting people off in ways I hadn't before. Truth be told, it made me insufferable. I even had some blow-up with a coworker because she made some comment akin to "welcome to womanhood" over something I said. Which admittedly, was shitty and patronizing, but I had a more knee-jerk reaction which ended up starting a fight. Normally I'm more more sensible about picking my battles and starting a spat like this with a coworker is a dumb move because I loved my job and I gotta go to work to pay for my needs and it's not like my coworker was going away any time soon for the same reason. I just needlessly started a bitterness that didn't need to exist when I just could have vented to my friends about it and moved on.

But her positions kept getting more and more extreme, being more pushy about getting men and boys on HRT, being more vitriolic towards trans men as a whole. Then she started the whole TME/TMA discussion which felt like gender essentialism with extra steps the way she talked about it.

Then there was the pedophile apologia. That was the final straw. I read that post and it sent chills up my spine. It was one of the worst possible battles for a trans woman in particular to fight because it would just give terfs ammo for turning people who are neutral towards trans people against us. Yes there are, in fact, people who are neutral about trans people who just see us as regular people, I know cause I work with them every single day. I felt betrayed, heartbroken even, by someone I actually found some comfort in and as a result I distanced myself from her, her group, her behavior.

And you know what?

My life got better.

I became more patient, less confrontational, I patched things up with the trans men in my life and they are some of my biggest supporters and best friends. They are the most ride or die people in my life these days. I have better, healthier relationships with other trans women, I'm less confrontational with cis people, and I became less obsessed with my own misery as a trans woman. I started letting go of shit easier and now, I actually have done way more to persuade cis people into being more open-minded about trans people as whole by being more easy going and not getting on my soap box to talk about my misery to anyone who looks my direction.

I say this because I think a lot of other trans women support her for the same reason. She does an excellent job of making you feel validated. Making you feel seen. Acknowledging your pain and your frustrations.

All of which is good in small doses but the prescribed solution led me to cut myself off from other people, to see anyone but other trans women as my enemy and to wallow in my own misery because all I could see was oppression all around me.

And that’s the insidious part. It wasn't just that her takes were wrong about trans men or kids, it was that she had perfected a pipeline from 'You are hurting' to 'Burn it all down.' She gave me the language to turn my very real, very justified pain into a weapon that I was pointing at the wrong people. It was just a very loud, very angry fog. The clarity came when I stepped out of it and realized my community was a whole lot bigger, and kinder, than she wanted me to believe.

Cis people still say dumb, patronizing things. Transphobia still exists. But I finally realized that ISFF wasn't teaching me how to survive it but rather she was teaching me how to drown in it.

I get why people follow her. Especially if you're early in transition and you feel like you're covered in wound that nobody sees. She gives you a name for those wounds. But eventually, you realize she's the one telling you to press on them harder to make sure they never heal. I wrote this out because I think there are a lot of trans women who feel that weird, guilty knot in their stomach when they read her stuff now but are too afraid to unfollow because it feels like betraying the sisterhood.

[velvetvexations]

hi velvet i have a question for you. so i don't want to name any names but i recently saw a post which included the sentiment "a trans man who lived as a woman for 30 years has more experience with misogyny than a trans woman who has lived as a woman for 3 years". i can kind of see the point being made here but something about it is offputting to me in a way that is ringing my transmisogyny alarm bells just a little. i'd like your opinion on this because i can't decide how i feel about it

It's transmisogynistic, and especially weird for someone presumably against the TMA/TME dichotomy to say that trans women will not have had experience with misogyny until coming out. Trans women are typically not treated like ordinary cis men prior to coming out, and everything else aside, do you know how much "experience with misogyny" one can cram into three years?

[velvetvexations]

[luckyladylily]

I have considered for a long time how to best and most simply explain the critical elements of intersectionality, because I think it is among the most critical of ideas and so many people get it wrong. So here we go.

Intersectionality, at it's core, asserts that identities can not be broken into what we see as their individual parts, in particular when discussing the oppression and prejudice a person faces. Identities are more than just the sum of their parts.

The theory was originally laid out by a black woman to explain her own oppression. In short, she claimed that her oppression as a black woman could not be simply explained as black oppression + woman oppression. She also experienced black woman oppression.

Now, the nuances of the situation are much more complex, but this is the very basic idea. You always have to account for a person's identity as a whole, and not just the individual parts.

Black women are not just "black" + "women"

Black men are not just "black" + "men"

Trans women are not just "trans" + "women"

Trans men are not just "trans" + "men"

You always have to consider the identity as a whole, which may mean there are non obvious aspects of the whole identity that are not readily explained by the sum of the individual parts.

That is the basic explanation. Now let's get into one particular application I think is very important, at least on Tumblr, because on tumblr it has become extremely controversial.

A consequence of intersectionality is that specific kinds of oppression cannot be divorced from maleness. A black man's oppression cannot be explained as "black" + "male" oppression. There are aspects of the oppression black men face that cannot be separated from their identity as a whole. Even if you believe "men" suffer no unique oppression, intersectionality means you can't deny the possibility that "black men" suffer oppression that cannot be divorced from them being men.

This application of intersectionality is fundamental and the application of intersectionality to black men has been accepted for basically as long as intersectionality has been around.

A similar application can be made to trans men.

Now if you don't agree with this model, sure. Im not going to say it is fine because I think you are wrong, but no social model is above criticism. What you can't do is claim that intersectionality is anything else. You either accept that aspects of oppression can be tied to maleness, or you do not accept intersectionality. There is no secret third thing. This is a fundamental consequence of intersectionality as a model.

I think it is important to note that intersectionality did not start as queer theory. The roots of the model are in the study of sexism and racism. This is black feminist theory. And to put a point on it, trans feminist theory has no business trying to warp intersectionality to fit preconceived ideas about how queer identities and queer oppression works.

I believe that twisting well established black feminist theory into an unrecognizable form and then stealing the credibility of that well established black feminist theory by labeling your new theory "intersectional" is racist. We do not get to borrow their credibility while spitting on their work.

Again, if you do not believe intersectionality is correct, or that it does not apply to queer identities, that is an argument you can make. I would recommend you have a lot of very well sourced data backing up a radical claim like that, but no model is above criticism. But don't try to trade on the credibility of black feminists while disregarding their work.

[nicenight]

people on this site will rightfully emphasize not falling for bigoted smear campaigns or parroting transphobic propaganda then immediately turn around and demonize trans men as dangerous male infiltrators, claim they want "the best of both worlds," disassociate their struggles and any discussion of it from broader trans rights and feminist concerns, and invent like 10 new pejoratives because calling someone an SJW transtrender wannabe-victim is not in vogue anymore lol

[genderkoolaid]

men who have a vagina and/or uterus do not systemically benefit from male privilege. its that simple

[genderkoolaid]

this isn't a statement that should need qualifiers to clarify intent because its true. yeah someone could use this true thing to be a dick, to bend it to mean a certain thing, especially when the person hasn't unlearned any of the oppositional sexism or transphobia theyve been taught.

but it doesn't inherently imply any of that. and it is a pretty basic feminist observation. this should be transfeminism 101. its insane that this is as controversial as it is. the fact that it isnt transfeminism 101 should tell you something about how much feminism has been held back by its own transphobia & anti-transmasculinity.

[genderkoolaid]

if you disagree with this statement i better not ever hear you talking about medical misogyny & the lack of research on "female bodies" or ESPECIALLY reproductive autonomy, abortion, forced pregnancy, etc. etc. because there is NO WAY! to discuss misogyny that targets the body without talking about trans men and nonbinary people and intersex people and, yes trans women, who can also overlap with all of the previous groups!

either you are a transphobe and don't care if we live or we die or you do and you should be making an effort to include us. and that means getting more comfortable with ambiguity and nuance around trans people and their relationships to patriarchy and gender oppression. and that includes trans men and masculinity/manhood in general!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is no way around this

transfeminism should be about complicating the feminist framework that was built by & for cis perisex women. it shouldn't be about flattening trans and intersex experiences to fit into that framework. like what are we doing here can we be so for real.

[genderkoolaid]

to boil it down for y'all:

this post is telling you to include all trans men and nonbinary people and every non-cis-perisex-woman whose got any body parts (natal or not) that are socially feminized & subject to misogyny in your feminism,

or stop talking about medical misogyny entirely.

i really couldn't give less of a fuck if some trans men have cushy office jobs and get bro hugs from their cis guy coworkers. i care about trans men like Ezz Eldin / Ahmed Fare, an Egyptian trans man who died after getting an hysterectomy at an underground clinic that discharged him immediately after, leaving him to bleed to death. trans men are raped and forced into marriages and denied abortions and subject to medicine that never studied bodies like ours, and you never fucking hear about it.

i just want everyone to talk more about transmasculine oppression than we do the platonic ideal middle-class white cis passing heterosexual trans man with an office job. i want you to care more about the trans men who don't fucking make it. this post isn't even really about male privilege as much as it is me fucking begging people to realize that YOU are contributing to transmasc erasure and YOU can STOP at ANY FUCKING TIME!

[bhaalblessed]

and if i said that a significant part of the issue here was that there is still a huge problem in liberal and even leftist spaces with using men and anyone perceived as men as punching bags. and as people you are "allowed" to indiscriminately bully to take out your frustrations. because men are the oppressors, you see, and therefore every individual man, regardless of how leftist, how marginalized, how sympathetic to the cause, is an oppressor benefitting from the oppressive system of the patriarchy. because of course the patriarchy is a functional system with sensible internal logic and consistent results. the problem with the patriarchy is that it's mean to women, not that it fundamentally doesn't work for anyone at all. so men, and people perceived as men, definitely receive benefits from this totally functional system, so it is okay to bully them, and they are not allowed to complain, and if they do complain they are pussies, which is an insult, but don't think about it too hard. and if i said that this treatment is extremely alienating to these people, because of course it is, and that it's something many trans women went through and internalized before coming out, because of course they did, and are now living as themselves as women and are still liberal or leftist, and are engaging in, sincerely or performatively, what they understand from experience to be completely acceptable behavior for women by indiscriminately bullying men, and are thus confused when some of those men complain, because this is an okay thing to do and the men aren't supposed to complain about it. these are bad men. these are pussies. they should be worried about being seen as pussies. if i said part of what's going on here is that some of these women have internalized hating men as a vital intrinsic part of gender conformity, and likewise some trans men have internalized not complaining because they're not pussies as a vital intrinsic part of their gender conformity, because no one on the left can figure out how to treat men fucking normally and essentially write off the entire demographic as a lost cause. if i said all that. well. i still don't think you would listen to me to be honest.

[femdemon]

How are we at a point now where "trans men and transmascs don't experience gender euphoria" is a real fucking take that I'm seeing people post and agree with? "Oh, trans men and transmascs will never understand the moment when you finally put on a dress or skirt and feel like yourself-" chest binders. Packers. Getting a short haircut. Being called "sir" by a stranger instead of "miss" or "ma'am." Growing facial hair. What's even really being said here, that we don't experience gender euphoria, or that our gender euphoria is less significant?

[alarajrogers]

Weirdly, I believe this is a knock-on effect of misogyny.

See, if women aren't real people, then the things that gender-mark women are real gender markers that identify them as not-people, but the things that gender-mark men are just normal people things, not gendered. Because the male gender doesn't exist, it's just women and people.

So you can't be gender-euphoric about becoming a man; all you're doing is shedding gender and becoming a genderless "normal person", because normal person is male.

It is really really weird that misogyny against women ends up, through a circuitous route, as redefining men as genderless, but this is the effect of generations of men being "normal" and women being "gendered".

Trans men, of course, know better; they can clearly see the gender marked-ness of masculinity, and feel euphoria when they reach it, because they're specifically looking for it. But cis men don't see it because women are the gender-marked class, and trans women might not see it for that reason and because they've been trying to achieve gender-markedness. Maybe they haven't put enough thought into the construction of the gender they're trying to leave behind to recognize that in fact masculinity is marked. (Any enby could have told them that, but it can be genuinely hard to recognize how marked masculinity is because even feminism falls into the trap of "women are the gender marked class and everyone else is just a person".)

Given how hard people have to fight to be seen as "manly" you'd think we'd all understand how very gender-marked masculinity is... but the fight to be manly is often constructed as the fight to not be womanly. Like, this is how normal people behave, and this is how girls behave, and you don't want to be a girl, do you?

"Trans men don't experience gender euphoria" needs to be called out as a belief that's caused by patriarchy, and a form of internal misogyny if it's a woman (cis or trans) saying it. It's the belief that only women have gender... which comes from the belief that only men are normal humans.

[wicked-weaver]

At the end of the day, no matter how you phrase it, "cis men aren't oppressed for being cis men so trans men can't be oppressed for being trans men" is the single dumbest bit of theory ever written down

[a-polite-melody]

Every time I see someone pull the

“Yeah, it’s basic feminism that men experience whatever, but then a woman in the exact same positionality is worse off because she experiences misogyny.”

when trying to speak over trans men and mascs on our oppression

all I can think is, “…you really think trans men/mascs don’t experience misogyny?”

Sometimes if you actually say that you’ll get waffle back about how it somehow isn’t intersectional like it is for trans women, which… huh? That’s… not how intersectionality works???

Or something about how we aren’t primary targets of it anymore, even though the majority of us are still fully affected by institutional misogyny because of record changes being public, not always being able to get documents changed in the first place, having reproductive organs which are seen primarily through the lens as us being incubators for the patriarchy, so on. Laws, attitudes, all of it still fully affect trans men and mascs. There’s no, “and if they’re a trans man we stop the misogyny,” clause. If anything, often the misogyny only amplifies as we are pushed by these people into the role they expect us to fill and we are actively rejecting.

It’s exactly like bigots pulling out, “it’s basic biology, men have XY chromosomes and women have XX and that’s all,” when confronted with trans people.

Congrats on learning what we teach children. Now catch the fuck up if you want to participate in anything beyond middle school level oversimplifications.

[sodomit]

Been thinking about making this post for a while, so here it goes.

The trans community has a specific type of transphobia towards nonbinary people who were assigned male at birth, and that is forcing womanhood onto them posed as purification or salvation.

The reverse, forcing nonbinary people assigned female into the man role, also exists, but it's frequently done with open hatred (e.g. "those they/thems are actually men trying to sneak into women's spaces") and therefore it has been called out by several people I interact with.

The former, not so much.

Many tend to see misgendering of someone amab towards womanhood as fundamentally benevolent or unserious. Real people develop new kinds of dysphoria and quit trans spaces because of that, including some of my acquaintances, but it's all seen as accidental collateral damage for the noble goal of making more women discover themselves.

"But what if you're denying a closeted self hating trans woman a chance to be called a woman" is seen as a more valid argument than the distress being actively done to people of other genders, and it's fucking bonkers.

I refuse to keep centering non-abinary* perspectives in this conversation.

* abinary spectrum includes agender, xenogender, and other things adjacent.

[kittenscratches]

Saying "men aren't oppressed for being men" is the same as saying "men can't get pregnant" and is just as transphobic, btw.

What's happening when these are said is that "man" as a category is being based on the experiences of pericis men. We do know men can get pregnant, because trans men exist. So we move and change our understanding to include the fact that men can indeed get pregnant. If we don't, we ignore material reality in one of two ways: 1. Trans men aren't men, or 2. Trans men can't get pregnant. These are both false.

The same applies with men being oppressed for their gender. We base this off percis men's experiences - which is that they are not oppressed on the basis of their gender. Instead of doing the same thing with pregnancy, and changing our understanding to say that there are men who can be oppressed based on their gender - transgender men - and that denying this is therefore denying material reality by saying either 1. Trans men are not men or 2. Transgender people are not oppressed for their gender, we do not move our understanding to account for trans men's material experiences, and refuse to acknowledge that there is a group of men who are oppressed for their gender, like every other trans person is.

Ignoring this is just shoving transgender men's experiences into a pericis box. It's saying if we have experiences that pericis men do not have, we are not real men. It's ignoring the fact that transgender men have a real and authentic manhood, and that this manhood exists outside of the pericis hegemonic norm. It's also completely antifeminist, because it reduces gender down to essentialist ideas of what it means to be a man or not be a man, and that therefore if you are a man you *must* have or follow these gender essentialist notions and experiences. Which is just provably false.

[defenestratez]

I just saw a CIS WOMEN say "I dont like seeing Tboys try to pass, if you are just don't be alternative"...I don't care what you want from transmasc people. I'm so sick of this entitlement cis women feel like they have over trans men and trans mascs.

1) transmasc and trans men don't do it for your liking, people want to pass to alleviate Dysphoria

2) transmasc/Trans men do not need to stripped of their personality just so YOU can use us as valid.

3) I'm a semi passing trans guy and I'm super alternative. People like this forget it's also about mannerism and how you carry yourself.